[Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 11:52 -0400, curt wrote:

> My argument all along has been quite simply that pacifism has never been 
> a part of Buddhism as it has actually been practiced in Asia for 2500 
> years. There is no straw man there.

I was trying to give your the benefit of the doubt, but you are
obviously opposed to my letting you off the hook. I withdraw the
accusation that you committed the straw man fallacy and replace it with
the claim that you are saying something that is surely false and may be
at odds with what you have stated elsewhere. 

A claim that you have made before is that there are many, perhaps even
countless, approaches to Buddhism, one of which is Pacifist Buddhism.
You now seem to be saying that during the past 2500 years no one has
been a pacifist; I guess that's what you mean by saying that pacifism
has never been a part of Asian Buddhism. That is simply false. But let
us, for the same of discussion, pretend that it is true. If it is true,
then we can only conclude that you think if Pacifist Buddhism exists at
all, it exists only in the West and in Asian settings that has been
influenced by the West. Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to
grant that claim, you dismissal of modern Western pacifist Buddhism as
somehow out of line with Asian tradition now seems potentially at odds
with your claimed willingness not to be overly influenced by traditional
teachings and interpretations.

> Sometimes the "straw man argument" is the real straw man.

You have misrepresented my position and attacked the misrepresentation.
That is what is meant by the straw man fallacy. But that is a minor
point. A more important point is that you seem to like to talk just to
hear the wind whistle through your teeth. If you ever become interested
in serious discussion, let me know. We'll talk. (I'm using the word
"talk" figuratively to cover other forms of communication.)

-- 
Richard Hayes