Only a veneer? See, that's the problem: setting one's expectations so low. — baker

I thought the problem was being stabbed in the face for writing a book.

We should all respect people’s identities even if we are made uncomfortable by them, and this issue is almost totally unrelated to trans women in sports. If you cannot wrap your head around that you are being stupid - not bigoted, but rather stupid. — ToothyMaw

In considering the issue people often fail to take into account that trans women in sports undergo hormone therapies that make them physically more like women.

Adamski was much, much less "aggressive" toward Hanover in the Rushdie thread than I was. — T Clark

Maybe true but you tell better jokes.

I was referring to the underlying concepts of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6. How was that "quite a leap"? It's pretty much a distillation of what it says. — ThinkOfOne

Because the underlying metaphysics include concepts like the twelve link chain of dependent origination, etc etc.

How is it "obviously..not the case" in regards to "pretty much all unconscious desires and behaviors"? — ThinkOfOne

I might have a better idea of where to begin if you explained more, if only a little.

So if true, what does this matter? Any unfortunate ripening seems to be predestined, right? — Tom Storm

It matters because it puts the reasons for your fate in the hands of religious authority. If you question that authority, for instance, that authority may explain that the eventual result of their being questioned by you is you being reborn as a dung beetle. It also matters in regards to social status and upward mobility if you happen to deserve being, for example, an untouchable in the Middle East.

Karma necessarily includes what we have no control over, which in reality is a great deal. Why was I born into a particular set of conditions? Buddhism says it’s the ripening of past karma. Why am I on this jet that’s doomed to crash? Buddhism says it’s the ripening of past karma.

Essentially the concept is that the unconscious mind is conditioned by ones thoughts and actions. — ThinkOfOne

That’s quite a leap. How exactly were you able to make it?

And, most importantly, it can be reconditioned. Ultimately ones unconscious mind is the result of self-conditioning.

Obviously it is not the case that our unconscious is ultimately self-conditioned, though we certainly can consciously condition it to an extent.

Your interest is no concern of mine so there is no reason for you to express sorrow or regret.

We have no choice but to conclude from your silence on the matter that mentioning the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case (the link is bad, btw) is in no way intended to somehow imply support for the notion that atheism is a religion or religion-like and your reason for pointing out the case has become one of the great TPF mysteries that we must face alone and without your kindly assistance.

What I talked about is Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. — Alkis Piskas

Why? What does it have to do with defining religion? The implication seemed to be that mentioning it somehow supports the notion that atheism is a religion or religion-like. If that’s not the intended implication then fine.

Yes, and you also wrote:

atheism is more than just related to religion — Alkis Piskas

What exactly do you mean by that? Simply that it’s necessarily treated like one under the First Amendment?

A better question: why did you point out the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals pdf in the first place?

To be honest I only skimmed the article for something that corresponded to my interest in something you said, though you’re post touches on several points of interest. I should have given it more attention :grimace: , but in my defense I’ve read similar articles recently.

Socialization is the most important part of keeping away Alzheimer’s and dementia, and keeping your memory.

I wonder if written online stimulation/socializing like here at TPF counts in this way.

Perhaps that's part of the reason why a horror like Trump can become president. — universeness

To put it bluntly, I think the reason Trump can become president is because many Americans are ignorant. Not that our other choices are much better.

Atheism must be treated like a religion under the First Amendment. The establishment clause not only prohibits governments from directly establishing a religion, but also prohibits them from favoring one religion over another or religion over nonreligion.

Even if he can't gain high political office in the USA, he might become just as dangerous, if he gains more and more followers and can then influence who they vote for in the USA. — universeness

We Americans try not to deplatform anyone because they may influence elections, ideally, unless it's from a hostile foreign power.

I just wonder if he is trying to build enough of a following that he could throw his hat into the political ring in the USA. — universeness

I thought he was Canadian.

I'm tempted to talk about the specifics but the larger picture, as I see it, is that JP is a brand and all this crap is totally on-brand for him and his particular audience (market segment). I'm glad there are folks like Matt and Jimmy who are there to tear it down.

The thing that really bugs me about people like JP is when they talk about how bad it is for the county to be divided the way it is, as if they're not selfishly contributing to its division.

Then, we have: Agnosticism, Atheism, Jainism and Taoism
(The first two are considered as faiths or beliefs, but they still carry the concept and attribute of "religion".) — Alkis Piskas

Agnosticism and atheism aren't generally considered religions if that's what you meant to say. If that is what you meant to say, can you explain?

This thread was an attempt to invoke discussion regarding TPF moderation against twitter moderation or youtube moderation, just as a topic for dialogue. — universeness

I just watched the Perterson video about his twitter suspension so that I might better understand the comparison. I didn't know, or I forgot, what that was about. He was suspended for tweeting:

Remember when pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.

Twitter insists that it be deleted for violating the rules against hateful conduct, which are that "you may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of... gender, gender identity, ..."

It seems the suspension will be lifted if he deletes the post, but laughably, in the video Peterson says that "I would rather die than do that," so he considers it a ban.

My general impression of JP's video is that it's all theatrics. If I remember right, his initial rise to fame surrounded an issue like this and it seems to me that he's milking this twitter suspension for all it's worth. I even suspect that a Twitter action may have been part of the plan all along.

There are four points in his tweet that are... I'll say controversial, and he covers each of them.

Remember when pride was a sin?
Pride in this context is self-affirmation, promotion of equality, and attempts to counter shame and social stigma. Conservatives are known to take pride in things, such as being an American. In fact, they often criticize liberals for having weak national pride and claim that they hate America.

He refers to page as her and Ellen rather than Elliot
Refusing this kind of consideration is what initially rose him to fame so it seems he's merely playing the same winning tune.

Criminal physician
His rhetoric and reasoning are particularly bizarre on this point. Experimental Nazi surgeries, really? :lol:

Anyway, I don't think that if someone posted here at TPF what JP tweeted that any action would be taken against them, but I'm not entirely sure.

I was threatened with banning once for allegedly expressing bigotry. I would characterize it more as devils advocacy. In any case, the threatening moderator has since been banned for rudeness and bigotry, so go figure.

I think some topics are very emotive and moderation should take more account of that before they threaten with the Banno, I mean ban reaction. — universeness

You’re displeased with the moderation? If so, I’m curious and interested in seeing an instance of what you regard as heavy handed or whatever.

Btw, your OP in this topic is somewhat unclear and apparently not of a philosophical nature so I can easily see why it was moved to the lounge area (to die). Here’s a link to a good guide for producing an OP: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op

So does that mean that you don't mind heated debate and the use of one or two insults between relatively anonymous people here on TPF? — universeness

I generally don't mind it but circumstances vary widely, of course, and I can imagine debates where insults are too disruptive or counterproductive.

Do you think the moderation here is over the top at times? — universeness

No.

That's why I wanted folks to listen to the words/terms thrown at Jordan by Matt and Jimmy and also some of the terms used by Jordan towards twitter and asses whether their choice of phrase attracted you more to the video or repelled you more. — universeness

I find practically everything that comes out of JP's mouth repellent. And as I mentioned, I didn't care for the way Matt & Jimmy were talking about JP in his absence. In the brief part I watched, a randomly chosen spot about a third of the way through it, they were smugly calling him a prick for something. Granted he is a prick. I guess because they were taking him so seriously to begin with and the smugness is what bugged me.

I think people who find it hard to multi-task may find that difficult, but my reasoning is sound, which is that we need to move toward a more multi-dimensional modality of conveying information, not just text, not just words, imagery too! — intrapersona

Have you ever been watching a movie and sudenly noticed the soundtrack because it was some how off or too overbearing? I guess being aware of a movie and its soundtrack at the same time is multi-tasking.

The buddhist monk attaining nirvana, which is unified in its qualities of consciousness with other monks or even sages who have attained moksha (liberation from delusion) requires no logical proof of its truth about reality. For its truth is attained only within the ontology it is sought within and needs no further justification. Perhaps that is why our human thought, philosophy and scientific progress has so many loose ends, we have simply come to a rabbit hole with no end. — intrapersona

The cessasion of suffering is proof of nirvana. Everything else is, as you put it so well, a rabbit hole with no end.

I just found it a funny coincidence, both attacks having occured within a day of each other and both being related to the power of theocracy and wannabe theocracy.

Funny. It’s also funny that on the day before the Salman attack a man attacked the FBI armed with an assault rifle. This man was also at the January 6th assault on the Capital.

Many Trumpists openly advocate for the establishment of a Christian theocracy in the US.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/13/extremists-like-marjorie-taylor-greene-are-the-future-of-the-republican-party

That's true what it says, but, as noted in other threads, there's no evidence of any actual stonings or biblically mandated death penalties in the past 2,000 + years. — Hanover

:chin: Really? Historical events like the Inquisition immediately come to mind.

In all fairness, no religion cares much for the blasphemous.

Leviticus 24:16 says, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.”

My question:

Was the attack on Salman Rushdie consistent with mainstream Muslim theology?
— Hanover

Is the final answer: Yes to Shia Muslims, no to Sunni Muslims?

Or is there another distinction I've missed with my Western eyes? — Hanover

Your question asks about mainstream Muslim theology and mainstream Muslim theology applies to all Muslims, or rather, what is common to all sects of Islam. Blasphemy in Islam is an impious utterance or action concerning God, Muhammad, or anything considered sacred in Islam. The Quran admonishes blasphemy but does not specify any worldly punishment for it.

I'm sure it's been mentioned that Muslim clerics may call for the punishment of an alleged blasphemer by issuing a fatwā.

According to Islamic sources Nadr ibn al-Harith, who was an Arab Pagan doctor from Taif, used to tell stories of Rustam and Esfandiyār to the Arabs and scoffed at Muhammad. After the battle of Badr, al-Harith was captured and, in retaliation, Muhammad ordered his execution in hands of Ali, who was a cousin, son-in-law, and companion of Muhammad.

The following is a depiction of Nadr ibn al-Harith's punishment in the presence of Muhammad.

I watched a few second of the video and in those few seconds it was off-putting to me because:

1) There were people taking JP seriously.

2) The people taking JP seriously were making insulting comments about him. That’s surprises me because I don’t usually mind that sort of thing.

I would be interested in your general opinion of the usefulness of angry exchanges between people to YOU as a reader and observer. — universeness

I’m a little confused because as far as I can tell there is no “exchange”. The video you linked to, of which I briefly skimmed, appears to be a couple of guy’s ridiculing a ridiculous JP video.

My Theory X isn’t anything to write home about and is quite worthless.

Collectivist in ways that matter, such as, again, being based on egalitarian social relations and common ownership. Not based on, for instance, a twisted sense of human nature where we’re continually bent on competition for resources and social status.

AOC is the devil incarnate for the Right though. On the other hand, what’s really the point of a moderate other than maintaining how things already are when things could be better. Things could could be a hell of a lot better.

A place to share ideas or theories. If I developed a theory about something, say a theory that I called Theory X, I could submit said theory for review on a forum that is most relevant to Theory X. Others could read my theory and, depending on how it is received, applaud it, criticize it, laugh at it or express other non-linguistic feelings, or simply ignore it. In such a case a question could be asked, although, and this is the point, it could be that no questions are asked.

At any rate, and in effect, it always turns out that the “interests of the collective” are only the interests of a portion of the collective, usually those individuals with the power and prestige to act as the mind and mouth of the people they feign to speak for. Other portions, those not of the ruling portion, are subordinate to them. Other portions still, those who dissent or fall into an enemy class, are imprisoned, enslaved, or worse. So much for the collective. — NOS4A2

This is actually profoundly wrong. For the vast majority of history, sapiens lived as hunter-gatherers, collectivist groups based on egalitarian social relations and common ownership.

I wonder if his TPF account was hacked? — jgill

I hope this isn’t too silly of a question but why would anyone bother to do that? :chin:

I remember when Mayael requested the following consideration of me:

all I ask is that you try to talk to others over the internet the same way your mother makes you talk to people in real life — MAYAEL

So I assume that mom was a homophobe as well.

With great difficulty. — Bartricks

I imagine that a hemispherectomy ain’t no walk in the park either.

Daniel raises a salient point; how does one maintain a erection after a boner is divided?

The only extended thing that begins with a b that you can conceive of is a banana? — Bartricks

How about boner.