Karma and the teachings of Buddha - split from source of morality for theists and atheists

[imatfaal]

 

Immortal - Please do not speak for Buddhism. You do not understand it. You do even like it, I'd be amazed to discover that you'd ever taken an interest in it, since most people who do quickly gain a better understanding than yours.

 

If I were a moderator you would have been banned years ago. It is not a surprise that you do so much talking here and not on a Buddhist site, where you would not get away with such nonsense.

...

 

As ydoaPs mentioned immortal is not gonna be back - but when I read these last few comments it might appear that immortal was banned for being wrong. This was not the case as both the private message and the public announcement made clear; immortal was banned for persistent and unrelenting use of logical fallacies which rendered a debate impossible for a significant proportion of the threads in religion.

 

we never ban for being wrong, ignorant, ill-informed, or just plain stupid; no matter how badly one asperses Anglicanism, belies Buddhism, calumnaites Christianity, disses Daoism, egregiously evinces emptyheadedness on Evangelsism, etc we will not seek the ultimate sanction

 

But, in all honesty, if anyone else manages to mangle Kant as badly as immortal I may just take a risk and ban them and suffer the consequences.

[ydoaPs]

But, in all honesty, if anyone else manages to mangle Kant as badly as immortal I may just take a risk and ban them and suffer the consequences.

Can we add that to the rules? We should put this to a staff vote.

[PeterJ]

As ydoaPs mentioned immortal is not gonna be back - but when I read these last few comments it might appear that immortal was banned for being wrong. This was not the case as both the private message and the public announcement made clear; immortal was banned for persistent and unrelenting use of logical fallacies which rendered a debate impossible for a significant proportion of the threads in religion.

 

we never ban for being wrong, ignorant, ill-informed, or just plain stupid; no matter how badly one asperses Anglicanism, belies Buddhism, calumnaites Christianity, disses Daoism, egregiously evinces emptyheadedness on Evangelsism, etc we will not seek the ultimate sanction

 

But, in all honesty, if anyone else manages to mangle Kant as badly as immortal I may just take a risk and ban them and suffer the consequences.

It seems churlish to see this as good news, but I do. I have never come across anyone so caught up in their own dogma or committed to such a collection of heterodox views.

 

It is not a coincidence that he mangles both Kant and the Buddha. It is the same misunderstanding in both cases, and the same refusal to do the research before setting opinions in stone. It must be difficult to ban people and not something you'd ever want to do, but in this case I could never see an option and congratulate you for biting the bullet.