--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > My question is more fundamental -- do you *really* think > > > > > it's a good idea to present meditation as something that > > > > > people are SENTENCED TO? > > > > > > > > > > I mean really...think this through... > > > > > > > > As part of a parole or equivalent agreement? Sure, as long > > > > as it is voluntary and there is a compliance component of > > > > some kind. If the sentence is mandatory, then its silly. > > > > You can't prove that someone is meditating anyway, unless > > > > you hook them up to machines constantly. > > > > > > Would you consider making it mandatory if there *was* > > > a simple way to prove whether they were meditating > > > or not, and thus force compliance? > > > > If there were a simple way to force compliance, > > it wouldn't be meditation. <duh> > > > > And in any case, the question is a non sequitur. > > > > Which words in "Sure, as long as it's voluntary" > > and "If the sentence is mandatory, then it's silly" > > did you overlook in your eagerness to set up a > > putdown? > > I think you missed his response, in which he > he said, "I suppose there COULD be extreme > cases where 'mandatory TM' might be justifiable."
No, sorry, you missed what he said in his original post--that he thinks the program makes sense only if it's voluntary--and you're ignoring the fact that your question was idiotic on its face. > That's all I wanted to know. No, sorry, that isn't what you wanted to know. You misread what he wrote in your eagerness to set up a putdown, as I said, and you didn't get the response you were hoping for. > At least he had the balls to admit it, however > loathsome a position it is. Gotta do something about those fantasies, Barry. They're corroding your brain.
