I am aware of the horrors in Myanmar. Are these “Buddhists” acting according to the tenets of their belief system? No, they are not, no more than Islamic terrorists are acting like true Muslims.
Not quite the same thing. My point, again, is that I am quoting from the Dalai Lama’s definition. We don’t hesitate to call out self-proclaimed Christians as “not true Christians” when they behave, hypocritically, in distinctly unChristian ways. Therefore, anyone who claims to be Buddhist and participates in genocide is not a true Buddhist.
Okay, since you don’t want to leave it at that, I’ll try one more time to explain it. Those who commit genocide, or other atrocities against fellow human beings, can call themselves anything they want — Muslim, Buddhist, Christian — but that’s not what they are. They forfeit the right to claim affiliation with their chosen religion, because they have disregarded its most basic principles. I don’t know how to make that any clearer.
The problem is that there aren't any 'true' Buddhists nor 'true' Christians nor 'true' Scotsman as they become ideals that cannot be met. Worse, it gives all the other Buddists/Chistians/Scotsmen the cover of dismissing any kind of responsibility for their group.
It's one of our favorite spots for a long weekend!
The platypus that's controlling me is underneath the table.
someone was just trying to assassinate Kavanagh
The plan:
1. get sus stuff2. drive to the right neighborhood3. get out of the car and confess to a cop (if the cop's version is right)
In-group being the wealthiest
And thus there are no true Scotsmen.
yup
I am aware of the horrors in Myanmar. Are these “Buddhists” acting according to the tenets of their belief system? No, they are not, no more than Islamic terrorists are acting like true Muslims.
I agree with you.
Not quite the same thing. My point, again, is that I am quoting from the Dalai Lama’s definition. We don’t hesitate to call out self-proclaimed Christians as “not true Christians” when they behave, hypocritically, in distinctly unChristian ways. Therefore, anyone who claims to be Buddhist and participates in genocide is not a true Buddhist.
Okay, since you don’t want to leave it at that, I’ll try one more time to explain it. Those who commit genocide, or other atrocities against fellow human beings, can call themselves anything they want — Muslim, Buddhist, Christian — but that’s not what they are. They forfeit the right to claim affiliation with their chosen religion, because they have disregarded its most basic principles. I don’t know how to make that any clearer.
Funny, that! Me too!
The problem is that there aren't any 'true' Buddhists nor 'true' Christians nor 'true' Scotsman as they become ideals that cannot be met. Worse, it gives all the other Buddists/Chistians/Scotsmen the cover of dismissing any kind of responsibility for their group.
The “true Scotsman” logical fallacy applies, originally, to nationalism, not religion.
And I'm out. The original use doesn't mean the idea isn't still a fallacy in other contexts.
Then I don’t agree with you, I guess? Whatever man. This is getting tiresome.
Still not understanding my original point, so I’m out, too.