Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MeDroogies who wrote (2338)	3/28/1999 4:44:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

1.) The point is that a child's explanation of his reasons for dong something for which he might get in trouble are unreliable. 2.) I will have to see what you are responding to, so many days have passed. 3.) I acknowledged that saying that they "don't know how" might be a reasonable position, but only if you admit that it negates your assertion that they are naturally good. They try to please abusive parents in the hopes of curtailing/minimizing the abuse, your interpretation is absurd. 4.) You may a blanket statement. Maybe I'll comb through... 5.) You said god doesn't care. Perhaps I should "comb through" again.

To: MeDroogies who wrote (2338)	3/28/1999 5:17:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13060

You said:"The popularization of Buddhism required alterations in its basic tenets (I think I added "for lack of a better term" to the secularization...but if not, that was an oversight), just as Christianity and Judaism did. Those alterations diluted the essence of these religions to make them more palatable. Iconography is a popular thing, as is having a "guru", "sensei", or "spiritual adviser". As a result, the original intent of the religion is lost to more "secular" (for lack of a better term) needs."