Printable View
Keeping up with Si's series of Bad Jokes... another one here...
Change your signature from
toQuote:
Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Cry, and you just water down your vodka.
Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Burn, and leave the rest to us...
Too much ha ha, pretty soon boo hoo.
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye, then its just fun.
Then we would unify those without two eyes and let them comfort each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
Its not something you see everyday, but they do see that if you believe strongly enough in something you should be prepared to die for it. I think it was a very noble act. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Killing oneself as an act of protest is as pointless as it is futile. To do so in a horrific manner is merely self-aggrandisement.
So was Jesus dying on the cross self-agrandisement? I don't really know the motives of the monk but I would give him the benefit of the doubt that they were good. It says in the bible, "man judges by appearances but God sees what's in the heart." So you may or may not be able to fool people about your true motives but you definitely cannot fool God.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaximilianMayrhofer
As to whether the monk's act affected any significant change, again that's hard to judge. It might not seem that it did but it might have had a very real though subtle good effect. To me it suggests that we should overcome our attachment to the flesh and develop a strong mind and soul that isn't so touchy. How many people could willingly put themselves through what that monk put himself through? Not too many. Most people would immediately jump out of the flames. It's a rare soul that has the strength to willingly endure what he did.
Jesus had no choice in the matter, he was killed because he pissed off some very powerful people, so don't even bother trying to draw comparisons. I have no doubt that, given the choice, he would have declined the chance.
And why do we insist on creating martyrs? When someone does an irrational and in any other case wildly stupid thing, in the name of God, it suddenly becomes admirable. This isn't admirable. It was suicide in a very public, horrific way. What gave that monk the right to force the spectacle of his suicide on the whole world?
And how did this monk's suicide by fire reflect in any way on the situation that was being protested? They certainly weren't protesting the right to set themselves on fire.
Well well! MM found his way out of the wilderness. I guess miracles really DO happen!
He wasn't promoting himself. He was promoting his message, protesting how Buddhists were being treated.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaximilianMayrhofer
I am not really a religious person but I am quite sure that Jesus upset these powerful people because he believed they were doing wrong. He was given the choice to denounce what he believed and chose not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaximilianMayrhofer
Again I am not a religious person but I am quite sure that Buddhists don't subscribe to the belief of a God. I have only met a couple of Buddhists, taking that into account and the literature I read on this guy, I get the impression that the motif was to raise awareness of their plight.
Well it clearly is suicide but I am sure that most people (apart from crptcblade) don't wake up of a morning and think; "lets go and burn myself to death in the middle of an intersection to make people aware of my disgust toward ...."Quote:
The Vietnamese monk, by burning himself, says with all his strength and determination that he can endure the greatest of sufferings to protect his people…. To express will by burning oneself, therefore, is not to commit an act of destruction but to perform an act of construction, that is, to suffer and to die for the sake of one's people. This is not suicide.
From: http://www.geocities.com/tcartz/sacrifice.htm
This can be compared to the stories of Jesus and the many other similar acts of self sacrifice since. I don't think it is as shocking as the kinds of protest demonstrated in the World Trade Centre attacks or the London bombings.
I know this will anger some Christians. But in my opinion, I think Jesus really thought he was the Messiah and expected God to save him on the cross to prove his divinity to the world. That didn't work out. But the Christians spun it as a triumph where it was planned all along by God.Quote:
Originally Posted by visualAd
I guess some of us can agree to disagree on a few things. I believe Jesus did have a choice in the matter and that he willingly went through what he did. He said that in the gospels. A free soul can leave the body whenever and however they choose to do so. Death isn't imposed upon them. Jesus proved his victory over death by rising from the dead though there will be many that will doubt that.
I believe that Buddhists just have a different approach to God and they may not use the name God but they're seeking a state of perfect joy like all of us are. I think that Buddhists are moving in the same direction that Christians, Moslems, Hindus and computer programmers are. I believe that all paths are paths to God. And if you want to call me a religious fanatic that's ok. I believe that we are all religious in the sense that we are all seeking perfect joy whether we feel it's possible to attain or not. When we go through enough experiences and lifetimes of seeking (yes I believe in reincarnation like Buddhists, Hindus and some Christians do) we'll see eventually that only God can completely satisfy us. You can become a multi-billionaire, super famous, have the most gorgeous lover, all the possessions you could imagine and whatever else and that won't even come close to satisfying your soul because your soul wants something that is a few hundred billion times better than all of that. It might take you an enormous number of experiences to come to that realization but it's worth all the difficulty.
If you think becoming a millionaire or whatever else is going to do it for you then go after that and when and if you do realize that goal you'll still want something else.
Sermon on the VBForums
I have to be careful, I might end up writing some posts like I did in the thread about the God Delusion.
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
Oh sorry, was someone talking about religion? I got lost.
From the bible :-Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
(his cup referring to his upcoming crucifixion)Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 26
Jesus was certainly anxious by the whole deal but believed his martyrdom would be beneficial. If one believes in the rising then his acceptance of death is justified.
How did a thread started by Crpt turn into theology? :eek:
All things are possible in Chit-Chat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxer
I'm still waiting for crpt to set himself on fire...
When did this theological discussion become about me lighting myself on fire? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
Ever since I spent £2.95 on lighter fluid, now lets get going.Quote:
Originally Posted by crptcblade
Just to be clear, when I said he'd demonstrated the futility of protest, I really didn't want to detract in any way from the nobility of what Thic Quang Duc did. This was a guy who gave up his life in one of the most painful ways I can imagine to bring the plight of his fellow budhists (who were being horribly persecuted) to the attention of the world. He did this for the good, not of himself, but of others. Budhists at the time were being imprisoned and tortured for no greater crime than pursuing their religion. For him to make this sacrifice in the hope of bringing a stop to that situation is neither stupid nor selfish.
I also didn't want to imply that the act of protest was in any way invalid. In fact, I've been a political activist for most of my life. I was involved in the poll tax demonstrations (which sadly descended into rioting but I still hold the police responsible for that rather than the demonstrators - coraling thousands of people trafalgar square was only ever going to have one outcome), I marched against the removal of housing benefit eligibilty from students, I confronted Michael Howard over his immigration policies when he visited Winchester and made the local TV news calling him a hypocrite (he's only second generation himself), I've spent many a happy hour standing in Southampton city centre handing out leaflets for a variety of causes I felt were worthy of my time and I've lost count of the number of minor rallies and demonstrations I've attended over the years,
Rather, I simply no longer believe that protest actually effects change. This is true in the UK and is far more true in the US. This was finally brought home to me in the 'Don't Attack Iraq' demonstration. This was the single biggest protest the UK has ever had... ever! It was world wide. It was attended, not by screaming extremists, but by the moderate, educated and erudite mass of our population. It was entirely peaceful and planned in full accordance with the government's increasingly draconian anti-protest legislation (how dare a government tell me that I can't protest within their earshot?). We followed all the rules. We played the game their way. They ignored us completely. We made no difference at all. OK, I didn't expect to change the way things were going and I was pretty sure the attack would go ahead no matter what I did, but you'd have thought we might have caused some discussion, at least.
Our governments have become so disconnected from us that they couldn't give a toss about our opinions except for a period of about 6 months every 5 years, and then only if you happen to live in a close run constiuency. Our voice no longer has any meaning or any weight. If you think you live in a meaningful democracy, you've already swallowed the opiate.
edit> Crypto, that tenpence is still up for grabs. Obviously, given your propensity for mugging old ladies I don't feel I can trust you with it until after you've burned to death. Will you be able to collect? I don't want to have to stump up for the postage.
I am not reading all of that, someone summarise. :check:Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I hate the government. That's pretty much it.Quote:
someone summarise
Perhaps if you had flames emanating from your torso, the establishment would have been less inclined to come near you and move you away ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
FunkyDexter's post summary:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
- He set himself on fire for the freedom of everyone else he was trying to prove his point for
- You'd need a lot of guts to do what he did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
- I've been a troublemaker, like that buddhist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
- All that protesting didn't give me any cheezburger.
- Despite the Government laying down the rules to make a protest and educated citizens of the UK making a peace protest for Iraq, Tony Blair sent the people of Iraq to Basement cat. It didn't even cause a slight discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
- The Government pretends to listen to us, but they really don't when it comes to the stuff we don't want
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
- I'm suspicious of you... :confused:
Can someone summarise this summary?Quote:
Originally Posted by kregg
Stand up, or ignite yourself, for what you believe in.
The more I think about it, the more I lay the blame at the feet of our system of voting. One person one vote dilutes the opinions of the individual and results in some kind of narrow triangulation of leadership. US presidential candidates have to run to the center during the general election, though they may have to run towards one side or the other during the primary.
There are better systems of voting, and one of the strongest endorsements of them is the fact that no seated member of elected government will even consider them.
I still support the Republic as a form of government, or at least benevolent tyranny.
The death of an idealist. :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
As for the American voting system, I'm pretty sure 100% of ppl outside the USA don't understand it and 95% of the pple INSIDE America don't understand it either.
In normal countries (read Westminster systems) each party puts forward their best candidate and the ppl vote. Can't get much simpler than that!
How did a thread about crpt catching fire turn to religion turn to demonstrations turn to politics? :confused: Way to go Crpt!
Simple it is, and it sucks rocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxer
The chance that your particular vote will change the outcome of an election is staggeringly small. Because of the electoral college in America, the probability is slightly increased, but still staggeringly small. For one thing, you need a nearly split election, or else you are just one in a sea. This means that the candidates can run for the average opinion, but the average opinion of a majority of the voters. The bulk of American presidential politics seems to be positioning yourself as acceptable to the average while trying to energize a base group. The reason for this is that a HUGE number of Americans don't vote at all. If you can excite this segment to actually come out and vote for you, that is as good as getting a bigger slice of the regular voters. This happened in the last two presidential elections quite notably.
There are well known and studied voting systems, such as rank order voting, which would be really simple, and would not allow a third party candidate to split the vote, but would more accurately reflect the will of the people. The reason the will of the people is better reflected by rank order voting (or whatever the proper name for it is) is that people are ranking their choices. Thus, if half the people love A and hate B, while the other half love B and hate A, but there is a C that both halves would prefer over the one they hate, then C will win. In the current system, half the people would get their first choice and the other half would get the shaft. With rank voting, nobody would get their first choice, but nobody would get the shaft, either. Better yet, the example presented is about the worst case scenario for rank voting, since there was no group that liked C best, a situation that NEVER arises. A more reasonable example would show that the average payoff for each individual would be higher than it is in the current system.
Crptcblade 08Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxer
I will burn them all! :afrog:
** WARNING **Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Mathematicians, statistitions and probability theorists only past this point!!
http://www.sss.ias.edu/publications/...apereleven.pdf
If you believe the opinion of just one person then Rank Order Voting is not the way to go either.
(yes - I read all 12 pages - gawd help me!)
For me the solutions not the voting system (though ours in the UK seems specifically designed to keep the incumbent party in power) but in the distribution of government functions. Over the last couple of decades the Tories took all the power from local councils and gave it to Westminster, then labour stopped bothering to consult parliament on decisions so the net effect is that decision making is now ultra-centralised with the governement having total control of the process.
Personally I'm all for a much more localised and distributed model. The trouble with that aproach is that it does tend to exagerate the difference between rich and poor areas as rich areas have more funds to attract inward investment to generate more funds to generate inward investment to generate... you get the idea. I can't help feeling there's a middle ground, though, with centralised taxes being distributed out to local councils to decide on spendng policies. It would be difficult to manage but should be achievable.
I can haz bumper sticker plz?Quote:
Originally Posted by crptcblade
After I receive a donation check. I'm not made of money, damn it. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j