I have a question for Ima20something: why do you distort the truth on almost every post you make? Are you training to be a spin doctor?

You doubt the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?? He is all around us. His noodly appendages are involved in everything that we do. can you not feel his presence??

There are none so blind as those that do not want to see.

I feel sorry for you.

I'll answer your question if you answer one of mine:

Does encouraging people to wear condoms help spread HIV?
What should a married couple do if they decide they can't support any more children?
Is Michael Behe guilty of quote mining?
Does Raphanobrassica count as an example of something evolving after its own kind?
Is an insertion mutation an example of a gain in genetic information?
Would you class any of the following to be capital offences?

Homosexuality
Prostitution
Adultery
Divorce
Witchcraft
Sleeping with a woman and her mother (not necessarily at the same time)
Cursing your father and mother
Careless handling of a cow
Blasphemy
Working at the weekend

Please outline the process which leads to the creation of hybrid embryos
What should a married couple do if they can't support any more children?
Do you think the US would have gone to war if there was no oil involved?
Why doesn't God want people to be gay?

come on spin doctor, reveal for us where you stand on 1. politics 2. religion

OK here's a question for you,

Why do you expect others to answer your questions when you never answer anyone elses?

Not sure why I'm even bothering to ask this as I know you'll ignore it. Still, it's another one to add to the list.

It is not correct that I NEVER answer other people's questions. Why do you lie about me?

do you ever read what anyone but yourself has written I'm a 20 is a buddhist

OK fair enough.

Politics - they're all twunts. Libertarian might be as good a word as any.

Religion (I thought you knew this already) - Buddhist probably more or less covers it.

does buddhism discourage lying?

One of the elements of the noble eightfold path is right speech if that's what you mean.

Now how's about instead of wheeling out tired ad-hominems you try and find an example of me telling lies so we can all have a look, 'k?

shouldn't you hold out a bit more - you are answering all Scarletts questions - a trade of would be better - one for one eh?!

Fair enough.

Come on then Clarice, quid pro quo:

Does encouraging people to wear condoms help spread HIV?
What should a married couple do if they decide they can't support any more children?
Is Michael Behe guilty of quote mining?
Does Raphanobrassica count as an example of something evolving after its own kind?
Is an insertion mutation an example of a gain in genetic information?
Would you class any of the following to be capital offences?

Homosexuality
Prostitution
Adultery
Divorce
Witchcraft
Sleeping with a woman and her mother (not necessarily at the same time)
Cursing your father and mother
Careless handling of a cow
Blasphemy
Working at the weekend

Please outline the process which leads to the creation of hybrid embryos
What should a married couple do if they can't support any more children?
Do you think the US would have gone to war if there was no oil involved?
Why doesn't God want people to be gay?

Do catholics?

Give an example of one question that you have answered to the satisfaction of the person asking it.

so who defines what is "right"? is "not right" defined?

shifting the goalpost won't do, u lied the first time

Well in Buddhism, a right action is one which reduces suffering or increases enlightenmnt (these two terms are basically interchangable) and a wrong action is one which has the opposite effect.

Now hows about you answer one of my questions?

and who determines that?

You do. By thinking.

More generally, Buddhism has plenty of sutras, stories etc. to help illustrate Buddhist concepts of morailty but in the final analysis it's down to you.

I just made the question more specific because I disagree with you. You have never answered a question.

Are you saying though that you cannot give an example of one question that you have answered to the satisfaction of the person asking it ?

LOL
that is no basis for morality
it is a self-righteous system, relative morality, individual decides, LOL

How's that self righteous?

Basis for morality is reminiscient. Self-righteous is not obtuse. Individuality is opposite to basis. Do you agree? yes/no

because the individual sets his own standards, based on his feelings of right and wrong and minimising suffering. That's just unworkable. You can't base a proper justice system on that kind of ideology.

Sure you can. Most people will tend to have a general consensus about what it right and what is wrong. This is how all justice systems evolve.

but it has no authority, except might is right

Give an example of one question that you have answered to the satisfaction of the person asking it.

or, politicians are right

Well the basis for Buddhist morality is found in the laws of Karma. Karma literally means "action" but what is more normally considered is the consequences of an action. Karma can affect the person comitting an act, the people around him or her or the society or the environment as a whole. Buddhism also teaches that everything is interconnected and that every action has a consequence. Thus, somebody who steals is likely to experience suffering because he or she is acting out of attachment to material things or to self, because other people will behave unpleasantly towards him or her, because these actions may lead to other people sealing things leading to a general decrease in happiness and so on.

Simillarly a good, or virtuous action has the opposite effect. If you give something to somebody who needs it then you are helping to reduce your attachment to that thing. Hopefully your actions will encourage that person to be more generous to others and if this carries on then the community will become more posative and more happy.

Any Buddhist system of morality and justice would be based around this concept. To see a good example of how this is supposed to work, have a look at Bhutan.

the system has no authority, except might/politicians are right

not convinced either that this system purges the evil from society

Buddhism does not say that "might is right". In fact Buddhists are encouraged to be non-violent.

Pour the basis for buddhistisches morality feeling found in the laws of the Karmas out. Karma literally means "activity", but which is normally regarded, are the consequences of an activity. Karma can affect the person as a whole, the one act, which is people around him or it or the society or the climate comitting. Buddhismus informs also that everything is hooked up and that each activity has a consequence. Like that someone, which steals, is probably to suffer experience, because it or they from accessories to the material things or to function, because the people behave themselves unpleasantly toward toward it or to it, because these activities can lead too different people seal things, which lead to a general reduction of the luck and so on. Simillarly a good or honest activity has the opposite effect. If you give someone somewhat, which needs it then, that, you help, to reduce your accessories on this thing. Hope-fully your activities energize this person to be more generous to other and if this carries on then, the community posative becomes luckier and. Each buddhistische system of the morality feeling and the justice would be based around this concept. Around to see a good example of like this to work is, have you a view with Bhutan.

Why not go and find some CGI vulnerability exploits and post one of them to see what happens. All your fundies are belong to us!

so might is right huh?

Copy and paste time again:

Buddhism does not say that "might is right". In fact Buddhists are encouraged to be non-violent.

What Buddhism actually teaches I suppose is "compassion is right".

might is right is the outcome of that creed

Actually I already copy and pasted your reply. I bunged it through babel fish to convert into German and then back into English. I should have taken more care though to remove some of the German words that couldn't be translated back again and neatened it up a little.

Good idea about the CGI exploits. I was wondering about trying to exploit some non null terminated strings but wondered what machine code to use.

How?

Their religion does not say that might is right. It teaches the rejection of violence.

What it actually teaches is that compassion is right.

it's so obvious, but I'll point it out anyway
might/politicians decide what's right and wrong

Nope

The consciousness of the enlightened individual decides what is right and wrong.

so how can a law be justified to apply to all? clearly it can't be justified

Majority consensus? That is after all how pretty much all laws get decided eventually.

Incidentally, Scarlets, a favourite story of mine about Buddha's ideal of how criminals should be dealt with is the story of Angulimala. He was a murderer and a criminal but the Buddha, because of his enlightened nature, was able to show him the error of his ways and persuade him to become a monk instead. What it's trying to teach is that there are better ways than violence to solve problems and that we should work to become enlightened to that we do not have to resort to such barbaric means.

= might is right

nice, but no justice

Did Ghandi use might to achieve his ends? How about Martin Luther King? What about Buddha and Angulimala? What about Jesus for that matter?

As I have already said, Buddhism teaches that there are better ways to solve problems than violence and that if we are sufficiently englitened then that should be apparent.

come on, just admit the fact that with relative morality creeds like buddhism you have a law and justice system based on might is right.
So, how can you justify applying laws to all? There is clearly no justification.

ctrl-c ctrl-v

Buddhism does not teach that might is right. In fact it goes as far as to say that might is wrong.

Did Ghandi use might to achieve his ends? How about Martin Luther King? What about Buddha and Angulimala? What about Jesus for that matter?

You can justify a law on the basis that it will lead to the greatest amount of happyness (or non-suffering) for the greatest amount of people. This is what law makers have been doing since time began.

then it's self-contradictory
might is right is how the laws would be determined, that's the authority behind them, and I ask again "what justification is there to apply laws to all?"

according to whom? who decides?