What are worms disections?

According to society, these are experiments that school students carry out for educational purposes.

What is the Forbidden Truth here?

Society imprisons tortured victim-creations whom are children in a school prison. Although society has an obligation to educate, that in no way changes the Truth that the school functions as a prison-camp.
It then uses peer pressure, threats, psychological pressure, and directly fascistly orders the imprisoned child-slaves to literally torture a worm to death.

What is a poison container?
You need to understand what a poison container is to read this lecture.
That is located at the website-link on the bottom of the post, and scroll down the first page.

1. The torturing of a worm to death in no way teaches anyone anything of any use, nor anything that cannot be taught in text-books.

2. A larger, dead animals could easily be used.

3. The primary goal is to teach the children that :-
a. Animals and insects are lesser life forms, when in fact they
are Superior to humans because they do not suffer from Truth
rejection and mental dysfunction.
b. That it is societally acceptable to torture and kill so-called
lesser life and to target these lives for poison-container usage.

4. The lesson is structured in such a way that the worm must be pinned down, observed, controlled and allowed to die slowly in agony.

5. To have all the child-slaves conform and do as the group does (ie to attack independance and individuality)

6. To learn to obey orders even if they personally may feel they do not
want to.

This is one proof of how immoral and malevolent society is, and how it attempts to reflect their graven mental image on the next generation.

This is the Truth.

I would imagine worms feel pain.
they writhe when cut in two.
many people say plants feel pain !!

when things are done physically it is completely different to learning it in a book.

Quote:


I think you have struck upon a taboo here:

when in fact they are Superior to humans

Quote:


How would dissecting a dead dog teach students what a worm looks like when you cut it open? Wouldn't that just upset even more social taboos? Also, the refrigeration costs would be pretty extreme.

Quote:


I doubt you would fail if you killed it first. In fact, from my memory of this experiment you would probably do a lot better. They are slippery little buggers.

Quote:


What creature did worms evolve from, and how do you know they had the ability? If we can't tell whether worms feel pain today, how on earth could we tell whether a now extinct organism did? Furthermore, how can you be sure the trait was kept?

Ever been fishing Seer?

I have my doubts about the value of virtual dissection. You might as well get rid of the science lab altogether and make it a big computer game. There is nothing sacred about a corpse and we should not dimish the value of our children's education because of the small minority who think there is. The whole point of science is to help people unbderstand the natural world, not how to do well in a crappy computer game. Hands on experience is crucial to this.

One of the biggest problems with modern people's understanding of nature is the sanitised views people get. This has real implications that actually makes the suffering of animals worse. How can a person contribute meaningfully to our society's interaction with the natural world if all the know of it is from The Lion King? How can we expect children to fathom the vast beauty and cruelty of billions of worms getting violently slaughtered every day if we also teach them that they must be shielded from the death of a single specimen? What happens when the next generation of university biology students squeel when they touch a real worm for the first time in their life? At what stage of their career would a biologist get to see what an animal actually looks like?

Reply to freediver


I am speaking more of animals that were already dead, to stop the murder of worms and other life forms.
While it would not teach them about a worm, it would teach them about anatomy.
What is the point of disecting a worm? Do you use worms anatomy in real life? NO! What the book says is sufficient.

The REAL reason what to teach you to torture and kill creatures society wrongly determines to be of lesser worth than humans.


Then you admit that your school teaches humans to torture worms to death.


Pain is so useful to survival. If a worm get injured, it reacts to the stimuli. While it may not be exactly like mammal pain, it is simular.


Fishing is another example of societally-sponsered murder and torture of Superior creatures.

Reply to Yadda


Unlikely. That is a moot point, however. You are trying to suggest that to torture or kill a worm may be acceptable if a plant feels pain also. This is false logic.


Well, there is no need to have any experiance in worm disection. What possible use is there in that?


Yes, you could say that. There is a VERY important difference between the individual and society. I am not responsible for what society does nor decrees. As are you.

As a society, humans are responsible for the genocide and extinction of many other Superior races. Even the destruction of the environment, which continues today.


Yes, I have all of these things. However, as an individual, I am not responsible. Society is responsible. To suggest otherwise is foolish.

To refuse to eat meat is NOT a pro-environmental action, but a self-harming Guilt Manifestation.


I am not responsible for this. Society is. I have to use these things, because society put Me in that position. The difference is that these things are not INTENTIONAL and easily aviodable. They are something that happens in the course of My affairs.

I do not kill bugs etc unless they directly attack Me. There is nothing inherantly wrong with killing them, as long as it is honestly for a natural purpose, and on a personal level.

Society has no legitimate purpose to the worm disection orders, whereas catching a bus is not a purposeless not intenful action to kill worms, insect etc.

None of what you said matters. Your argument boils down to "If society make a unnecesary murder of one life form, we can justify that by making more of the same". Wrong.


No. Society is responsible. Society must do everything it can that is in its power not to murder. Of course, there will always be some accidental deaths of insects and other animals. This can NEVER be used to attempt to justify insect or animal murders, though. Nor can it justify society teaching children that the decreed path of cathartic release and vengenace is animals and insects.


They are, humans are not. That said, no INDIVIDUAL human should ever go out of his way not to un-intentionally kill an insect, he should just not intentionally murder an animal/insect unless there is a distant personal need.


Both these statements are lie-based, and made by Truth-hating and Truth-rejecting inferiors.

More information on animals can be found at www.Truthmedia.8k.com.

Seer Travis Truman wrote on Sep 5^th, 2009 at 11:37pm:



STT,

Why would you consider fish to be 'Superior creatures'?




++++++++++


from,

The Lucifer Principle - - by Howard BLOOM

MOTHER NATURE, THE BLOODY BI TCH

In 1580 Michel de Montaigne, inspired by the discovery of New World tribes untouched by Europe's latest complexities, initiated the idea of the "noble savage". Nearly two hundred years later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau popularised the concept when he published four works proclaiming that man is born an innocent wonder, filled with love and generosity, but that a Luciferian force ensnares him: modern civilisation. Rousseau claimed that without civilisation, humans would never Know hatred, prejudice, or cruelty.

Today, the Rousseauesque doctrine seems stronger than ever. Twentieth-century writers and scientists like Ashley Montagu, Claude Levi-Strauss (who hailed Rousseau as the "father of anthropology"), Erich Jantsch, David Barash, Richard Leakey, and Susan Sontag have reworked the notion to condemn current industrial civilisation. They have been joined by numerous feminist, environmentalist, and minority rights extremists. Even such August scientific bodies as the American Anthropological Association, the American Psychological Association, and the Peace and War Section of the American Sociological Association have joined the cause, absolving "natural man" of malevolence by endorsing "The Seville Statement," an international manifesto which declares that "violence is neither in our evolutionary legacy nor in our genes."

As a result, we are told almost daily that modern Western culture with its consumerism, its capitalism, its violent television shows, its blood-soaked films, and its nature-mangling technologies "programs" violence into the wide-eyed human mind. Our society is supposedly an incubator for everything that appals us. However, culture alone is not responsible for violence, cruelty, murder and war. Despite the Seville Statement's contentions, our biological legacy weaves evil into the substrate of even the most "unspoiled" society. What's more, organised battle is not restricted to humans. Ants make war and either massacre or enslave a rival swarm. Cichlid fish gang up and attack outsiders." Myxobacteria form "wolf packs" that corner and dismember prey. Groups of lizards pick on a formerly regal member of the clan who has become disfigured by the loss of his tail. Female bees chase an overage Queen through the corridors of the hive and lunge, biting over and over until she is dead. And even rival "super coalitions" of a half dozen male dolphins fight like street gangs, often inflicting serious injuries. Ants do not watch television. Fish seldom go to the movies. Myxobacteria, lizards, dolphins, and bees have not been "programmed" by Western culture.

.....By the early seventies, Jane Goodall had lived fourteen years among the wild chimpanzees of Tanzania's Gombe Reserve. She loved the chimps for their gentle ways, so different from the violence back home among humans. Yes, there were simian muggings, beatings, and rage, but the ultimate horror war was absent. Goodall published a landmark book on chimpanzee behaviour "In the Shadow of Man" a work that to some proved unequivocally that war was a human creation. After all, the creatures shown by genetic and immunological research to be our nearest cousins in the animal kingdom knew nothing of organised, wholesale violence.

Then, three years after Goodall's book was printed, a series of incidents occurred that horrified her. The tribe of chimps Goodall had been watching became quite large. Food was harder to find. Quarrels broke out. To relieve the pressure, the unit finally split into two separate tribes. One band stayed in the old home territory. The other left to carve out a new life in the forest to the south.

At first, the two groups lived in relative peace. Then the males from the larger band began to make trips south to the patch of land occupied by the splinter unit. The marauders' purpose was simple: to harass and ultimately kill the separatists. They beat their former friends mercilessly, breaking bones, opening massive wounds, and leaving the resultant cripples to die a slow and lingering death. When the raids were over, five males and one elderly female had been murdered. The separatist group had been destroyed; and its sexually active females and part of its territory had been annexed by the males of the band from the home turf. Goodall had discovered war among the chimpanzees, a discovery she had hoped she would never make.

in naReply to Yadda.



All creatures are Superior to humans, Humans suffer from :

1. Inability to handle, recognise and embrace the Forbidden Truths of life. Humans live a lie. Animals live a life based on Truth and reality.

2. Humans suffer from brain dysfunction at the genetic level. Although humans have greater cognitive ability, they have poor mental health and stability, and a illness that means they cannot experiance Truth properly.

Below is an excerpt from a lie-based document. The title gives away that the human who wrote this is mentally deformed. Refering to nature as some sort of "mother" and then resorting to foul language to attemt to "rubbish" nature.



Well, that depends on what you mean by violence. War, genocide, mass-murder of animals, justice systems, and worm experiments are all unnatural, and have nothing to do with evolution. They very fact that these things do NOT exist in the natural world proves that humans did not naturally "evolve" them.


ALL human societies are malevlent and lie-based. Capitalism, communism, socialism, it matters not. Society always tries to blame everything else, to shift the blame away from itself. To suggest that violent videos and shopping are responsbile for war and street violence is an outright lie. In fact, these videos are made about real-world scenarios that have already occured.


Society IS an incubator for these things. Culture / society is 100% responsible.


There is NO SUCH THING as an "unspoiled" human society. Here, he resorts to inventing a ridiculous and mythical force called "evil" that does not exist in order to attempt to justify his statement.


This is mearly their natural behaviour pattern. THese are not "wars", but a natural move to protect their extended territory, and feed the swarm. A big nest needs a big hunt, thats all. They do not attack for un-natural purposes, such as some ants having a different color (they MAY attack an ant of differet color, but not BECAUSE it has a diff colour).
Religion, cathartic release are other basic motifs for human wars, that have no parallell in nature.

Part II forthcoming....

Yadda, you have done nothing but charge into the attack to only trip over.

How about some defense? Or do you just ignore My points in your mind? I have revealed the Truth, that was challenged, and I answered. My points still remain.

Before anything new is posted, you ought to deal with the previous material I and others have posted, and its ramifications.

Quote:


So it is OK to do the killing through carelessness, but not deliberately? It seems to me that you don't really care about the worms at all, you just care about people motivations, and because you don;t get the motivations of biologists to learn, you object to the learning process.

Quote:


So society must do what you are unwilling to do yourself? You just finished explaining how it is OK to kill through carelessness or to pay someone else to do the killing. How can you expect others to do what you cannot stomach yourself?

Quote:


Travis, you completely misunderstand what biology class is about. You may have gotten some sick pleasure out of torturing the worm, but I assure you no-one else in your class did. Is it your own joy that frightens you so much?

Quote:


So humans must not try to avoid killing through carelessness, even when it occurs on a much larger scale, they must only avoid deliberate killing? Am I right that you have no concern for the victims at all?

Quote:


Yes he is Travis.

Quote:


Now you are contradicting yourself. First you said that society wants to train children to be killers, now you are saying that it wants to make them feel guilty. How can a society feel guilty without individuals feeling guilty?

Quote:


No travis, that is what you are trying to do. You are trying to make us feel like we are doing something wrong.

Quote:


Wait, so we can kill other humans, but not worms? Is that what you mean by worms being superior?

Quote:


But Travis, people can come up with equally logical reasons for human wars. The first wars were about land, or food. One group of people would slaughter another group and take their food. Modern warfare is the same logic on a broader scale. It is not the reasoning that is different, only the skill.

Quote:


It is kind of ironic that you posted this just after accusing someone else of misinformation. This is why biology class is so important travis.

Quote:


Travis your whole argument is based on making up lies about the intent of other people.

Quote:


Perhaps you have an equally disdainful approach to the study of history as you do for the study of science. Are you familiar with the term lebensraum?

freediver wrote on Sep 6^th, 2009 at 10:43am:



FD,

LOL

Well done!       






FD,

I despair for the young of today. [.....I am assuming that STT is a young person.]

The young today, have so much more real power, within their reach, than we ever did ['older' person here, approaching senility], but in my estimation, the young of today often exhibit so little 'common sense'.

freediver wrote on Sep 6^th, 2009 at 4:48pm:

I suspect Travis is not a well man. 

Quote:


I can relate to what Travis is saying. He is just looking for equality amongst the lesser species. I've observed huge worms being gobbled carelessly by a ruthless rooster and they suffer terribly. You can see their bodies writhing in agony and it's worse when they're grubs because you can see their little eyes and mouth open and close as their bodies are ripped apart.

The point is we should try to lessen the pain these apparently insignificant creatures are forced to endure - if we can. Unfortunately for them they are part of the food chain too and unless we want to see larger creatures die from starvation - their suffering will never end.  

Reply to supreme inferior freediver



Your claim is the absurd one. There are biologists who did not disect worms at school. To suggest that worm disection is so important that a book does not suffice is insane and dishonest.

You have to come up rith a single legitimate reason why it is in the general ciriculum. The onus of proof is on society, you know.


This Q s insincere and immature, and will get no response.

Seer TT : "What is the point of disecting a worm? Do you use worms anatomy in real life? NO! What the book says is sufficient."



The point of learning how to disect a worm is learning? Thats as circular as you can get. You are suggesting that the point is itself.
To suggest that advanced teriary study would be prevented by failure to disect a worm is ludicrous.


It IS taught by society, in a thousand different ways, including relative consequence levels for killing a dog versus a human. YOU are wrong again.


Why was that again??? What a pathetic reply.

Quote:



Wrong.

Quote:



No, you have not shown a single legitimate reason why at all.

Quote:



I am sure worm disections seem to be crucial to an inferior like you.

Rest of this garbage deleted. Your reply is needlessly lengthy. You try and make the same claim 100 different ways, and your principal claim is false.

Reply to inferior Yadda


Wrong. They are perfectly rational and clear, you just deny and reject them because you hate the Truth.


That is the Truth, yes, humans are inferior due to mental dysfunction. However, to suggest that this is a conclusion reached by My "assertions" is wrong.


That is precisely what an inferior like you would think.




Incorrect. (1) and (2) above clealy contain more material than that. Your claim is a blatent lie.


Firstly, do realise that no part of the Forbidden Truth, nor any statement I made, EVER suggested or relied upon any notion that animals do not launch physical attacks.




I NEVER suggested animals never attack other animals.
The difference is WHY the attack, for WHAT purpose, and if those attacks are PERSONAL and nutrurally motivated. Got it?


Wrong. Their claim here is lies. Animals that have no human interference never deviate from nature and personal sane Truth-based behaviours, unless their brain malfunctions due to injury or desease.
It is the humans who make false claims about the reaons why animals behave they way they do that make it appear to be deviant. THey do this because they pathologically and subconsciously  hate the Truth of what humanity has become.


Look, if there is crowding, animal competition may become more fierce, Again, that is just the natural motivations of the individual.

To suggest that a group of chimpanzees fighting over limited resources for survivial is akin to Vietnam war is insane, lie-based and plain dumb

I have deleted the rest of the garbage. It is not worth botherg with.
Shorten you garbage pile, inferior, or get no reply. Do NOT include any more spacing, massive text sizes, or poetic quotes from mentally ill inferiors for no other reason than to pretend that you know what you are doing. You dont.

ID999

FLUSH! Garbage disposed of.

ID999, the OP does not reply nor suggest that worms need to feel pain, and I have already answered this Q.

The worms are being murdered. The worms are used as torture victims of humans, for the purpose of cathartic-release / poison-container directional path brainwashing.

It does not matter if the worm suffers, as long as it can be perceived to suffer.
What dont you understand?

mantra wrote on Sep 7^th, 2009 at 7:34am:


His name was removed. That is the post ID number. I expect a certain attempt at quality in the posts to bother answering them.

You are a psychopath, seer. It's not for nothing, your obsession with Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, Martin Bryant and worms.

It's not truth you're driven by seer, but psychotic fear, seer.

How far away are you from actualising your psychopathic need to kill, STT?

More schizophrenic drivel from a wannabe psychopathic killer. What? Not got the balls to commit the ultimate existential act? Don't waste your time with the 'inferiors' ... Go on... put that gun to your head... You know you want it... do it... do it now... 

One flick of the finger and the pain will be gone.

I have won. None of you displayed intellectual integrity, and My post is therefore victorious.

I agree wit Seer (to a degree).
Humans, in an effort to promote the abstract thinking and logical reasoning that many see as separating us from other organisms and making us "intellectually superior", place diminished importance on our innate instincts. In other words, in an effort to become more advanced and dominate our planet, we have almost completely lost our common humanity.
Humans tend to see each other as a means to an ends--we would so rather oppress and subjugate another human if it will benefit ourselves in terms of finances, lifestyle etc than work together to ensure equal social access for all. I guess this is more true in other cultures than in the Australian culture--our fair dinkum approach to life and the socialist aspects of our govt. sort of create a buffer against that. Our class divides are not as pronounced as they are in other places and the harsh Aussie climate forced the early settlers who were thrown onto this land without having a say in the matter had to work together to come to terms with how different Australia is from Europe.

Blutigeroo, that doesn't seem to be what travis is getting at at all. He would have us place our fellow man below an insect.

Quote:


Obviously the onus is not on me, or society, or we wouldn't be doing it. I have no idea what counts as legitimate in Travis world, but here is one legitimate reason in the real world: to learn. The fact that some students do not learn much from one particular lesson does not detract from it's legitimacy. IF you want to change our society, merely insisting that other people must satisfy your insane standards is not going to cut it.

Quote:


It is no more immature than your argument. You hint vaguely at alternatives, yet you baulk at the detail and the reality.

Quote:


But plenty of people do use worm biology in real life.

Quote:


Yes Travis. Now you are getting it.

Quote:


Sorry. I was assuming you understood the value of knowledge and science. I must keep reminding myself that you don't.

Quote:


But I wasn't suggesting it would be prevented travis, any more than suggesting that failure to teach maths in secondary school would mean there are no accountants. Our society would survive without learning, but it would be a diminished society. The scenarios I described would be real. Education must prepare students for the real world, not hide it from them. To suggest we must be able to draw a line from every class a student atttends to some event in their later life shows a complete lack of understanding of the mechanisms through which education benefits individuals and society.

Quote:


The reply is pathetic because the question is pathetic. If you don't want more stupid answers, stop asking such stupid questions. Perhaps you could fess up and tell us what this grand 'truth' of your is, rather than expecting us to reverse engineer it from the self contradicting garbage you post.

Quote:


Now that is a pathetic response. You are trying to tell a fisherman what fishermen do and why, without being able to back it up with anything more than your prejudice.

Quote:


Yes I have. You are just unable to appreciate the reasons. Declaring the reasons illigitimate does not make them so, any more than declaring that fishermen do something for a particular reason makes you right.

Quote:


Again you misunderstand my argument. It is not crucial. It is only a very small part of our education, which is why most students only do it once. Surely if it was crucial they would do it more than once?

Quote:


What is my principle claim? So far I am merely trying to respond to a few of the crazier points you make.

Quote:


I am just trying to figure out what this silly truth of yours is Travis. For someone who claims to know a truth that others don't, you seem remarkably unwilling to answer simple questions.

Quote:


Yet you appeared to suggest that those other actions are justified. This is a pretty murky 'truth' you are pushing. Is it a 'make it up as you go along' type of truth?

Quote:


But you just did that for fishermen. You project wierd motives onto other people all the time, apparently because you can'

Seer TT : "That said, no INDIVIDUAL human should ever go out of his way not to un-intentionally kill an insect, he should just not intentionally murder an animal/insect unless there is a distant personal need. "t understand their legitimate reason for doing what they do.

This is the sort of contradiction that pulls you argument apart travis. How can someone deliberately do something accidentally? Is there some kind of philosophy, or 'truth' behind your argument? Why are you so reluctant to reveal it?

To suggest that someone can avoid what is accidental is stupid.

But you just suggested it, not me. I was just trying to figure out your argument, but the more you try to explain it, the less sense it makes.

Incorrect. Society created the True Reality of the citizen-slave, and is millions of times more untrustworthy, malevolent and murderous than any of its victim-creations could ever possibly be.

What book are you pulling this garbage from T

blutigeroo


No, you disagree. There are no "degrees" of Truth.


This is correct. Although humans possess the highest cognitive ability of any life form on Earth, they have gained that at the cost of mental stability, Truth-recognition and handling ability, and strength of instinct.

In short, humans have the overall WORST mental function of all species. That is why humanity has war, endless racial problems and so on. The average human life is unfullilling and dull. Mental illness and drug abuse is on the rise. And it is only getting worse.


Define "common humanity".


There is no such legitimate thing as "success" as defined by society.
What would success mean?

THe individual SHOULD reflect his True Reality to the highest degree possible, that is success. And no other persons welfare should be considered by the individual in that quest.

Society has an obligation to ensure social equalities, not the individual.



Totally incorrect. america, england and australia are the 3 most malevolent and insane societies of all time.
The idea that there is "fairness" in the currect society is irrational and delusional. It has no rational basis.

Although man IS below all other life forms, that is NOT the basis for the argument. Maybe you should actually read the OP.





A1. You cannot determine the burden of proof by the actions of a society. That makes no rational sense. Your suggestion that 'if society does something it must be right' is irrational and insane.

A2. I have already shown that the "disection" kills the worm, as is/imitates torture. It instructs the child that society encourages the view that other species are worthless.

A2.2 Even if there was legitimate reason for worm disection, the facts in (A2) remain. This is the main point : Your argument regarding legitimate education would not exclude My revalations regarding (A2). The two are not mutally eclusive, because there can be more than one objective to the excercise.

A3. There is no reason why worm disection is needed.

A4. You can learn it from the book. Since the worm disection is unimportant, a book should suffice.

A5. Fail (A4) and (A3), specimens that died from natural causes could be used. Birds, cats and so on regularly die, and thus why the need to kill the worms?

Conclusion A : The answers given to Me OP do not explain WHY it is necessary to kill the worms, and use live worms.



B1. It has no legitimacy. You forget to consider the fact that a life is being taken, and torture/torture-like application used.

B2. You do not address what is being learned, you just presume society always tells the Truth. What is being learned is to consider non-human species of life with total disregard.

B3. You must show why worm disection is worthy and important acedemic learning.


I dont have "standards". My OP is rational and sane. I am not trying to change society. I know that humans are too mentally ill to help themselves.

My argument is mature and rational. You just don't like the conclusion.


C1. I already gave alternatives. You just ignored them.
C2. Since you cannot see the Truth on My position, why give you alternatives to using live worms? You think it is OK to use them.

My questions all make perfect rational sense. You just cannot accept the ramifications of same, and think of sensible answers.


You are pathetic. Fishermen have NOTHING to do with the OP. I will therefore not go off onto a tangent and argue something that is nothing to do with the OP. However, My revalations about fishing are 100% accurate, and I may post a fishing-sport Truth thread in future.

You cannot disprove what I said. I know what fishermen DO, inferior. I don't have to be a fisherman Myself. I cano show why a fisherman does what he does. You cannot say otherwise, because you admit you cannot know why a fisherman does what he does. I am not even refering to individual fishermen, anyway.



No, you have not. I found logical flaws in your reasons. They are moot. See (A) section for a better explanation.


Every argument you make presumes society is automatically right. What bias. Since it is not crucial, why is it neccesary to do it to a live worm? Or kill a worm to do it? Think, man.

[Inferior material cut down]




I showed how it is unjustified, so other actions are nothing to do with it. What other actions? You dont make sense.



These are matters of societal policy. I know why humans do the things they do in general, because I am a Superior Seer. Your reply is so basic and undetailed I cannot determine what it is supposed to mean.

Seer Travis Truman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 1:25pm:

I know you like to imagine yourself to be a superior thinker (as most schizophrenics and psychopaths do) but maybe you should read something of the Buddhist concept of mindfulness, which states that "accidentally" stepping on a snail is not necessarily a blameless act or free of karma, but rather an instance of a lack of mindfulness... Meaning that, had you been mindful of where you were walking, you may have avoided stepping on the snail.

Seer Travis Truman wrote on Sep 30^th, 2009 at 10:06am:

Maybe because they're not 'truths'... Just erratic opinions feverishly slapped up during a series of psychotic episodes.

But anyway, as you don't appear to be aware of the concept of mindfulness and its relationship to moral culpability your raving assertions lack the depth to be dignified as 'truth'.

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2009 at 9:40am:

Yes, according to Buddhist dogma you must be free of karma to achieve Nirvana... I guess we can't be too harsh on an ancient belief system with no knowledge of Micro-organisms, but having said that, modern Buddhism doesn't seem to absolve anyone from the burden of karma for having killed any life form (although apparently, being a Tibetan Buddhist which accepts the necessity of eating meat, the Dalai Lama is partial to a bacon sandwich... go figure ).

A woman I work with and a practising Buddhist told me she angsted for a long time about using pesticides to kill an aphid infestation that was screwing up her roses. She told me she meditated for weeks on the morality of spraying her garden and decided that in Buddhist terms it could not be justified... But she sprayed anyway. Her desire to experience the beauty of her roses, she told me, was greater than her duty to mindfully preserve life, thus burdening herself with karma in accordance with Buddhism's second noble truth.