Notice: Imposing Stricter Rules & Regulations for the Forum
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Excuse me, I have never targetted Atheism or anything. However, I have replied in many threads such as the threads on reincarnation there. Also, what do you mean by targetting irreligionists?
I disagree that Buddhism is a soft target as Buddhist adherents have be targetting atheists and irreligionists as soft targets. (Please go read what AEN posted in the Aethism forum. )
Anyway those atheists should thank me for being the one who suggested to open that forum in the first place.
I was also discussing with laoda99 on that last time.As it is well-known, science and religion don't mix but AEN and bohiruci believe otherwise and insist that all other people acknowledge the superiority of Buddhism.
Buddhism is a form of science and I have my reasons to believe so. Anyway, off-topic. -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:you know what? you think everything is about you?
I do certainly know...... everything is ALL about YOU. You were APING me. You didn't answer my questions honestly. You were evasive. And you were kidding others!
Try again here to answer unequivocally or repeat your answers here. Your answers in EH were not honest, more to draw support from that thread!
my post was merely commenting that it is high time for this forum to be a little more strict, in full agreement of the TS and the rules... obviously you don't see the need to observe the rules...
Strict with what? With childish people? Don't shut a thread just becos you personally don't like!
anyway i've answer those questions already lah... unfortunately you haven't those answer those question asked to you... therefore you really have no right to question me.
What questions did you ask?
time to enforce these rules, mods.
Your rules, you mean? -
Originally posted by sinweiy:1) Neither. No need.
Neither means not private, not public. So, what is it?
2) No.
3) Depend on how vulgar. Remember someone in Singapore ever insulted another religion and was prosecuted.
Different viewpoints expressed in superb Singlish! Not even a 4-letter word used. Still vulgar? Pls explain.
4) go check dictionary or the law of Singapore.
Condescending got law? Why am I always confused?
5) You can embark on a "friendly" debate.
A debate cannot be friendly. How to score points when you kiss each other or stroke each other's back. Try doing that in the boxing ring! -
Let me try to explain this forum's stance again..
1) Public, but with rules.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:I detect "SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS" here.
Its about time you be honest and answer these questions unequivocally here too:
1) Is this forum private or public? Does anyone needs an invitation to post in any thread?
2) Does one have to 'belong' to the same colour, race, creed, religion in order to make a post, especially in this thread?
3) Is a different viewpoint considered vulgar?
4) How do you define condescending?
5) If one does not agree with me, can I ask the poster to shut up, get out, move away?
2) No.
3) No. Vulgar simply means foul language such as the four letter words. The forum also does not tolerate senseless insults and trolling.
4) By not respecting others' viewpoints.
5) No. -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:unfortunately this is true. I think you will agree with me when I say that we really have no problems who enter a religious forum and genuinely ask well-intended questions.
My questions were not genuinely answered!
however, in the midst of some of these real folks, there are others will attempt to stir up trouble but going all out to make things difficult.
Define what is trouble and what is difficult?
what sets this folks apart from the real seekers are the manner in which questions are asked, and the fact that they do not attempt to agree to disagree.
Why must attempt to agree to disagree? A forum is to draw different viewpoints. If anyone in this forum were to echo each other, then call this a CAVE! -
I am a simpleton. Biology is science, biology is not Buddhism.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Buddhism is a form of science and I have my reasons to believe so. Anyway, off-topic. -
Hand is long, hand is not snake? So?Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:I am a simpleton. Biology is science, biology is not Buddhism. -
HZ,Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:I disagree that Buddhism is a soft target as Buddhist adherents have be targetting atheists and irreligionists as soft targets. (Please go read what AEN posted in the Aethism forum. )
As it is well-known, science and religion don't mix but AEN and bohiruci believe otherwise and insist that all other people acknowledge the superiority of Buddhism.
Sad to say, though AEN is the moderator of this forum and bohiruci had posted many comments, they don't represent buddhism.
The soft targets I refer to are the many other buddhists that I have met.
For whatever reasons AEN and/or bohiruci that is insisting that others to acknowledge the superiority of Buddhism (at least in your impression), I have no idea, but I hope that that will not stop you from studying and understanding the Buddha's Teachings.
Of course, to know Buddhism more or not is up to individual's choice in the end =) -
I don't think I have implied superiority, but rather, Buddhism is the only path that leads to Enlightenment and Liberation. Other practices have their own good but does not lead to Enlightenment. I think this needs to be clarified over and over again cos lots of people just think that Buddhism is just "doing good". Therefore, they don't look any further cos they are 'already good'.Originally posted by yamizi:For whatever reasons AEN and/or bohiruci that is insisting that others to acknowledge the superiority of Buddhism (at least in your impression), I have no idea, but I hope that that will not stop you from studying and understanding the Buddha's Teachings.
Of course, to know Buddhism more or not is up to individual's choice in the end =) -
Snake is long, rope is long.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Hand is long, hand is not snake? So?
Snake is rope. -
Thanks. But what's your take on different viewpoint being vulgar?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Let me try to explain this forum's stance again..
1) Public, but with rules.
2) No.
3) No. Vulgar simply means foul language such as the four letter words. The forum also does not tolerate senseless insults and trolling.
4) By not respecting others' viewpoints.
5) No. -
That is your own delusion, not mineOriginally posted by TheGoodEarth:Snake is long, rope is long.
Snake is rope.
For me, snake is long, rope is long, fullstop. -
I think different viewpoints are ok as long as they are sensible and you're not attacking others unreasonably.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Thanks. But what's your take on different viewpoint being vulgar? -
wah lao... this one quite boh liao...Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Snake is long, rope is long.
Snake is rope.
when in a definition, LENGTH is used, it must be compared to the opposite: what is SHORT.
errr.... you do "CLASSIFICATION" in primary school science or not hah? -
wah lagi boliao - must compare to opposite. So, my opposite views can be compared to yours? What science? Buddhism or Biology?Originally posted by Chin Eng:wah lao... this one quite boh liao...
when in a definition, LENGTH is used, it must be compared to the opposite: what is SHORT.
errr.... you do "CLASSIFICATION" in primary school science or not hah? -
Erm...How come from stricter rules impose becomes snakes and ropes?
Magicians? -
We were originally using it as an analogy for comparing buddhism and biology and science..Originally posted by yamizi:Erm...How come from stricter rules impose becomes snakes and ropes?
Magicians?
Anyway let's get back to topic. -
Is OK = NO?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I think different viewpoints are ok as long as they are sensible and you're not attacking others unreasonably.
That is, different viewpoints are not vulgar.
As for attack: that is what most people and forumers got wrong, even Admin and Moderators! Attacking a statement, post, reply, argument, opinion, comment, utterance, decision - IS PERFECTLY above-board. But many associate that 'attack' as attacking the person, persona and personality!
We are all guilty of this hideous and heinous deed! I am one of those. Would somebody here die for me? -
When rules don't work, magic does!Originally posted by yamizi:Erm...How come from stricter rules impose becomes snakes and ropes?
Magicians? -
You're right that attacking a view (in contrast to personal attacks) is ok, which in that case is more like replying/discussion/debate. Just make sure it does not become a senseless tongue war --Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Is OK = NO?
That is, different viewpoints are not vulgar.
As for attack: that is what most people and forumers got wrong, even Admin and Moderators! Attacking a statement, post, reply, argument, opinion, comment, utterance, decision - IS PERFECTLY above-board. But many associate that 'attack' as attacking the person, persona and personality!
We are all guilty of this hideous and heinous deed! I am one of those. Would somebody here die for me?
That is why I said as long as you're not attacking unreasonably it is ok.Originally posted by justdoit77:hi guys, we all take it easy ok.
There is no need to be so sensitive towards what other people said, be it right or wrong. It is not a big deal to "win" a discussion or to say something that made people to "wow", but if you can remain calm and friendly even after people attack you, then you really have done a great thing.
We should learn from tibetan scripture debate, their objectives is not to defeat the opponent, but rather to exchange views and learn from each other. -
I think it will be difficult to decide what kind of posting is an attack. The only way we can is to look at the posting as objective as possible.
Sometimes some issue brought up might be contraversial or not well-liked by others. But does it mean that posting would automatically equate to attack or even offensive?
Probably the best thing to do will be at looking at the facts that amount to such posting and (I feel that especially in buddhist forum) not to quickly label that forummer as slandering sangha, etc.
Dhamma as it is, is indestructible (this is what buddhists believe), because the Truth is indestructible! So as buddhists, who are seekers for Truth, shouldn't be that afraid or think that it is a taboo to discuss issues that are contraversial or even not a well-like topic.
Be forthcoming and abovebroad!
And as a form of practice the Endurance Paramita, take it with our own stride and not getting mad when other forummers get personal (we have a few here)! Take it also as a practice of our mental resolute and perseverence lo.
My understanding is that at the bottomline, religions are basically different, even we may have the same religion we may have different points of view that would lead us not necessary seeing things eye to eye.
So by law, it will be hard to define what is insulting, because what one would find insulting, probably is what the other genuinely believed without the intention to insult anyone!
I think for contributions in this forum, we should just be direct, straight to the point (so does with using analogies) and don't attack fellow forummers.
What else can be done right? -
Yes agreedOriginally posted by yamizi:I think it will be difficult to decide what kind of posting is an attack. The only way we can is to look at the posting as objective as possible.
Sometimes some issue brought up might be contraversial or not well-liked by others. But does it mean that posting would automatically equate to attack or even offensive?
Probably the best thing to do will be at looking at the facts that amount to such posting and (I feel that especially in buddhist forum) not to quickly label that forummer as slandering sangha, etc.
Dhamma as it is, is indestructible (this is what buddhists believe), because the Truth is indestructible! So as buddhists, who are seekers for Truth, shouldn't be that afraid or think that it is a taboo to discuss issues that are contraversial or even not a well-like topic.
Be forthcoming and abovebroad!
And as a form of practice the Endurance Paramita, take it with our own stride and not getting mad when other forummers get personal (we have a few here)! Take it also as a practice of our mental resolute and perseverence lo.
My understanding is that at the bottomline, religions are basically different, even we may have the same religion we may have different points of view that would lead us not necessary seeing things eye to eye.
So by law, it will be hard to define what is insulting, because what one would find insulting, probably is what the other genuinely believed without the intention to insult anyone!
I think for contributions in this forum, we should just be direct, straight to the point (so does with using analogies) and don't attack fellow forummers.
What else can be done right?
-
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
1) Neither means not private, not public. So, what is it?
sw: can also mean either both private, or public. so it's just a forum.
3) Different viewpoints expressed in superb Singlish! Not even a 4-letter word used. Still vulgar? Pls explain.
sw: ok, vulgar might not be the word. rather depending on how insulting.
4) Condescending got law? Why am I always confused?
sw: nevermind.
5) A debate cannot be friendly. How to score points when you kiss each other or stroke each other's back. Try doing that in the boxing ring!
sw: can be friendly mah. we also have friendly soccer match. match is match. game is game. just don't put it at heart. it's not like after the game, you go to his home and take revenge or something.
but yeah la, you still need to draw a line or limit. -
Originally posted by yamizi:
that's where, the judge and jury comes in.
So by law, it will be hard to define what is insulting, because what one would find insulting, probably is what the other genuinely believed without the intention to insult anyone!
/\ -
If you're refering to Singapore courts, there are no jury, only the judge.Originally posted by sinweiy:that's where, the judge and jury comes in.
/\
In the first place, would that insult amount to public concern. It will still be difficult to be define unlike in civil or criminal cases where they will be more clear cut.