what non gun supporters fear

digitalbeachbum's picture

You can Google the name Gregory Chad Wallin-Reed to understand my post.  There are too many articles concerning this case. 

But I think this case, while the extreme, is what I fear more than gun carrying drug pushing douches.

I know where those assholes are and I don't go in their neighborhood. They don't come in mine. 

It is these paranoid, gun holding, white, American Patriots who lie and cheat after shooting at people who,  while doing a stupid stunt, didn't deserve to be chased by the nut sack who I hope will serve the next 50 years behind bars.

My fear is that people like this will shoot me or my family just because their opinions differ from my own. 

 

 

ProzacDeathWish's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:How

digitalbeachbum wrote:

How would you define transition but more importantly, how would you define buddhism?

 

      I suppose I would define them in terms of their most common usage.  I'm only commenting because of some of your previous posts regarding "ego" "bigotry""pacifism" etc, which seemed to perhaps indicate a more esoteric worldview on your part.  Nothing that absolutely mandates adherence to Buddhism but being that you're an atheist I would assume that would be a religion / philosophy that could most easily accommodate you.

  Incidentally, I used to work with a master plumber who was a former Marine and a practicing Buddhist but he was certainly not a pacifist.  We shared similar temperments and a love of weapons, martial arts, similar politics, etc.  Too bad he passed away a few years ago.

 

 

 

digitalbeachbum's picture

ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

How would you define transition but more importantly, how would you define buddhism?

      I suppose I would define them in terms of their most common usage.  I'm only commenting because of some of your previous posts regarding "ego" "bigotry""pacifism" etc, which seemed to perhaps indicate a more esoteric worldview on your part.  Nothing that absolutely mandates adherence to Buddhism but being that you're an atheist I would assume that would be a religion / philosophy that could most easily accommodate you.

  Incidentally, I used to work with a master plumber who was a former Marine and a practicing Buddhist but he was certainly not a pacifist.  We shared similar temperments and a love of weapons, martial arts, similar politics, etc.  Too bad he passed away a few years ago.

The transition ended a long time ago. I was reading a book called "Being nobody, going nowhere" and I realized "hey, this is how I feel, this is how I think". It was at that time I knew I was a buddhist (14 years ago).

As for my previous posts, I float around a lot so I'll cover the three words you put up: "ego", "bigotry" and "pacifism".

Ego = Fear

Bigotry = Brian37 (lol)

Pacifism = Me

 

 

Vastet's picture

The older I get, the more

The older I get, the more ridiculous pacifism appears. Life is war. War is life. If you aren't fighting, you're dead.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

digitalbeachbum's picture

I find that most of the

I find that most of the people I meet are constantly at war in their minds.

Vastet wrote:
The older I get, the more ridiculous pacifism appears. Life is war. War is life. If you aren't fighting, you're dead.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

Vastet wrote:Life is war.  

Vastet wrote:
Life is war.

  Coincidentally, "LIFE IS A WAR" was inked onto my upper back in August of '07.

 

 

Beyond Saving's picture

Guess I must be dead. I

Guess I must be dead. I haven't fought for years. Life is much more pleasant being dead.

Kapkao's picture

Vastet wrote:The older I

Vastet wrote:
The older I get, the more ridiculous pacifism appears. Life is war. War is life. If you aren't fighting, you're dead.

Must avoid Godwin's Law... MUST!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

digitalbeachbum's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:Guess I

Beyond Saving wrote:

Guess I must be dead. I haven't fought for years. Life is much more pleasant being dead.

Being dead has its pros and cons.

Vastet's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:I find

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I find that most of the people I meet are constantly at war in their minds.

Funny, I find most people delude themselves into thinking they can live without killing.

"Guess I must be dead. I haven't fought for years. Life is much more pleasant being dead."

You've never not been at war. Your body has been at war with microscopic organisms since you were conceived. You take part in the subjugation and slaughter of all manner of plants and animals so you can consume them. Even if you never kill them directly or intentionally, you pay those who do to do so.

You don't have to march in an army with a rifle against people to be in a war.

WAR:
2:
a :  a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b :  a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end
c :  variance, odds 3

digitalbeachbum's picture

Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

I find that most of the people I meet are constantly at war in their minds.

Funny, I find most people delude themselves into thinking they can live without killing. "Guess I must be dead. I haven't fought for years. Life is much more pleasant being dead." You've never not been at war. Your body has been at war with microscopic organisms since you were conceived. You take part in the subjugation and slaughter of all manner of plants and animals so you can consume them. Even if you never kill them directly or intentionally, you pay those who do to do so. You don't have to march in an army with a rifle against people to be in a war. WAR: 2: a :  a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b :  a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end c :  variance, odds 3

 

I agree with that observation. I have told "vegans" that they directly contribute to the slaughter of millions of animals every year by just living.

 

iwbiek's picture

the jains were some of the

the jains were some of the earliest thinkers who posited the existence of microorganisms, mainly with the aim of avoiding killing them.  that's why many of them wear the face masks.  of course, their microorganisms were mythical and in reality their crude measures never prevented them from killing trillions of bacteria by just breathing, but still, at least they tried.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

Beyond Saving's picture

Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

I find that most of the people I meet are constantly at war in their minds.

Funny, I find most people delude themselves into thinking they can live without killing. "Guess I must be dead. I haven't fought for years. Life is much more pleasant being dead." You've never not been at war. Your body has been at war with microscopic organisms since you were conceived. You take part in the subjugation and slaughter of all manner of plants and animals so you can consume them. Even if you never kill them directly or intentionally, you pay those who do to do so. You don't have to march in an army with a rifle against people to be in a war. WAR: 2: a :  a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b :  a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end c :  variance, odds 3

Nice point if all pacifistic philosophies adopted the concept of ahisma as strictly as Jainism and some forms of Hinduism. But they don't, especially those found in the West. From what I recall, most forms of modern Buddhism believe that a killing only creates negative karma if you are aware of the being and have intent to cause harm, so it is hardly the strict form of pacifism your argument is valid against.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

iwbiek's picture

ahimsa is hardly black and

ahimsa is hardly black and white, and even the jains are divided.  in fact, for being of the smallest religions in the world, they are extremely divided, into two main branches and various sects that are all vociferously opposed to each other.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

harleysportster's picture

iwbiek wrote:ahimsa is

iwbiek wrote:

ahimsa is hardly black and white, and even the jains are divided.  in fact, for being of the smallest religions in the world, they are extremely divided, into two main branches and various sects that are all vociferously opposed to each other.

It really becomes rather difficult to unravel all of the divisions if one wants to really gain some knowledge about Eastern religions.

While I flirted around with it for a bit, I found that I simply did not have the interest to pursue it any further than the JC Penney/Sears version.

At that time though, I had stopped putting too much credence into much of anything, so that probably had more to do with it than anything else.

I will say this, it somewhat irritates me (why I do not know because it really does not matter) when someone wants to claim :"I am a Buddhist" and it consists of a few Lama quotes and some feel good stuff.

I remember a French comedy/action one time (and I thought the scene was funny) but this druglord's house is getting blown to bits and explosives are going off.

In the scene, one of the thugs bursts into the druglord's living room and pauses with a rifle in his hand. He says : "Fuck man, I didn't know you were a Buddhist ?."

Druglord replies : "Are you fucking kidding me ? Just look at all of these expensive statues, books and incense. Of course I am a fucking Buddhist !.

They then resume shooting at one another and the gunfire continues Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

iwbiek's picture

yeah, one of the books on my

yeah, one of the books on my amazon wishlist was written by a Tibetan monk and it's called something like what makes you not a Buddhist.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

harleysportster's picture

iwbiek wrote:yeah, one of

iwbiek wrote:

yeah, one of the books on my amazon wishlist was written by a Tibetan monk and it's called something like what makes you not a Buddhist.

Now that might be one that I would actually be willing to read.

Just in the interest of another's opinion.

Half of the time, when it comes to a lot of subjects, I would rather have at least some sort of fundamental understanding of the said subject before I say something too much about it.

I have learned the hard way that entering into some sort of debate with half-assed information can totally make you look stupid. Unless of course, your debate is in some raunchy biker bar like a few of mine have been and consists of beer fuled individuals that are really going to throw a punch sooner or later anyway. Somehow, the effectiveness of what the truth is in those kind of situations seems to go right out the window. Along with reason and facts of course.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

iwbiek's picture

harleysportster wrote: Half

harleysportster wrote:

 

Half of the time, when it comes to a lot of subjects, I would rather have at least some sort of fundamental understanding of the said subject before I say something too much about it.

I have learned the hard way that entering into some sort of debate with half-assed information can totally make you look stupid.

i think that's a wise position, but i also think conversing and/or even debating about things with which you're not terribly familiar can be beneficial to everyone involved.  what i can't stand are those who refuse to admit they're poorly informed even when it's been clearly demonstrated multiple times that they are.  i also can't stand those whose erroneous ideas of a subject have been corrected, sometimes multiple times, yet a couple months later they spew the same bullshit no less decisively than they did before.

it's my firm belief that attention to detail in everything is an indispensible part of rationality.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

Vastet's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:Nice

Beyond Saving wrote:
Nice point if all pacifistic philosophies adopted the concept of ahisma as strictly as Jainism and some forms of Hinduism. But they don't, especially those found in the West. From what I recall, most forms of modern Buddhism believe that a killing only creates negative karma if you are aware of the being and have intent to cause harm, so it is hardly the strict form of pacifism your argument is valid against.

That's a ridiculous and flawed ideal. It is conceivable that one could harm or kill all life on the planet without being aware of it.
It is inconceiveable that one could survive without being aware of being a constant cause of violent death. It is currently completely impossible to survive without consuming life, hence causing the extinguishment of life in order to consume it. If you have the mental capacity to understand the idea behind pacifism, then you understand that if you want to live then you must kill. Causing harm is part of existing.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

iwbiek's picture

Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
If you have the mental capacity to understand the idea behind pacifism, then you understand that if you want to live then you must kill. Causing harm is part of existing.

precisely.  which, i think, is part of the reason why there exists the jain ideal of sallekhana, or religious death.  it's quite rare, but still practised in india today.  it's where a jain monk or even layman, usually old and sometimes terminally ill, decides to forego all activity and enter into deeper and deeper states of meditation, leaving his body to starve to death.  he or she makes no movements, because any movement can cause karma to accrue, through killing microorganisms or countless other means (jains have extremely advanced karma theories), and basically tries to burn away any residual karma through austerities.

the jains are a remarkable people, not to be fucked with.  they are on the whole extremely rich, because they earn their living mostly through business (vocations like agriculture are off-limits to them because life is too easily harmed through such occupations).  they are thoroughly atheistic.  their basic epistemology is completely relativistic.  they are physicalists: they believe even karma is a subtle form of matter, as is each individual soul.  as for ahimsa, they are not afraid to take it to its logical conclusion, as i have detailed above.

after more than a decade of studying comparative religion, it is my belief that the jains might well be the most principled people in the world.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson