It means what it says. — AmadeusD

If you can’t say anything about it that appears to mean it’s basically meaningless to you—just empty words.

I love everyone. ... I will not lie to someone i love — AmadeusD

Okay, that’s one meaningful indicator of what it means to love everyone—you don’t lie.

If you check with politifact or some other fact checking organization there are many instances of claims made by Charlie Kirk that are judged to be false. Just typical MAGA stuff like about the 2020 election, Covid, climate change, etc. There is often a gap between political rhetoric and objective fact, to put it mildly, and it's obvious that Charlie was fully immersed in the game of politics—worse, MAGA politics.

No heavy judgment, but if loving everyone means not lying, well, Charlie's love seems to have been rather shallow.

Do you lie? Just from your last couple of posts…

you've claimed to know both his [Charlie Kirk], and his followers hearts — AmadeusD

Where have I claimed that?

I'm merely trying to sort out unfair charges (in my view). In this case, fairly egregious and used to support justifications for absolutely disgusting stuff like being ambivalent to his murder (or pretending his activities were anywhere in the same universe as his murder). — AmadeusD

I'm justifying ambivalence to his murder and pretending that his quote about trans abomination is as morally wrong as his assassination?

i have, at least, listened to him outside of manipulative sound bites. You, self-admitted, have not — AmadeusD

I admitted to watching the godawful Williams video that you suggested I watch. I admitted to suffering through it twice, in fact.

Williams is talking about hte Newman effect as a tool critics use - assuming the worst in others.

You're doing that right now. He did not. — AmadeusD

He was supporting Kirk's claim that Michelle Obama and other black women "do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously," etc. That seems to be assuming the worst in them. He did not try to show their lack of intelligence, he just took it for granted.

You are predestined to justify reactionary irrationality [assassination] because you've bought the biased media narrative about Kirk. — AmadeusD

I am?

He didn't mention that [in the video, Williams didn't mention the incident of Kirk saying the trans athlete is an abomination to God] because... — AmadeusD

What follows after because is an indecipherable word salad. The truth is you don't know why he didn't mention it, right?

Anyway, if you and Kirk love everyone that means you love people who, for instance, rape and murder innocent children. That seems deranged. But I can see it to be true on a spiritual or transendent level, and also perhaps on a theological level.

Was Charlie spiritually or theologically advanced?

From what I could find he had no formal religious training, just sort of a DIY Bible guy. He didn't even belong to any particular congregation, and it's unclear if he even went to church regularly. And as I mentioned, his academic career consisted of a short time at community college.

In this light, isn't it rather self-aggrandizing to say that you love everyone—that you're so spiritually advanced that you can transcend the conventional world of good and evil?

He routinely said he loves everyone. Are trans people not people? — AmadeusD

I would be fascinated to hear what you think loving everyone means, if you’re able to take the question seriously.

You are caught up on a matter which is trivial… — AmadeusD

The story is that Kirk was killed because he spread hate, and we might assume perceived hatred towards transgender people was particularly egregious to Kirk’s assassin, being that he had a trans lover. So to me the quote I’m caught up on seems quite significant.

Williams, btw, said in the video that he reviewed hundreds of clips of Kirk searching for offensive things Kirk may have said and he didn’t mention the transgender abomination thing. That’s telling.

He did [Charlie Kirk publicly stating that he loves transgender people] — AmadeusD

:lol: If he did it would be easy to find.

No worries, mate, I'll walk you through it and explain it as simply as I can. If you still don't understand DM me and I'll try to help further.

I wouldn't normally watch the Williams video again but I was doing zone 2 training on a spin bike when I read your message so I figured why not.

Where we started is with you responding to my quoting Kirk's comment about trans being an abomination to God. You wrote:

He did not outline any personal view, or suggest that trans people are not loved by God and was always extremely clear that no matter what he thinks of people's choices and lifestyles, he loves them and wishes them the best. — AmadeusD

Kirk deadnamed (very offensive and he knew it was offensive) a trans athlete and said that they are an abomination to God. He didn't say that God loves that person, he said that they're an abomination to God, which means that God is disgusted by them and hates them. That's what 'abomination' means.

His audience cheered appreciatively at these remarks.

You say that Kirk loved people regardless of what he thought of their choices and lifestyles. How could you possibly know the heart of another person? Have you even met Kirk?

I did a search for "Did Charlie Kirk ever say that he loved transgender people?" and couldn't find anything. If he loved them regardless of their choices and lifestyles then why didn't he say it? That would have been really powerful, and it would have shown a loving spirit. He would probably have lost a lot of his audience and income, but it would have shown a loving spirit.

As I mentioned, I took another look at the Williams video and it's even worse the second time around. The first time I missed where he was defending Kirk saying that Michelle Obama and other black women "do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to be taken somewhat seriously… It’s very obvious to us that you were not smart enough to be able to get in on your own. I could not make it in on my own, so I needed to take opportunities from someone more deserving."

Michelle Obama graduated salutatorian from High School, Got a BA at Princeton, and then received her Juris Doctor (JD) from Harvard Law School. After graduation she was a lawyer at a top-tier international law firm before moving on to public service.

Kirk was a community college dropout and he's criticizing her intelligence?! Williams defends what Kirk said, saying that it was Kirk's opinion, and he then tries to support Kirk's opinion.

Williams academic and work career also pales sharply in comparison to Michelle Obama's.

I've mentioned how Williams demonstrates what he calls the "Newman effect" in the same video he criticizes it. I suppose he gets away with it because he knows that his audience will not be critical of anything he says.

Anyway, again, if any of this is unclear just DM me and I'll see if I can help.

Watch the video again. Williams completely ignores all admittance considerations beside academic metrics. He reduces the Harvard admittance process to the shallow slogan "melanin over merit."

A Buddhist told me that all divisions are both illusory and real.

I've read the OP and conclude that the debate is sexistential.

I'll leave y'all to it.

Whatever word you like best. — Hanover

I will, thanks.

Don’t you mean heterodox rather than liberal? Liberal seems too ideologically divergent.

Which religions are the liberal ones?

Of course it is. If someone tells you to steal from someone else, and you do it, is that not theft? — Philosophim

Exurb didn’t request to be trolled or to troll others. The request was for distraction. My impression is that it was suggesting some distraction/levity might help to calm the mood. Calm minds tend to be more reasonable.

Do you have anything to say about the OP?

I'm not inclined to read it, now.

I'm appealing to you proving me wrong on you being a troll. The cat video is enough to prove otherwise. — Philosophim

Posting a video of cat silliness to distract a fellow debater after they requested distraction is trolling?

Lol, while they have stated they definitely are not Buddhist or believe their beliefs they do seem to have an extreme interest in supporting them beyond an interested layperson.

I don't think it matters if they are believers or not, and I take them at their word they are not. — unimportant

We’ve been preaching to the choir the whole time and didn’t realize it. Silly us. :lol:

Have a read of the suttas contained in SN 15. Belief in literal rebirth was indeed seen as a motivator. — boundless

You haven’t read the chapters and can’t point out where it says that?

I hope I clarified what I meant and I also hope that I clarified that I am not writing these posts just for the sake of being a 'contrarian' or being obscure for the sake of being obscure or whatever. — boundless

It seems clear to me that you're simply trying to faithfully support your religious beliefs.

It's curious that in your last post you're largely arguing against yourself. For instance, here you write:

And, I should add that curiously I never found an instance of a pre-20th century Buddhist who denied rebirth. No 'early Buddhist school' (either inside the Mahayana or the 'non-Mahayana') I am aware of denied it. Conversely, you find many discourses attributed to the Buddha in which he explicitly refers to it and even discourses (as the 15th collection of the Samyutta Nikaya I qouted in my earlier posts) in which the Buddha seems pretty clear in using the belief in samsara as a motivator for practice. — boundless

You say the Buddha is clear about belief in samsara (not particularly rebirth) as a motivator for practice, and make other references to direct experience, such as this:

Good, good, bhikkhu! These three feelings have been spoken of by me: pleasant feeling, painful feeling, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. These three feelings have been spoken of by me. And I have also said: ‘Whatever is felt is included in suffering.’ That has been stated by me with reference to the impermanence of formations. — SN 36.11, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation, my emphasis

No one is denying that rebirth is considered Right View in Buddhism. Views change, however, indeed all things change, right?

A classic example of changing views and those revised views not effecting practice is a compass. Some ancient peoples had rather superstitious views about how a compass worked, yet the practice of using one is essentially the same as it is today. The modern 'right view' of how a compass works doesn't make a compass less effective, and it is no less, uh, motivational.

Once again I can’t make sense of what you’re saying. I made it explicitly clear that I was referring to what you posted. This:

The noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering. — SN 56.34, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation

That can’t be “suffering as we mean it in our culture” because our culture didn’t yet exist. Are you trying to say that it’s a bad translation? If so, wasn’t it a mistake to post it, at least without making a note of the bad translation?

Perhaps you mean that the meaning of suffering has been entirely lost?

Unexpectedly, we seem to be in complete agreement that the cessation of suffering is not the point of Buddhism.

Alright, we'll set aside my suggestion that religions function and fulfill various needs in ways that most people don't realize and focus on the ultimate promise of Buddhism which is, as you point out, the cessation of suffering. If that's the goal then the practice would essentially be to condition, or rather de-condition, ourselves in such a way that we don't suffer.

Is Buddhism actually particularly good at achieving this goal? I'm skeptical. And, I'll regurgitate the old saying that it's easy to be a holy man on the top of a mountain.

Rebirth has to do with the supposed structure or metaphysics of suffering. I don't understand why that would be motivational. If nirvana is the carrot, suffering itself is the stick.

For me, "practice" is too broad a brush to be meaningful here. Religious practice has many facets/goals – I think more than most people realize. For instance, it may be fair to say that people have a desire for meaning in their lives and religious practice may help fulfill that need. Religious practice can help attain that state of fulfillment. They achieve that goal regardless of their state of *enlightenment*... and regardless of their ability to endure pain with composure.

I am wondering if one who practices and doesn't believe in any of that could attain similar earthly results to the above knowing this life is their one and only shot. — unimportant

There are scientific studies that indicate meditation practices help with pain management. I don’t think this is controversial.

I don’t think self-immolation is a sanctioned Buddhist destination, btw.

At the end of the day, it must be something more than a mere intellectual convinction. If it was just that, then, all people who believe that the "self is an illusion" would have some kind of 'enlightenment' in the Buddhist sense. — boundless

This part makes sense. :up:

If you believe that you only live once, can you really believe in the doctrine of 'non-self'? I mean, if you believe that you live only once, you perhaps tend to think that you are an 'unique' entity. So, I'm not sure that you can be convinced (not just intellectually but in a deeper level) of that doctrine if you do not believe in rebirth. — boundless

This doesn’t make any sense to me. Can you explain? You believe that there are no unique entities? If that were true we couldn’t distinguish individual things or entities.

If you believe there are levels of attainment and a destination it seems you’ve already drank much of the Kool-Aid.

This is a genuine thing, not my suggesting something about you - if you're willing to see Charlie for what he actually was, and see his utterances in context and without specious commentary, you may find this interesting. It was one factor that made me realise my understanding of Kirk as hateful was woefully inaccurate. It is an analysis from a Christian perspective, which is important - but also from a Kirk critic (in his lifetim). — AmadeusD

I didn't say that Kirk was a racist, fascist, natzi, homophobe, transphobe, or claim that his personal view is that trans people are awful and shouldn't exist. I simply quoted him saying to a cheering audience:

"You hear that William Thomas? You're an abomination to God."
–– Charlie Kirk

That being the case, I don't know what relevance the Williams video has. Maybe projection? It's funny that Williams goes on and on about what he calls the "Newman effect" in the video but around halfway through he unwittingly demonstrates a glaring example of it himself. He reduces the Harvard admittance process to "melanin over merit," completely ignoring all admittance considerations beside academic metrics. No selective U.S. colleges use only academics and Harvard has always argued that academic metrics alone were not enough to fairly choose between many extremely highly qualified applicants. Also, if his concern is actually unfair college admittance practices, why can't I find him criticizing legacy admissions, donor preferences, athlete recruitment, or wealth-based advantages?

In the end of the video Williams says that he loves people who have more melanin than he does. Unfortunately it appears that that love is as shallow as his cheap "melanin over merit" slogan.

At an anti-sexual assault event in 2018 Biden said, in context of Trump boasting about pussy grabbing, "They asked me if I’d like to debate this gentleman, and I said 'no.' I said, 'If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.'"

You claimed that "Biden literally, more than one, suggested he would try to physically assault Trump if given the chance."

Do you understand the difference between "if we were in high school" and "assault Trump if given the chance"? The former is an impossible hypothetical scenario. To those not biased against Biden it's simply a way of expressing condemnation of Trump boasting about sexual assault.

A 2023 trial by a jury of his peers found that Trump had sexually assaulted author E. Jean Carrol, if you recall.

It's astonishing that you think Biden is the bad guy in this situation.

"You hear that William Thomas [deadnaming Lia Thomas]? You're an abomination to God."
–– Charlie Kirk

The congregation applauds.

Assuming he is 'wrong' is anti-philosophical. — I like sushi

Indeed, a wise man once said that there are no mistakes, only happy accidents.

Christians believe we are all, every single one (not just Jews and believes but all human beings), God’s children. — Fire Ologist

Charlie Kirk pointed out that God thinks trans are abominations. Kinda worse to be hated by your dad than a stranger.

I have a theory that the driving force behind progressivism is compassion. Therefore, progressives who have no compassion are fooling themselves. They're just trying to own the higher moral ground without the morality to go with it.

True? — frank

It’s silly to think that anyone other than a sociopath can be without compassion or morality. My theory is that people on the top should be conservative because they should want to conserve a system that works for them and people on the bottom should be progressive because they should want to change a system that's not working for them. In accordance with this theory we should be highly skeptical of rich progressives and we should pity the foolishness of poor conservatives.

Sometimes trolls try really hard to get you to respond to them. Toxic stuff. — frank

It’s rather telling that AmadeusD doesn’t take issue with Trump boasting about sexual assault (pussy grabbing) but does take issue with Biden’s condemnation of sexual assault and his hypothetical punishment for it.

There is literally no chance that Biden can go back in time to high school and beat Trumps ass. :lol:

I like his Trump/Reiner and Biden/Kirk compassion comparison. Reiner was a harsh critic of Trump and Kirk was a harsh critic of Biden so I think it's a fair equivalency.

Reiner said that Trump is a mentally unstable sociopath, a traitor, and similar comments.

Kirk said that Biden was a corrupt tyrant and should be given the death penalty for crimes against America, in addition to other criticisms and calls to action.

When Kirk was murdered Biden posted the following statement:

“There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk’s family and loved ones.”
–– Joe Biden on X

When Reiner was murdered Trump posted the following statement:

"A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!"
–– Donald Trump on Truth Social

I think it's fair to say that the Trump response does not express compassion and that the Biden response does.

Also, no elected Democrat official, formal Democratic Party leader, or political pundit publicly celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk.

I mean, Biden literally, more than one, suggested he would try to physically assault Trump if given the chance, and not a President. — AmadeusD

This is a blatant lie. Biden said something about giving Trump a beating behind the gym in High School, presumably to beat the lecherous 'pussy grabbing' out of him. Apparently Biden has more compassion for victims of sexual harassment than for creepy men who use their status to sexually assault women.

Does lying about it express a bias and is it "the type of bias that makes these things so difficult to talk about"? I think any bias can hinder communication.

You are not a good faith interlocutor — AmadeusD

I was seriously hoping that you were joking.

Oh, you're being serious?

:lol:

Of course there were weirdos celebrating Kirk's death. Kirk was a culture warrior and warriors have enemies.

The difference is that Trump is the chosen leader of the Conservative Party.

I don't see a lack of compassion on either side. — AmadeusD

Less than 24 hours after the Reiners were found stabbed to death in their Brentwood home on Sunday, Trump –– the leader of the Conservative Party –– lambasted Rob Reiner for his political beliefs, posting on Truth Social that his death was “reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME” and that Reiner “was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump.”

...and I should add that although the modern mind balks at the explicit claim, "Everyone who is X is good and everyone who is not is bad" (even though that claim is constantly being made implicitly), the formula itself is not the problem. The problem is a superficial X. For example, Aristotle's X would be "just, temperate, prudent, and courageous," and it is precisely the complexity and robustness of the cardinal virtues that make such an X plausible. "Compassion" is too one-dimensional to serve that role. — Leontiskos

All X's are ossified by tribes, whether they be political, religious, or whatever.

Yet, whatever else the drug lord is, they aren't one of Nietzsche's "Last Men." Walter's story is partially the tale of a man transcending Last Manhood through crime. The point isn't so much the crime, as this transcending motion. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Drug lords might be showing the raw potential for 'active nihilism' and breaking bad (from the herd), but without self-mastery or higher vision, they're reacting rather than creating.

Harry could never get past seeing language as nothing but reference — Banno

Language is the house of Being, so he don't belong in the house?