09-04-2005 18:15									#1
	want less crime? Enter the AD-FREE zone

It would be possible if we taught some of the basic principles of buddhism in primary/elementary education we could theorectically begin to remove a lot of crime and violence in a society over time.

How?

By the increasing number of people who are more aware of the techniques to deal with their: anger, jealousy and stress. All of which are major precursors to a lot of crime and violence.

What do you think?


I reckon it could work.

	09-04-2005 18:20									#2
	Remove this text

There is a reason for stress. THat should be reduced by looking at the factors creating stress and attacking those. Anger is natural. Principles of Buddhism. What's wrong with teaching kids to be tolerant and respect other people and their property and way of life? Teaching buddhims makes no difference to the kids who won't learn those basic values any better.

Want less crime? Raise the reasons to be happy. That means, build up the living conditions everywhere. Better life, no reason to do crimes, less hate and anger, less conflicts, and definitely less mental problems.

	09-04-2005 18:32									#3
	Support Apolyton

I'm all up for teaching them the Nyingmapa tradition of Buddhism. Get them spending the night in graveyards, sitting on decomposing corpses, playing with bones and eating raw meat, etc.

	09-04-2005 18:45									#4
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

In the US I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court would be forced to forbid teaching the Buddhist religion in public schools for the same reason it forbids the teaching of Christianity. For that matter Christianity minus the politicking of certain groups is a pretty pacifist religion and as a bonus does not religate women to the status of animals.

	09-04-2005 18:53									#5
	Tired of ads?

Hey, I have an even better idea! Let's teach scientology in schools! It will also relieve much of stresses of modern life, and will make students become intersted in the topics of their education.

	09-04-2005 18:57									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I for one vote for Hinduism, but then again McDonalds would pretty much torpedo that idea.

	09-04-2005 20:24									#7
	Increase Your PM Length

@ Pekka

Hinduism's anti-meat bent is a very recent ( historically ) phenomenon . There are instances in the original texts that cows were slaughtered when you entertained a guest of high stature , and that yu should eat the cow [i]because[[i] it is sacred .

In the coastal regions , Hidnuism has adopted , and there is no provision restricting the eating of seafood .

The anti-meat idea was introduced to prevent farmers from killing and eating their assets ( remember , in those agrarian days , cows and bulls were assets that are akin ot the tractors , harvertors , and other farm equipment of today ) , and thus being left destitute/landless/equipmentless when the famine ended .

So Mc Conalds might love the idea , if followed in it's original form - imagine having your fast food labeled sacred . I don't think the Hindu fundies would stand for such an ad campaign , though .

	09-04-2005 22:10									#8
	Re: want less crime? Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

In the U.S., we cannot advocate Buddhism qua Buddhism in the classrooms of public schools because it would be a governmental endorsement of religion.

quote: Originally posted by ashby By the increasing number of people who are more aware of the techniques to deal with their: anger, jealousy and stress. All of which are major precursors to a lot of crime and violence.

But teaching techniques to deal with anger, jealousy and stress? Most certainly. In fact, these techniques should be taught.

Right now, the only way children are taught to deal with problems is through sitcoms (insult the other guy) or action movies (blow them up).

	09-04-2005 22:16									#10
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm @ Pekka Hinduism's anti-meat bent is a very recent ( historically ) phenomenon . There are instances in the original texts that cows were slaughtered when you entertained a guest of high stature , and that yu should eat the cow [i]because[[i] it is sacred . In the coastal regions , Hidnuism has adopted , and there is no provision restricting the eating of seafood . The anti-meat idea was introduced to prevent farmers from killing and eating their assets ( remember , in those agrarian days , cows and bulls were assets that are akin ot the tractors , harvertors , and other farm equipment of today ) , and thus being left destitute/landless/equipmentless when the famine ended . So Mc Conalds might love the idea , if followed in it's original form - imagine having your fast food labeled sacred . I don't think the Hindu fundies would stand for such an ad campaign , though .

I thought that the prohibition against eating meat started with the Buddhists and was incorporated into Hinduism in response to the growing popularity of Buddhism.

	09-04-2005 22:20									#11
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

i was hoping the answer was "kill more people"

	09-04-2005 22:21									#12
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

aneeshm, thanks for the lesson. I didn't know any of this stuff. Learn something every day.. .. I still claim MCDonalds would not love the idea.

	09-04-2005 23:37									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove I thought that the prohibition against eating meat started with the Buddhists and was incorporated into Hinduism in response to the growing popularity of Buddhism.

That may have been one of the reasons . AFAIK , recurrent famine , and subsequent destitution was the chief cause .

Let us not forget that Hinduism has existed as an idea almost continuously from the dawn of Indian civilisation , and that at the time of its founding , vast stretches of southern India were virgin jungles , with no dearth of land , thus no problems with eating resource-intensive food like cows and other meat .

The pioneers and colonists who first settled the forests had to subsist on forage and meat - there was no way the jungle would allow farming unless it was cleared from within a sufficiently large area .

The tradition of offering wood and food on a sacrificial fire evolved from the practice of clearing jungles by cutting and burning a large number of days , and these sacrifices ( yagnas as they are called ) literally went on for days , sometimes months , and managed to clear large areas . That is why there was no need to conserve land - grazing space was abundant , and a cow or a few here or ther wouldn't really matter .

The same land , when occupied by an agrarian society , could not afford the loss of even a few cows .

Many here do not realise how dependent the farmers here were on cows for almost everything . Cow dung was used both as fertiliser and to coat mud/straw huts to cool them down a little during summers . Cow urine was used as disinfectant and as fertiliser . Cow milk was obviously used as food . Bulls and cows on plows were used to till the land . So losing a cow or bull was a great loss - it's like you've just lost a chunk of your machinery , source of fertiliser , and food .

So as to ensure that a farmer does not kill his cows and ultimately become destitute , this was introduced ( with , as said before , added pressure from Buddhism ) .

	09-04-2005 23:38									#14
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Want less crime?

Get rid of laws!

	10-04-2005 01:06									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm So as to ensure that a farmer does not kill his cows and ultimately become destitute , this was introduced ( with , as said before , added pressure from Buddhism ) .

It is more likely that religion made sacred what was already a traditional practice, don't eat your wealth.

	10-04-2005 01:40									#16
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Pekka There is a reason for stress. THat should be reduced by looking at the factors creating stress and attacking those. Anger is natural. Principles of Buddhism. What's wrong with teaching kids to be tolerant and respect other people and their property and way of life? Teaching buddhims makes no difference to the kids who won't learn those basic values any better. Want less crime? Raise the reasons to be happy. That means, build up the living conditions everywhere. Better life, no reason to do crimes, less hate and anger, less conflicts, and definitely less mental problems.

living conditions

In the U.S., we have the best living conditions in the world, and the most crime.

	10-04-2005 19:34									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Dissident living conditions In the U.S., we have the best living conditions in the world, and the most crime.

We don't have the most crime in the world, most countries not within the limited group considered "developed" have more crime than we do. We do have more crime than most of the other developed countries, i.e., Western Europe, Canada Australia, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. While it's true that the US is on average richer than the other developed countries, I think that we allow the less priviledged strata of our populace to live in a greater degree of uncertainty and stress than do the other developed countries.

	10-04-2005 23:54									#18
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove We don't have the most crime in the world, most countries not within the limited group considered "developed" have more crime than we do. We do have more crime than most of the other developed countries, i.e., Western Europe, Canada Australia, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. While it's true that the US is on average richer than the other developed countries, I think that we allow the less priviledged strata of our populace to live in a greater degree of uncertainty and stress than do the other developed countries.

I'll have to agree with you on that. Iraq probably has the most crime . African countries and certain latin american countries probably aren't much better.

	10-04-2005 23:56									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

City of God!

	11-04-2005 00:03									#20
	Support Apolyton

Surely the more you have, the more you want? Better living conditions would, in theory, make people less discontented and therefore less likely to commit crimes.

In reality though, so long as there were some people better off than others, those at the 'bottom' would still be driven to crime even if realistically they weren't having to go without anything. Social injustice seems to be around however rich the country is.

Buddism does sound a generally peaceful and 'let live' philospphy of life...but then I'd rather have a generation of criminals and disaffected rebels than low crime rates and a totally brainwashed population.

	11-04-2005 00:04									#21
	Re: want less crime? Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by ashby It would be possible if we taught some of the basic principles of buddhism in primary/elementary education we could theorectically begin to remove a lot of crime and violence in a society over time. How? By the increasing number of people who are more aware of the techniques to deal with their: anger, jealousy and stress. All of which are major precursors to a lot of crime and violence. What do you think? I reckon it could work.

Vote Natural Law on May 5th!

	11-04-2005 00:05									#22
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Actually, there is no linear correlation between material wealth and crime. There is a certain correlation between wealth and happiness, but happiness stagnates at some point.

	11-04-2005 00:18									#23
	Re: Re: want less crime? Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler Right now, the only way children are taught to deal with problems is through sitcoms (insult the other guy) or action movies (blow them up).

Sad, but true.

	11-04-2005 00:23									#24
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I will continue to fight against the commies argument that living conditions and lack of wealth cause crime.

As Lancer will tell you, the people in that Philappines village of his are poor, but yet they have a strong family structure, and have relatively low crime rates.

A strong family structure is important. Argh, I sound like a conservative here. But I do think the U.S. lost something when our family structure broke apart. It's the only plausible explanation why our crime rate skyrocketed in the 20th century. As even in the 19th century, people in the U.S. had deplorable living conditions, but didn't have a crime rate to match.

	11-04-2005 01:27									#25
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Ohh like the family structure hasn't broken in other countries? Who does most crime in the US? Let's take their yearly income and see. US does not have the best living conditions, when it comes to poor people. And there's a lot of poor people in the US. Is it a cause for crime? Yes. But it's not the only cause for crime. Just one of them.

	11-04-2005 02:33									#26
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Pekka Ohh like the family structure hasn't broken in other countries? Who does most crime in the US? Let's take their yearly income and see. US does not have the best living conditions, when it comes to poor people. And there's a lot of poor people in the US. Is it a cause for crime? Yes. But it's not the only cause for crime. Just one of them.

I would be surprised if Europe had as many divorces and single mothers as in the U.S.