RevBogovac

Yes, just like the Mongolian "Air Sacrifice"... Anyhow, that (realization) should actually bring us back to (the fundamental / Buddhist?) question: what's you doing? (Bringing us back in the here and now and the question if ET relates).

Yes, but that can be scientifically deduced... I thought this discussion was more about (Hahnemann's) homeopathy, which can not...

I feel this discussion is blurring the distinction between homeopathy (as founded by Samuel Hahnemann) and naturopathy (as provided by "mother Earth"...).

Yes, from a "biological" stand I would most likely concur with damnthing... and "we" would be so far apart from aliens that this whole discussion would be mute. But... And as Malmgren states in the quoted work above: So I was hoping for a discussion into that direction (as this thread is posted in " Eastern Religions & Philosophies" and more than the "biological" discussion we are having now...).

Have you ever owned a dog...? Even if they are a different species, and there is no formal way of communication, every (good) dog owner will tell you he "talked" with (not only to, but with) his dog. So - although both species are mammals - let's just for the sake of argument pretend ET would be kind of interested in us (other than for harvesting purposes). And the ET would also kinda be able to "understand" us (like for us a dog is ultimately an hedonistic creature which will go for his own pleasure most of the time but still be highly devoted to his "human")... I'd say; at least ask ET what he's (here to be) doing...? If he's here for harvesting, I'm sure the response will be crystal clear too...) But our first impressoin still is our own choice, isn't it?

Exactly! So better to start with questions then sending statements... right? If common ground could be found then, well that would be nice (and yes, the Aristotelian/Buddhist middle ground could be exactly that). Would be fun to see how we would redefine a "humanist" then...

Yup, c'est le ton qui fait la musique... Non-verbal communication s always the most important. Even inter-species, let alone intra-species (anyone who ever had a dog will recognise that)... I'd say most important would be open-mindedness and kindness (as they will be technologically way advanced over us if they were able to visit us)... A bit of Aristotelian/Buddhist "state of mind" conversation (open minded questions leading to better knowledge and understanding) never hurts (unless they're hostile but than no conversation will help us)...

I meant it quite literal:I would nicely say hi and ask what he (thinks he) is doing (here)... Kinda open minded conversation starter...

"Hi there! What's you doin?"

Thank you Jonathan! What happened? Nothing much... tried a bit of humour... invain. Please don't (think about it), just keep that ignore on... I'm pretty sure the Buddha also taught not to take everything that seriously...

Sure...

Unfortunately only a relatively small number (around 35% of the population) is enough (of a critical mass) to make reality turn really ugly really fast for all of us...

Thank you for putting a smile on my face... that was too lang ago...

I did... on a (much) smaller scale... it didn't end well... at least not for Yugoslavia.

Isn't ignorance a bliss...?

Who was it, that said: "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"...?

“A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky

And it's getting worse... we (my wife ad I) love sauna's and I've noticed more and ore people are wearing clothes to the sauna too. Or if you look at the gym's changing rooms more and more (young!) people are wearing their underwear into the shower!?!

Unfortunately a lot of the religious people are missing that line between reality and their belief system...

I agree 100% (see my 3rd point):

Yes, I concur with Jonathan on a lot of points. Basically, as I always put it: 1. people make mistakes, judges/states too and the death penalty is a hard thing to "correct"; 2. it is very impractical because if you want to do it "right" you have tu build in so many safeguards it's simply cheaper to give a life sentence; 3. it has nothing to do with justice/rehabilitation, actually... once you have put the person to death he couldn't care less (any more); 4. the few cases it actually does make sense are so rare it does not provide justification for the vast majority of cases (1 through 3). A more interesting point in my humble opinion is a "voluntary death penalty". In case: a Belgian prisoner for life had petitioned a transfer to a Dutch prison because in the Netherlands there is a law that provides for euthanasia for people who have prolonged, inhumane suffering without perspective on getting better. He wanted to argue that a life prison sentence is exactly that and he demanded the right to end his own life in a humane way...

Thank you. Yes, I agree... but it's good to have alternatives...

Do you have a link?

Which "tribal forum"...?