I'm not a Buddhist. .. — FrancisRay

Then how can you say I misunderstood Buddhism??

Rebuking or expressing disapproval - depends on the context. To not tolerate means to act, which act depends on the person. — Judaka

That means risking their revenge. How do you justify taking such a risk?

Of course. I still think that normally, the community will, in effect, side with the racist and expel the target of racism (as long as the target is in the minority). Again, the community needn't be racist, they're simply driven by not wanting trouble in the neighborhood. And the source of the trouble is the target of racism, not the racist.

But I have no wish to browbeat. You don't have to take my word for it. — FrancisRay

No. You said that I misunderstood Buddhism. It's on you to make your case.

No, I'm saying that having the avoidance of all suffering as a moral maxim is incoherent because moral maxims by their very nature, require at least some small degree of suffering to carry them out. — Isaac

Agreed, said maxim requires a further qualification.

Like it or not, that so many great minds, with a few exceptions of course, have been preoccupied by suffering says a lot about the way the world really is. — TheMadFool

What do you mean -- what does it say about the world that so many great minds have been preoccupied with suffering?

Such exceptionally talented thinkers would've been better employed and would've gotten better results doing something else e.g. trying to formuate a theory of everything.

Well, for comparison, in Buddhism, they say that there is suffering, that it has a cause, and that there is a way to undo that cause; they also say that suffering is something to understand.

What pairs of terms did they use, in their languages, respectively?

Ecstasy vs contentment. Joy vs happiness. Eudaimonia vs hedonia. — 180 Proof

Maybe this is an English language thing, to juxtapose joy and happiness this way.

I remember reading a story once about this person, a girl I'm not sure, who's planning a party. She makes a list of her friends and other people she wants to invite. It so happens that she knows someone, someone who she wants to invite, but soon realizes that that just won't work out - this person, for better or worse, doesn't get along with the other people already on the invite list. There's simply no way that this person will have fun at the party - outnumbered and disliked at the same time. She decides not to invite this person for the better. — TheMadFool

But how does this address the antinatalist scenario, given that you posted the story in reply to the OP question?

Still not seeing what any of this has to do with the issue. What's at stake is whether (to rephrase it in your terms) it is reasonable to have an expectation of the individual that they will care about the well-being of other individuals sufficiently to want to suffer minor inconvenience for their benefit. — Isaac

But who is who in this willingness to suffer minor inconvenience for the benefit of others?
And in what way?

Are you saying that the antinatalist should be willing to suffer minor inconvenience for the benefit of others (including those yet to be born)?
In what way?

since for me Buddhism is the Mahayana — FrancisRay

Have you taken the Secondary Bodhisattva Vows?

Joy is something one undergoes: it happens to us. — StreetlightX

And yet: "this makes me happy", "that makes me unhappy".

Without some formalized distinction, "joy" and "happiness" are interchangeable in many contexts.

Might it be true that you're distancing yourself from the people calling themselves Buddhists who you've met, rather than the teachings? — FrancisRay

There isn't one without the other.

I gained the impression that you had no complaints about the doctrine, only the fools you had encountered.

Maybe they are fools, but maybe they know the truth. Maybe the teachings in the Pali Canon were never meant to be taken at face value.

However, it might be better spent in more congenial company, by the sound of it, and perhaps another tradition would be more appealing. . .

Like you say:

My point is simply that in metaphysics there is no choice of paths. — FrancisRay

If it does neither, then it's not a moral, it's just 'whatever we wanted to do anyway'. — Isaac

So you exclude the possibility that the two can overlap?
If you do, on what grounds?

But unity against overwhelming odds inspires timeless legend. — Possibility

Oh. So one should set one's hopes on becoming a legend?

How is any of this an "anti-dote for suffering"??

A racist comment, speech or joke - don't tolerate that — Judaka

What does that look like, not tolerating racist comments, speech or jokes?
Can you give an example?

So you're saying that morality causes suffering?

Perhaps buy a gun? — Isaac

So much for "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others".

What good serves unity -- if not survival?

Where exactly is the dividing line?

Altruism, in the sense of cooperating with and helping others in your tribe would certainly materially benefit the tribe, and thus be a good survival strategy. But today, in our overpopulated world, protecting and sustaining those who cannot contribute or even help themselves is no longer a good survival strategy. The question is whether we should be concerned predominantly about serving the survival imperative, or about appeasing human ethical principles and feelings. — Janus

Yes.
Humanist morality is becoming something that fewer and fewer can afford.

The compromises made to our evolutionary defense structures and the steady increase in capacities such as altruism and diversity over millennia suggests that we’re not evolving for survival. We’re evolving to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

Increasing awareness, connection, and collaboration -- to what end? For their own sake?

What evidence do you have that we only have one lifetime? How is that a known thing? — RogueAI

Indeed.
This is one of the reasons why I think that the strongest position that the antinatalists can take is something like this:
"I do not want to cause any suffering to others." (Formulated in 1st person singular.)

Ie. focusing on the intention, on the desire not to cause suffering. This way, one also skirts all the issues of when exactly does a person come into existence, potential rebirth/reincarnation scenarios, calculations of how much suffering a potential new person is likely to experience etc.

Not sure your point... — schopenhauer1

It's a simple question. How has expressing your particular antinatalist stance worked out for you?
Are you happier now? Do people respect you more? ...

Although research reveals infants demonstrate a preference for caregivers of their own race — FrankGSterleJr

1. But is this already evidence of racism being innate?*
2. How do they even conduct such studies, given that experiments with infants can quickly become ethically prohibitive?


*Infants also show a preference for caregivers of the same language. Do you know of a study that contrasted the infants' preference for caregivers of the same language vs. the infants' preference for caregivers of the same race?

Do you believe that you are "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others" when you read posts here that you disagree with?
— baker

No, not particularly. Why do you ask? — Isaac

I want to see what you consider "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others".

I'd love for you to be in my shoes, to have a neighbor like I do. I really do. I want to see how you'd handle that.
— baker

What an odd thing to want.

Not at all. I want to put your humanist notions to the test, seeing how you'd deal with someone who doesn't care whether you live or die and who has no qualms about endangering your property and your person. And the authorities side with them!

A negligible price to pay.

Hardly. You would only ossify the very beliefs you oppose. And someone could use the same argument to expel the minority. — NOS4A2

It's what people do, every day, and it seems worth it to them. Just blame the victim, just blame the one who is worse off.

The chances seem to be that this new neighbor will inspire the community to expel the minority.
— baker

Fair enough - what belief are we expelling him for exactly? Could the neighbor retract that belief but still hang onto other offensive ones? — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure we understand eachother.
I'm saying that if you're black in a white neighborhood and a white supremacist moves in and tells you that you don't deserve to live, but that he will not take action against you, then, if this becomes known to the other neighbors, chances are that _you_ will be the one to get expelled. Not the new racist neighbor.

Not necessarily because your old neighbors would become racists, but because they don't want trouble.
People generally tend to blame victims and those that are in any way in trouble, and so they want to get rid of such disliked, troubled people.

But do you now understand why "so many otherwise intelligent, even scientifically & historically literate, people still fail to understand that Darwin was concerned with the evolution (i.e. origin) of species by natural selection vis-à-vis "survival of the fittest" and N O T the evolution (or dominance) of "rugged individuals"?

Doing something meaningful for others often provides purpose and healing for the helper. People dealing with depression, trauma and substance issues, for instance, can find healing in volunteering and community work that they may not get from counselling or introspection. Three decades of work in the area of addictions and mental ill health has demonstrated this to me many times. — Tom Storm

Which doesn't yet mean that healthy people benefit from volunteering etc.

The mentally unwell person needs to do a number of things in order to feel a measure of sanity and wellness; yet those things are not what normal people do in order to maintain their normalcy.

For example, a former smoker who is now practicing abstinence has to do a number of mental, verbal, and physical practices in order to successfully resist the urge to smoke (e.g. repeating affirmations, avoiding people who smoke, visiting a 12-step group). But a normal person who doesn't smoke doesn't need to do any of those practices in order not to smoke.

It's questionable whether one can become normal by doing those things that normal people don't do.

I see the unfairness of bringing suffering into the world and I am impelled to give my perspective due to this. — schopenhauer1

And how has that been working out for you?

On average individuals in groups survive much better against natural hazards — 180 Proof

Sure, what you say holds for natural hazards. But not for the dangers posed by other humans.
We're not in the wilderness.

I've always failed to understand why so many otherwise intelligent, even scientifically & historically literate, people stillfail to understand that Darwin was concerned with the evolution (i.e. origin) of species by natural selection vis-à-vis "survival of the fittest" and N O T the evolution (or dominance) of "rugged individuals"? — 180 Proof

That's easy. People try to derive lessons from facts, or from what are purported to be facts, for the purpose of their own benefit and advantage.
Touch a hot stove plate, you get burned -- fact. Lesson: don't touch hot stove plates.

What can one learn, for one's own benefit and advantage, from the theory of evolution? That one needs to see to it that one beats natural selection, as much as possible.

Expelling them is to rob the community, and the believer, of any chance of reconciliation, redemption and compromise. — NOS4A2

A negligible price to pay.

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? Do we expel them? — BitconnectCarlos

The chances seem to be that this new neighbor will inspire the community to expel the minority.

And that's IF you could show that weed affects driving with significant diminished safety which the data doesnt indicate. — DingoJones

If you end up in a wheelchair after being run over by a pot smoking driver, we can then have a discussion about the relevance of "significant enough" probabilities.

We have a natural anti-dote for suffering, this is what Schopenhauer forgets or ignores. — Caldwell

Really, what antidote is that?

What do you think this universe would look like? What do you think would happen to people? — Benj96

I suspect they'd all go crazy from having to operate with too many variables.

Their universe would look like one of those circular, self-referential M.C. Escher pictures.

No. I replied because you asked for 'anything else of interest', and so I tried to suggest your reasons for having problems with Buddhism were poor. . . — FrancisRay

Of course, Buddhists will typically say that I have distanced myself from Buddhism "for the wrong reasons" or that my "reasons for having problems with Buddhism were poor". Always blame me, what else.

But there were also Buddhists who told me flat out that I had no interest in the Dharma and that my time would be better spent in other pursuits.

The sticking point, and the point at which I'm afraid I have, and will, lose my civility, is this neo-liberal bullshit about individual harms being the only matter in moral decisions. I'm afraid I just find that kind of view toxic and can't just discuss it as if it were a reasonable option. We're social creatures, we don't just think for ourselves. Even a six month old child shows degrees of empathy and concern for others, it's deeply ingrained in our core being. It matters. I mean, how many great stories have been about people caring about their own suffering and screw everyone else? — Isaac

I'd love for you to be in my shoes, to have a neighbor like I do. I really do. I want to see how you'd handle that.

Hyper-individualistic notions like "why should I suffer any inconvenience for the sake of others" are toxic. Your philosophy boils down to the principle that we cannot expect anything, even the slightest inconvenience, from any individual, for the benefit of their community. — Isaac

There are not just a few people who believe that they suffer more than enough for "the community" because they put up with some particular person being alive and that they are doing this person a favor by not killing them. They also score as "normal" on a psych evaluation test. I've known such people.
"Toxic"? Yeah, right.

Do you believe that you are "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others" when you read posts here that you disagree with?