That’s not what the last couple of pages looks like, besides the “Biden good trump bad” comment. Another instance of NOS seeing what he wants to see.

They couldn’t be further apart. Epicurean materialism seeks freedom from fear, well-being, and verges on asceticism. It is therefore homeostatic in nature and sustainable. It is also based in reason and willing to follow wherever reason may lead, no matter how disconcerting.

My sense of humor has matured greatly since then.

Anyway, the incident may provide an example of the virtue of self-moderation. The so called yellow bellies ceased and desisted of their own accord and without bothering moderators.

Can't do much with unsubstantiated claims against unnamed posters but we obviously don't support trolling sprees by anyone and the debate here as far as I understand it is whether to extend the type of modding we apply to philosophical threads to political threads. — Baden

If I recall the incidents that Sky is referring to correctly, the cowardly ambush occurred in the territory where some topics go to die, namely the lounge. Moderation seems to be understandably lackadaisical in that section.

How sad it would be if this is the answers to the paradox. :cry:

a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad. — Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6

Not necessarily, no. A man of bad acts may see the harm he's caused and change his ways. Conversely, a man of good acts may become corrupt.

He becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds. — ThinkOfOne

Who can say what deeds are pure or bad? A religious authority. :grimace:

And here they say that a person consists of desires. — ThinkOfOne

They are stupid, a person is more than a collection of desires.

And as is his desire, so is his will; — ThinkOfOne

Not at all, we resist our desires all the time.

and as is his will, so is his deed; — ThinkOfOne

No, intention is not necessarily followed by action.

and whatever deed he does, that he will reap. — ThinkOfOne

Yeah no, people get away with shit all the time.


The trick is in having the power to define what is pure and what is evil to the cow-eyed masses. :roll:

9. Sentient life has a tendency to destroy itself.

Deliberately training yourself in some way or, as you say, self-conditioning your unconscious, is one thing and karma is another.

In the last paragraph of the OP you seem to suggest that your conception of karma is the pure original and what exist today is a corrupted version. That’s a remarkable claim, if that is your meaning.

You appear to be dismissing pre-Buddhist metaphysics.

My mistake, I only glanced at the quotation in the OP, not that that’s a good excuse. Nevertheless my point remains, there’s underlying metaphysics that you appear to be dismissing.
— praxis

Wouldn't that be the "underlying metaphysics" according to Buddhist doctrine? — ThinkOfOne

No, you pointed that out yourself.

It's as if your objection is that the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 don't fit with with the underlying concepts of Buddhist doctrine. Are you unaware that the Upanishads have been around much longer? So the pertinent question is how did Buddhist doctrine make that leap rather than how did I make that leap. Once again you have things backward. — ThinkOfOne

My mistake, I only glanced at the quotation in the OP, not that that’s a good excuse. Nevertheless my point remains, there’s underlying metaphysics that you appear to be dismissing.

No. Religious followers are devotedly at the mercy of their leaders whims and leaders with that much power tend to be corrupted by it.

In terms of homeostasis, Buddhism and stoicism may be similar though I think the latter may have the view that we are less in control than the former, Buddhism being of a religious nature and therefore including faith (in authority) and a good amount of magical thinking. Stoicism values reason.

He gets to express his anger but if you are not a mod then you don't! — universeness

The recent banning of StreetlightX should put this rumor to rest.

Perhaps you missed it but Banno suggested grouping athletes by factors like:

height or bodyweight or muscle mass index or blood testosterone levels — Banno

Unless I'm missing something, this should theoretically reduce the chance of injury due to mismatching.

a female transgender athlete will have a different, unchangeable bone structure but reduced amounts of upper body muscle as compared to what they used to have within one or two years. — ToothyMaw

You appear to be suggesting that a transwoman will have a performance ability somewhere between man and woman, if I’m reading between the lines correctly. If that’s the case then can a transwoman only compete fairly with other transwoman? Maybe Banno is right about the things he’s mentioned in this topic.

Can you point out these studies?

he acts in bad faith — baker

Being aggressive isn't acting in bad faith, but speaking of it, do you believe that you always act in good faith? You seem rather trollish at times and that makes it harder to take your criticism seriously.

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.