Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:
You're either following the Tau, or you're not.

Why would you follow a lepton?

halonachos wrote:

wiki wrote:In the Taoist view of sexuality the body is viewed as a positive asset, and mind and body are not set in contrast or opposition with each other. Sex is treated as a vital component to romantic love; however, Taoism emphasizes the need for self-control and moderation. In Taoism, sex is encouraged. Complete abstinence is frequently treated as equally dangerous as excessive sexual indulgence.

So there's something saying you shouldn't do something.

Nothing in that quote says you shouldn't do something. It says you should practice moderation, which is different.

halonachos wrote:
So there's something saying you shouldn't do something.

This isn't hard. Sin isn't simply violating a rule, it is a particular type of violation, of a particular type of prohibition.

LordofHats wrote:

halonachos wrote:

wiki wrote:In the Taoist view of sexuality the body is viewed as a positive asset, and mind and body are not set in contrast or opposition with each other. Sex is treated as a vital component to romantic love; however, Taoism emphasizes the need for self-control and moderation. In Taoism, sex is encouraged. Complete abstinence is frequently treated as equally dangerous as excessive sexual indulgence.

So there's something saying you shouldn't do something.

Nothing in that quote says you shouldn't do something. It says you should practice moderation, which is different.

It says you shouldn't be completely abstinent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
So there's something saying you shouldn't do something.

This isn't hard. Sin isn't simply violating a rule, it is a particular type of violation, of a particular type of prohibition.

Sin is a synonym for 'evil' according to you and lordofhats. The definition of what is evil varies by culture so that means the very definition of sin varies by culture, typically if something is 'evil' a culture will preach against it and prohibit it from happening, after all its evil and not good. So if a culture says that ascertaining authority is a form of evil then it can be called a sin. Now there are Original Sin and Seven Deadly Sins, but those are largely christian topics.

Crom wrote:
Unless this has been proven by several peer studies I find this super hard to believe. At one point we were all nomadic and had no sense of property and the USA definition of liberal and conservative don't really match with the rest of the world and the rest of the world sees us as authoritarian.

Well, the argument is better than my rendition of it. It isn't specifically that genetics create liberals, but rather that the emotional "markers" associated with liberalism are largely set by genetics. So, Conservatives were predetermined to be "hard" and liberals were predetermined to be "soft".

Personally, I think its a bit too deterministic, as the variance between "hard" and "soft" isn't clear. I mean, I know plenty of fem conservatives.

dogma wrote:

Crom wrote:
Unless this has been proven by several peer studies I find this super hard to believe. At one point we were all nomadic and had no sense of property and the USA definition of liberal and conservative don't really match with the rest of the world and the rest of the world sees us as authoritarian.

Well, the argument is better than my rendition of it. It isn't specifically that genetics create liberals, but rather that the emotional "markers" associated with liberalism are largely set by genetics. So, Conservatives were predetermined to be "hard" and liberals were predetermined to be "soft".

Personally, I think its a bit too deterministic, as the variance between "hard" and "soft" isn't clear. I mean, I know plenty of fem conservatives.

Dang I was hoping that people with red blood would be republicans and people with blue blood would be democrats. People with green blood are moldy, and are a very small group.

halonachos wrote:It says you shouldn't be completely abstinent.

Read it again:

Complete abstinence is frequently treated as equally dangerous

That is not a prohibition against abstinence it is a warning that it isn't necessarily beneficial to the goals of Taosim. Saying something is not advised is different from saying don't do it.

Sin has a proper meaning. If you just want to use it as a synonym for evil, then we're not really talking about anything but that religions all say there are things you should and should not do. Big surprise. If you want a meaningful discussion on what religions say you should and should not do, the term Sin needs to be used properly, and in its proper usage 'Sin' is a uniquely Abrahamic concept that varies between the Abrahamic religions and has similar concepts in in other Middle East religions and akin ideas in all religions. Sin itself as a term is not useful for discussion of Taoism or Buddhism, which recognizes no supreme deity, or Hinduism which has a very unusual godhead compared to Christianity or Islam.

halonachos wrote:
Sin is a synonym for 'evil' according to you and lordofhats.

Not according to me, don't put words in my mouth.

Additionally, "synonym" does not mean "the same". Synonymy is based on nominal conversation, not technical discussion.

halonachos wrote:
The definition of what is evil varies by culture so that means the very definition of sin varies by culture...

And many of them don't have concepts of sin, or evil, at all.

halonachos wrote:
...typically if something is 'evil' a culture will preach against it and prohibit it from happening, after all its evil and not good. So if a culture says that ascertaining authority is a form of evil then it can be called a sin.

No, that's absolutely wrong. When you're speaking specifically, and not just using "sin" in the general sense, you cannot call a thing a sin if the faith, or culture, in question does not have a concept of sin.

This isn't a difficult thing to understand.

Can't eat breads made out of grain in Taoism.

Also, look up "naraka" for Buddhism.

Halo: Sin is "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law."

Taoism doesn't have that. You can go stray from the Tao/Dao, but they wouldn't say it's a "sin", or some kind of divine crime to do so.

halonachos wrote:
Also, look up "naraka" for Buddhism.

Which is an excellent example of why you shouldn't try to understand other faiths in terms of Christianity.

Melissia wrote:Halo: Sin is "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law."

Taoism doesn't have that. You can go stray from the Tao/Dao, but they wouldn't say it's a "sin", or some kind of divine crime to do so.

patheos wrote:Another perspective on suffering is offered by Taoist texts that say that illness is caused by three corpse worms that reside in the body. In some texts these are described as the three cadavers and nine worms. These, like the po souls, will sometimes report an individual's transgressions to heavenly officials. Sometimes the three cadavers will also conspire with the po souls to cause the body harm, and they will encourage demons to enter the body. Demons can cause illness, to punish a person, or just because they want to.

In order to begin a program of Taoist self-cultivation, once must first expel the worms, or cadavers. Also, there is a Taoist prohibition against eating grain that is based on the fact that the worms find grain a desirable food, and will be encouraged to stay.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
Also, look up "naraka" for Buddhism.

Which is an excellent example of why you shouldn't try to understand other faiths in terms of Christianity.

wiki wrote:In "Devaduta Sutta", the 130th discourse of the Majjhima Nikaya, Buddha teaches about the hell in vivid detail. Buddhism teaches that there are five (sometimes six) realms of rebirth, which can then be further subdivided into degrees of agony or pleasure. Of these realms, the hell realms, or Naraka, is the lowest realm of rebirth

I am well aware of Eastern religions and their ways of punishing people who deviate from the paths prescribed by religious texts; karma, dharma, and rebirth are quite common in some Eastern religions. All in all these are similar to the purpose of the hell christians are aware of. They are forms of punishment for not following the 'rules of the road' so to say. I think Islam believes in a temporary 'hell' if I recall correctly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would like to sum this all up, poverty is a genetic condition that causes them to be invisible to Republicans, which is another genetic condition which makes blood red.

halonachos wrote:
I am well aware of Eastern religions and their ways of punishing people who deviate from the paths prescribed by religious texts; karma, dharma, and rebirth are quite common in some Eastern religions. All in all these are similar to the purpose of the hell christians are aware of.

No, they aren't. I'm not going to take the time to explain to you why that's the case, because I honestly do not believe you are capable of understanding why.

I hope, for your sake, that you are successfully trolling me.

Crom wrote:Your question is not a valid one.

B.S. It's a valid question because it addresses your fundamental assumption that everyone pays taxes. If you're not willing to answer the question, then you're not able to defend your argument.

Crom wrote:I can make up fake "hypothetical" claims all day that no one can answer. I am asking you to explain your data. Show me, empirical evidence where people paid all their taxes as in: Federal, state, city, county, property, earnings, capital gain, etc; and then got every single penny back plus some and made profit.

You're the one who made the positive assertion that everyone pays taxes. Therefore, the burden is on you to demonstrate the validity of your position. You can't simply make an assertion and then claim it's valid until someone shows otherwise.

The fact that you discount the possibility that some people receive more money from the government than they pay in taxes is absurd on its face.

Crom wrote:I really hate to judge people, but if you honestly believe the GOPs rhetoric then yes, I have to question your intelligence.

Cool, so you're admitting that you don't even acknowledge the validity of the opposition's argument. Now you're a puppet repeating DNC talking points. Also, you're breaking rule #1. Welcome to the ignore list.

Crom wrote: Deregulation is not a good thing because humans cannot be trusted to not screw each other over.

You should probably contemplate this sentence.

dogma wrote:

Crom wrote: Deregulation is not a good thing because humans cannot be trusted to not screw each other over.

You should probably contemplate this sentence.

Heh.

I actually support regulation (as long as it's efficiently written and effectively enforced) over deregulation (Which has caused plenty of economic downfalls), and yet I'm still finding myself agreeing with Dogma about the amusing nature of this statement.

dogma wrote:

Crom wrote: Deregulation is not a good thing because humans cannot be trusted to not screw each other over.

You should probably contemplate this sentence.

What is that? A triple negative? Or is that just a double?

Either way it comes out to:

Deregulation is a bad thing because humans can be trusted to screw each other over.

Wait... What? Am I doing this right

LordofHats wrote:
What is that? A triple negative?

Nah, just a double, but it sits up there with "Audit the Fed!" in terms of ridiculousness.

"We don't trust the government, so let's make the government audit the government so we can trust the government!"

Isn't that something Rick Perry suggested?

Melissia wrote:Isn't that something Rick Perry suggested?

Yep, he likes hooting himself in the foot, it seems.

From what my republican friends said as well as the commentary on CNN and the Economist, he didn't do so well in the last primary, heh.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
I am well aware of Eastern religions and their ways of punishing people who deviate from the paths prescribed by religious texts; karma, dharma, and rebirth are quite common in some Eastern religions. All in all these are similar to the purpose of the hell christians are aware of.

No, they aren't. I'm not going to take the time to explain to you why that's the case, because I honestly do not believe you are capable of understanding why.

I hope, for your sake, that you are successfully trolling me.

So I guess that being reborn into a lesser position is not a punishment for not having good karma or dharma then? Seriously dogma, for one who loves to argue semantics I can't believe that you can't see the ready comparison between the two.


Also, Rick Perry is a joke, he needs to go away and most of the republican candidates need to go away because they're just making the democrats look good right now.

halonachos wrote:
So I guess that being reborn into a lesser position is not a punishment for not having good karma or dharma then?

Karma isn't about punishment, if you bothered to read anything related to the topic you would know that.

Also, dharma and karma are not interchangeable, and are not thought of qualitatively.

You very clearly are either trolling, or ignorant.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
So I guess that being reborn into a lesser position is not a punishment for not having good karma or dharma then?

Karma isn't about punishment, if you bothered to read anything related to the topic you would know that.

Also, dharma and karma are not interchangeable, and are not thought of qualitatively.

You very clearly are either trolling, or ignorant.

You fool, I know it isn't which is why in another post of mine I said "dharma, karma,..." instead of saying dharma/karma. However if you fail to fulfill either, or practice something that gains negative karma you will be punished. Not necessarily by a god, but by the universe.

wiki wrote:Karma is not fate, for humans act with free will creating their own destiny. According to the Vedas, if one sows goodness, one will reap goodness; if one sows evil, one will reap evil. Karma refers to the totality of our actions and their concomitant reactions in this and previous lives, all of which determines our future.

Also, it appears that there is a theistic branch of Hinduism that views karma as a way that determines whether or not one is rewarded by a god.

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
What is that? A triple negative?

Nah, just a double, but it sits up there with "Audit the Fed!" in terms of ridiculousness.

"We don't trust the government, so let's make the government audit the government so we can trust the government!"

No it doesn't. It means the exact opposite. Deregulation can never be a reality because humans screw over other humans with greed. You deregulate the market and the rich will screw everyone over every chance they get to get more rich. That is why there needs to be regulation. It actually is pro government regulation.

B.S. It's a valid question because it addresses your fundamental assumption that everyone pays taxes. If you're not willing to answer the question, then you're not able to defend your argument.

No, it is not a valid question at all. There is ZERO data to even support your claim. You can easily research it. I already provided examples of when that situation occurs and it is fractions of a penny compared to what tax breaks the rich and corporations receive. You cannot even make an argument to begin with, therefore, your question is invalid.

You're the one who made the positive assertion that everyone pays taxes. Therefore, the burden is on you to demonstrate the validity of your position. You can't simply make an assertion and then claim it's valid until someone shows otherwise.

The fact that you discount the possibility that some people receive more money from the government than they pay in taxes is absurd on its face.

*Le sigh*

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-legally/

As you can see people who make less than $16k a year don't have to file taxes. Yeah man, they are the real burden on the tax system, instead of giving tech companies a 4 billion dollar tax holiday... Also, just because they aren't required to file a federal tax income doesn't mean they are exempt from city, state, county and property tax, which the federal government doesn't regulate. Local government regulates that, so results will vary from city to city, county to county, and state to state.

Cool, so you're admitting that you don't even acknowledge the validity of the opposition's argument. Now you're a puppet repeating DNC talking points. Also, you're breaking rule #1. Welcome to the ignore list.

Hahaha, ignore list, at least I won't have to respond to your absurd questions anymore. Let's say someone pays $5k in taxes and gets $6k back, they make 1K profit. Yet you cannot even explain to me how your situation works, you simply hide behind the fact you said it was "hypothetical." Also, I am not even a member of the DNC or any political party. I just use logic and facts to make decisions case by case. If you were taking a more liberal stance I am sure I would not agree with you either 100% because I really don't agree with either party. However, go ahead and jump to conclusions.

halonachos wrote:
You fool, I know it isn't which is why in another post of mine I said "dharma, karma,..." instead of saying dharma/karma. However if you fail to fulfill either, or practice something that gains negative karma you will be punished.

Dharma and karma are very different things, do not use them interchangeably. Their meaning varies according to the tradition being considered, but in general dharma is the natural law of the universe, and karma is the consequence of that law. This is distinct from punishment, because punishment requires agency.

Also, strictly speaking, negative karma isn't a real thing outside New Age movements.

halonachos wrote:
Not necessarily by a god, but by the universe.

No, that's also wrong. The universe isn't attributed any kind of agency in any tradition that features karma. Karma is the product of natural laws, and reflects a process more analogous to the effects of gravity upon releasing an apple in mid-air than to any kind of judgment ethic from which punishment might follow.

halonachos wrote:

wiki wrote:Karma is not fate, for humans act with free will creating their own destiny. According to the Vedas, if one sows goodness, one will reap goodness; if one sows evil, one will reap evil. Karma refers to the totality of our actions and their concomitant reactions in this and previous lives, all of which determines our future.

None of which has to do with punishment.

halonachos wrote:
Also, it appears that there is a theistic branch of Hinduism that views karma as a way that determines whether or not one is rewarded by a god.

Sort of, it doesn't work precisely as I imagine you believe. Hindu gods are still governed by the laws of the universe. They have more in common with Greek gods, than YHWH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crom wrote:
No it doesn't. It means the exact opposite. Deregulation can never be a reality because humans screw over other humans with greed. You deregulate the market and the rich will screw everyone over every chance they get to get more rich. That is why there needs to be regulation. It actually is pro government regulation.

I didn't say it meant the same thing, I said it was equally ridiculous.

If humans cannot be trusted to not screw each other over, why should we trust some of them to regulate the system we use to screw each other over?

Philosopher-Kings are few and far between.

Anyway, the next bit is all biccat, just to be clear.

Crom wrote:
*Le sigh*

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-legally/

As you can see people who make less than $16k a year don't have to file taxes.

That's not what the article says. In fact, it says more than half of all non-paying filers earn less than ~16k per anum.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
You fool, I know it isn't which is why in another post of mine I said "dharma, karma,..." instead of saying dharma/karma. However if you fail to fulfill either, or practice something that gains negative karma you will be punished.

Dharma and karma are very different things, do not use them interchangeably. Their meaning varies according to the tradition being considered, but in general dharma is the natural law of the universe, and karma is the consequence of that law. This is distinct from punishment, because punishment requires agency.

My god, your reading comprehension really is inadequate. I stated that I said in a previous statement that "karma, dharma, and rebirth" are common in some Easter religions. This very separation of karma from dharma by using a comma denotes the fact that I acknowledged them as two separate things but used them in the same list. Hell, I learned about dharma in my Art History class and even learned that it was different from karma because my teacher happens to enjoy the Ramayana and a lot of eastern art.

Although it is Dogma I am talking to, semantics are your little play thing. Someone uses the second definition of a word and you're all over them, someone dare has a slip of the tongue and you're all over them, it is rather tiresome.

Karma is an affect of the universe, and then you say it is natural, guess what dogma, the universe itself is a natural creation. It is created by nature, governed by nature, and part of natural law. Karma has negative and positive reactions and to put it simply is stated as "sow good, reap good. sow bad, reap bad.". Its an incredibly simple concept and just because there is no "authority" you deny it having any ability to punish because only authoritative deities or beings can punish. However, it is a form of natural punishment. In religions featuring a typical reincarnation aspect if you have not lead a life with good karma or dharma you get reborn into a lesser position, the entire caste system in ancient and even part of modern India focused on that aspect to keep the caste system alive and well. The poor tried to live positive lives in hopes that they would be reincarnated into a better position, and so on and on until they finally reached nirvana or some kind of 'heaven' equivalent. The deities themselves do act like the roman and greek gods, however those gods were also very jealous and would punish those they felt needed it. And don't you dare say I'm wrong about the roman and greek gods punishing people.

halonachos wrote:
My god, your reading comprehension really is inadequate. I stated that I said in a previous statement that "karma, dharma, and rebirth" are common in some Easter religions. This very separation of karma from dharma by using a comma denotes the fact that I acknowledged them as two separate things but used them in the same list.

The problem is that they are not comparable in any way. Saying that they're separate, and then comparing them, is not a thing which inspires confidence of understanding.

halonachos wrote:
Although it is Dogma I am talking to, semantics are your little play thing. Someone uses the second definition of a word and you're all over them, someone dare has a slip of the tongue and you're all over them, it is rather tiresome.

This isn't a slip of the tongue. No doubt I rag on people I don't respect when they slip their tongues. This is you not understanding a thing. It isn't semantics, not in the colloquial sense, it is definitional.

halonachos wrote:
Karma is an affect of the universe, and then you say it is natural, guess what dogma, the universe itself is a natural creation. It is created by nature, governed by nature, and part of natural law.

The word you want is "effect", and that is semantics.

Anyway, I'm beginning to see why this is hard for you. The universe is only a creation if a thing created it, this is not necessarily the case in any religion which deals in karma. The universe is natural because its natural, not because it is governed by nature. The universe, if natural, literally defines nature (literally encompassing all that is natural and unnatural, to the extent that said distinction matters), and natural law.

But this has nothing to do with karma, which deals in a particular cosmology varying per the school its related to.

halonachos wrote:
Karma has negative and positive reactions and to put it simply is stated as "sow good, reap good. sow bad, reap bad.". Its an incredibly simple concept and just because there is no "authority" you deny it having any ability to punish because only authoritative deities or beings can punish. However, it is a form of natural punishment.

No, sorry, but you clearly don't understand punishment if that's what you think. To punish a thing you must identify it as bad. A person who endures a karmic event might find it to be bad, but the event itself was not administered in order to be bad per karmic principles.

halonachos wrote:
In religions featuring a typical reincarnation aspect if you have not lead a life with good karma or dharma...

You cannot have good karma, or dharma, those are human terms placed upon certain results. Hell, dharma isn't even a thing you can have, in the sense of following from the results of one's actions.

You really, really, need to read more.

@ dogma

I am just saying that with out some sort of laid out policy of regulation and some enforcement people cannot be trusted to play nice with everyone. I am not saying our system or any system we have or have had is the best. It is simply the best we have come up with.

That's not what the article says. In fact, it says more than half of all non-paying filers earn less than ~16k per anum.

This wasn't suppose to be geared towards you, multiple quotes are not the most efficient on php built forms like this, but the point I was getting at is that if you make under a certain amount you aren't required to file. This doesn't mean people don't file who fit into that category.

Crom wrote:
This wasn't suppose to be geared towards you, multiple quotes are not the most efficient on php built forms like this, but the point I was getting at is that if you make under a certain amount you aren't required to file. This doesn't mean people don't file who fit into that category.

Yeah, because ~55% of people earning under ~16k didn't file.

The point you were getting at is that you either didn't read your source, or you couldn't.

Try again.