Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like tradition. You don't say it's tradition to eat dinner - because there's a clear and logical reason why. Meditation has empirical benefits. Meditation is good. If you believe you have to meditate to not go to flaming eternal hell, that's religion. So I'd argue, keep the logic, drop the religion.
> If you believe you have to meditate to not go to flaming eternal hell, that's religion. Buddhist "hell" is purely logical, there're no concepts in vanilla Buddhism that are not logical. You're not getting to hell for "not meditating". The hell is not eternal and you will go out of it eventually when you'll get better understanding of the universe. You're going to hell not because some god or Buddha say so but becau…
VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks
671–680 of 737 posts
Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks
#672Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you believe you have to meditate to not go to flaming eternal hell, that's religion. Buddhist "hell" is purely logical, there're no concepts in vanilla Buddhism that are not logical. You're not getting to hell for "not meditating". The hell is not eternal and you will go out of it eventually when you'll get better understanding of the universe. You're going to hell not because some god or Buddha say so but becau…
If Budhism is simply a pragmatic and empirical guide to happiness, is it really a religion?
The teaching and the religion around it are like science and public knowledge about it. Of course many people know some laws of physics but not everyone is capable of building a rocket.
Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks
#673Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did the Yazidis attack them? Do you know what they did to the Yazidis?
ISIS wants to conquer Kurdistan, not least because most Kurds ar Sunni -- ISIS is especially vicious to Muslism who aren't Islamic enough. They have no hope in the near term of conquering France. I'm not arguing ISIS are good people. I'm arguing that, if you don't want to be on the receiving end of terrorist attacks from ISIS, the best way to do that is to stop bombing them. Otherwise you should assume that they will…
Thus validating the terrorists' approach. They use fear as a means of control and, according to your argument, it is an effective approach. I don't know what the answer is, but I do not think that allowing marauders to wander around the world staking claim to peoples' land is acceptable. Much less when they commit so many atrocities along the way.
If the choice is to: a) stop bombing and be hopeful that the terrorists will go away or b) try to stop the raping, murdering, and other atrocities via violence... I know where I stand.
Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks
#674Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Undoubtedly, but important questions about the ethics of war aren't usually based upon the body count. Actually, one of the most important principles of the laws of war (International humanitarian law) is that of proportionality, and body count is a major determinant of proportionality [1,2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law) 2. http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/proportionality-princip...
Even respecting proportionality, body count is not a major determinant. For example, the first gulf war and the liberation of Kuwait was universally acknowledged as a "just" war. The Iraqis suffered casualties of greater than 150 to 1 vs casualties of the coalition forces. The hostility and attack upon national sovereignty committed by the Iraqis was far more important than the subsequent body count in determining pr…
Abe: "The U.S. and the U.N. gave several public justifications for involvement in the First Gulf War, the most prominent being the Iraqi violation of Kuwaiti territorial integrity.
However, shortly before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, April Glaspie, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, had personally communicated to Saddam Hussein that America “took no position on these Arab affairs”.
In addition, the U.S. justified its military actions as support for Saudi Arabia, a key supplier of oil.
Shortly after the Iraqi invasion, Defense Secretary Cheney made the first of several visits to Saudi Arabia where King Fahd requested U.S. military assistance. During a speech in a special joint session of the U.S. Congress given on 11 September 1990, U.S. President George H. W. Bush summed up the reasons with the following remarks: “Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression.”
The Pentagon stated that satellite photos showing a buildup of Iraqi forces along the border were this information’s source, but this was later alleged to be false. A reporter for the St. Petersburg Times acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images made at the time in question, which showed nothing but empty desert.
Other justifications for foreign involvement included Iraq’s history of human rights abuses under Saddam. Iraq was also known to possess biological weapons and chemical weapons, which Saddam had used against Iranian troops during the Iran–Iraq War and against his own country’s Kurdish population in the Al-Anfal Campaign. Iraq was also known to have a nuclear weapons program, but the report about it from January 1991 was partially declassified by the CIA on 26 May 2001.
Although there were human rights abuses committed in Kuwait by the invading Iraqi military, the alleged incidents which received most publicity in the U.S. were inventions of the public relations firm hired by the government of Kuwait to influence U.S. opinion in favor of military intervention. Shortly after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the organization Citizens for a Free Kuwait was formed in the U.S. It hired the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for about $11 million, paid by Kuwait’s government.
Among many other means of influencing U.S. opinion (distributing books on Iraqi atrocities to U.S. soldiers deployed in the region, ‘Free Kuwait’ T-shirts and speakers to college campuses, and dozens of video news releases to television stations), the firm arranged for an appearance before a group of members of the U.S. Congress in which a woman identifying herself as a nurse working in the Kuwait City hospital described Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators and letting them die on the floor.
The story was an influence in tipping both the public and Congress towards a war with Iraq: six Congressmen said the testimony was enough for them to support military action against Iraq and seven Senators referenced the testimony in debate. The Senate supported the military actions in a 52–47 vote. A year after the war, however, this allegation was revealed to be a fabrication. The woman who had testified was found to be a member of Kuwait’s Royal Family, in fact the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the U.S.[95] She hadn’t lived in Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion.
The details of the Hill & Knowlton public relations campaign, including the incubator testimony, were published in John R. MacArthur’s Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992), and came to wide public attention when an Op-ed by MacArthur was published in The New York Times. This prompted a reexamination by Amnesty International, which had originally promoted an account alleging even greater numbers of babies torn from incubators than the original fake testimony. After finding no evidence to support it, the organization issued a retraction. President Bush then repeated the incubator allegations on television."
Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks
#675Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one hell of a bubble. You do know that for a lot of people, it's simply impossible to move out of their city, especially in countries like Syria and Pakistan? Family ties are the least of their problems. Most people simply don't have a wad of cash to do this with.
I always wonder about this myself. If my situation were that extreme I think I would try to flee by any means even if I had next to no money. I would put a backpack on packed with non perishable food and as much water as I could carry and I would start marching towards a border. I'm very ignorant to the viability of this plan though. Would it be possible to escape on foot? Would you be stopped for trying? Killed? May…
Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks
#676Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Budhism is simply a pragmatic and empirical guide to happiness, is it really a religion?
Yes, because it have become an institution and transformed into rules of society in many countries. Many people are using it as a cargo cult without studying its philosophy and many monks are behaving in non-mindful ways. The teaching and the religion around it are like science and public knowledge about it. Of course many people know some laws of physics but not everyone is capable of building a rocket.
Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks
#677Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whilst I'm not the OP I'll happily give my thoughts as a not very good Anglican - who embodies the "great Anglican fudge". 1. Offended no. I'll think you're rather rude, the same as if I wrote $manifestDestiny = false. If you know someone you can have banter with them. 2. IT has all sorts of articles of faith. vi versus emacs, I'm weird as I like nano. Religion is a way of living your life, my code is in no way affec…
> As a counter-point let me ask a non-religious person, > what makes an act good? You might be interested in reading The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris for an in-depth start at an answer to that question. It's a secular look at morality and how we can reason about morality without a foundation of unscientific ideas (e.g. the existence of a deity). In essence it makes the point that the religious idea of morality drive…
John Rawls, one of the foremost liberal philosophers of our time spends the bulk of his most famous book arguing agains that very idea. My take away is that from a secular perspective it is impossible to argue from first principles what is good and bad. It's also obviously not a very strong argument. If there was a tiny country that did dispicable things to it's citizens but it had nuclear weapons, by this argument, the 'good' thing would be to allow those citizens to continue to suffer rather then have the world intervene and potentially be obliterated in a nuclear war. However, the citizen's of that country would still be correct to say that the rest of the world was unjust.
Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks
#678I work with a Muslim and I'm a Christian. Since we are both very conservative, I actually have more in common with him than with my secular coworkers and friends. Unfortunately we both work remotely and live several hundred miles from each other. I think we could be good friends if we lived closer. One thing I have learned talking with my Muslim coworker is that, just like in Christianity, there are many divisions an…
Problem is that we don't know who is fleeing because of: 1. war 2. need to perform acts of terrorism 3. want to find better job We definitely don't want guys from the 2 group, and probably don't want the ones form the 3rd (they can use a traditional application for visa or something like that). Moreover the problem is that most of the fleeing are young, healthy males, which is quite suspicious, if you fear war you sh…
If they do have a family, many are trying to establish themselves before bringing a family over through safer means. I know if I'm relocating my family (even if just arriving at a train station on holiday and trying to find accommodation for the night), I'm the scouting party ahead of the rest. It is dozens of times harder doing that with a full family.
Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks
#679Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny though, how the fundamentalists christians have killed many more muslims than muslims have killed christians. I really dislike this, "but xtians are less violent than muslims because they have a mandate to kill apostates" approach, because it ignores so much of the reality. Not to mention, without diving into old/new testament theology, that there are plenty of commands to kill in the bible, even of unbeleivers…
I'm not surprised I got downvoted for a controversial stance, but I would have appreciated more conversation at least. It's HN after all, not reddit.
Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks
#680Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example, there is an unconfortable number of Christians who do have a fundamentalist mindset, too (although I didn't find any exact numbers). Even fundamentalist Christians don't have divine commandments to kill apostates. Nor do atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, or Jews (well, they do, but it hasn't been in force since the Exile.) This is a false equivalency.
Funny though, how the fundamentalists christians have killed many more muslims than muslims have killed christians. I really dislike this, "but xtians are less violent than muslims because they have a mandate to kill apostates" approach, because it ignores so much of the reality. Not to mention, without diving into old/new testament theology, that there are plenty of commands to kill in the bible, even of unbeleivers…
This is a fallacy that's constantly repeated by atheists. It's not true. Lack of religion is just as bad, if not worse (e.g. nazis, communists).
The issue is the "us or them"-thinking that all humans are born with. We all want to belong and in trying to achieve that it's inherent in us to define our group as different from "that other group". This is human nature. The problem comes from us going too far to define our group as better than "that other group", we start to claim they are not human/not worthy to live. It quickly goes downhill from there. The dividing factor can be anything: religion, culture, politics, race, sports and so on.