I said nothing about Trump being admirable or desirable. — Hippyhead

You wrote:

Trump is a realist. That is his gift. He's dealing with the world the way it really is. Stupid. The evidence for this is that his strategies are working. — Hippyhead

This appears to mean that you believe taking advantage of ignorance for selfish gain is ‘realistic’ and expresses a ‘gift’.

You also say that he’s contemptible, however.

I think you’re simply not thinking clearly.

Apparently, Ted also has faith in the American voting system.

Poor Trumpsta's don't know who to follow.

Oh what a tangled web grifters weave...

You should be rather happy with the level of tyrannical nanny-statism in the US, given that there were 2,600 coronavirus deaths reported yesterday. China reported only 9 deaths yesterday.

Would you be happier if there were double or triple the number of Americans dead yesterday?

Diamond & Silk tell’n like it is... or at least reading their scripts aloud.

I composed a little ditty on an iPad.

Delirious

Is that Rudy G? — Nils Loc

Yup, though not a good likeness. I was just going for old batshit cray cray white guy and Rudy provided a bountiful muse.

Interesting ball game. :chin:

The main point I was making was how I disregard puritanical views. — Jack Cummins

Puritanical masturbation is hot, you don’t know what you’re missing.

I’m loving Trump’s efforts contesting the results of the election and his refusal to concede, not only because it puts a spotlight on America’s shoddy election process, but also because it renders his opponents silly. — NOS4A2

The hair dye dripp’n, shirt tuck’n, landscaping storefront book’n, conspiracy theory sling’n Giuliani is certainly enjoying the spotlight, and his silly antics are rather amusing.

I would argue that masturbation is about one of the only free ways of sexual expression in a broken and an increasingly coercive world. — Jack Cummins

Perhaps if you worked on your own coercive skills you wouldn’t need to pay so much.

It is about acceptance of one's own body and sexuality. In this way, it can be seen as a spiritual act. — Jack Cummins

Did a priest tell you that? :grimace:

Does the obsession's with the acquisition of material things inhibit enlightenment? Enlightenment, here, meaning the journey of discovery of ones self? — Dymora

I think it might be helpful to elaborate on exactly what is meant by enlightenment. There are roughly two meanings (Western and Eastern), as I see it, both dealing with self and neither necessarily inhibited by the pursuit of material well-being. The eye of a needle is a very small space and may be indicative of a too narrow perspective.

The Western conception is essentially about self-actualization, which could be seen as being liberated from our societal pavlovian conditioning. We can choose for ourselves what to drool over.

The Eastern conception is essentially about realizing our true nature, which is simply experiencing the emptiness of our nature. There are many methods to achieve this state, or it can occur spontaneously. Whatever the case, the primary benefits are mental depatterning and relief from existential anxiety.

Nope, they’re not the icy eyeballs of a tri-visioned alien monstrosity from outer-space. Your fanciful imagination would make even old Rorschach raise a brow. As Nils has aptly recognized, they’re juggling balls. Juggling balls that have sat idly on my work desk for so long that I don’t even remember from whence they came. They were initially positioned there, if memory serves, to act as a physical distraction during work breaks. I don’t think that I ever employed them in that capacity, however.

Each ball has two weird bunny-eared smiley faces on the white areas that I didn’t paint. If included they probably would have made them look less like icy eyeballs to you. Also in my defense, it was done with a new digital painting program that I just started learning called Procreate. The program has a dizzying amount of brush variables to work with and I haven't worked out a configuration that I like yet.

Nice balls. — Baden

No one's ever told me that before, thanks!

I love this, thousands protest the 'steal' in DC and Trump passes them by on his way to go golfing.

He will be obnoxious to the end, but at least he no longer has anything to gloat about and at last can be completely ignored. To which end, that is my last mention of his name on this forum. — Wayfarer

Good plan, I too will waste no more attention on the lame duck here.

Trump was always going to claim election fraud, no matter what the outcome was. He claimed fraud in 2016 when he won.

Now that he lost by a small margin the ‘stolen election’ propaganda will be potent with Trumpians.

Get busy building. Movement activists who supported Biden emphasized that his presidency would give the movement breathing room. Okay. We have maybe two years, tops, to prepare for an even more vicious, popular wave of reaction. The next backlash is going to make the Tea Party look like a teddy bear’s picnic. — StreetlightX

I imagine that some will capitalize on the momentum of a ‘stolen election’ and therefore never concede that it was fair.

I’ve always liked the word schadenfreude. It can be deeply satisfying.

Wall Street, CIA, Big Tech, military industrial complex, and Davos appreciate your vote. — NOS4A2

And Russia appreciates your efforts in the last few years. Still a lot of work ahead though, stoking resentment over a stolen election and whatever else that will help to destabilize the nation.

I hope Trump does something drastic during his remaining days, just so I can see an anti-Trumper’s head explode one last time. — NOS4A2

He’ll probably just continue to be an embarrassing sore...

The New York Times also. I guess Breitbart will call it next. :razz:

You gals run along now, I’m just getting warmed up. :lol:

He’s probably busy looking for a new income stream.

Yes, appeal to authority, not appeal to ultimate authority, whatever that means to you. :razz: — TLCD1996

Oh? So Buddha ain’t the top dog? :worry:

Yeah, that's a huge (not to mention unfortunately pessimistic) generalization. — TLCD1996

It’s not a huge generalization at all, religious folks are just as messed up, if indeed not more messed up, than non. And it’s not pessimistic because they’re getting what they’re supposed to be getting from their religion, which is being part of something greater than themselves and the sense of meaning derived from shared values and purpose. Also, as you’ve pointed out yourself, religion can offer an inner “ease.”

And even so the Buddha acknowledged that it was rare to find people who were well-restrained. — TLCD1996

For someone who claims to not depend on authority, you sure appeal to it A LOT.

I have other people to look up to in my life. And even if it's hard to find somebody admirable, — TLCD1996

A spiritual life does not require an authority figure!

Nearly half of the voters have seen Trump in all of his splendor—his infantile tirades, his disastrous and lethal policies, his contempt for democracy in all its forms—and they decided that they wanted more of it. His voters can no longer hide behind excuses about the corruption of Hillary Clinton or their willingness to take a chance on an unproven political novice. They cannot feign ignorance about how Trump would rule. They know, and they have embraced him.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/large-portion-electorate-chose-sociopath/616994/ — Wayfarer

Right, even if Biden wins, this is the hard pill to swallow. No excuses this time, everyone knows who he is and they want more. He's a true reflection of American cultural values.

I appreciate that criticism but it isn't up to you to tell Buddhists how they should act, especially if you don't understand their practice or even the context of their life. Their actions are not your responsibility. — TLCD1996

You're missing the point entirely.

The point is that if religious people actually believed what they profess to believe they would act accordingly, but they pretty much act like everyone else. Despite the possibility of the cessation of suffering or 'being one with God' or whatever else, they pursue material well-bing. And despite the possibility of being reborn in a hell realm or other hellish fate, they act normally and do normal shitty stuff.

Just to be clear, you agree that Buddhism might not be true?
–praxis

Yes and that I am confident it is true. — TLCD1996

Exactly, this is how religious people are. If the religious truly believed they would act accordingly. If they believed that there were Gods, ghosts, demons, hell realms, and that if they did bad stuff they would be reborn as a dung worm, they would certainly act accordingly. But religious folk work at Walmart and serve up toxic highly processed foods and intoxicants to their fellow human beings, and also sell medicines to treat the results of the toxic food and drink they sell. Talk about a samsaric exercise. And they go to college and study things concerned with worldly affairs and material gain.

They all believe that their religion is special. That it's the truth and can't be limited to any definition. Other traditions can, of course, like Buddhist Romanticism, but not their precious tradition.

Just to be clear, you agree that Buddhism might not be true?

I beginning to wonder if you know the meaning of honesty.

What I mean is that it’s not philosophical to accept that something is true based on mere authority, and authority that has access to supernatural knowledge or experience.
— praxis

Yet Buddhism doesn't really fall neatly into this either. — TLCD1996

You wrote:

the story goes that the Buddha's question revolved around suffering and its cessation, and what he found was the truth — TLCD1996

You are saying that what he found was the truth. Are you saying now that what he found may be false?

which can be called supernatural — TLCD1996

You agree that it can be called supernatural.

So in all honesty, Buddhism does meet these criteria.

Philosophically, you would need to show how it's true, but that's not possible.
— praxis

In what way would one show that something is true philosophically? — TLCD1996

What I mean is that it’s not philosophical to accept that something is true based on mere authority, and authority that has access to supernatural knowledge or experience. Apropos...

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that religion when put under the well-trained philosopher's micrcoscope reveals its true form, its essence as it were, and that, as the chosen etymology proves, is that religions are about gods - beings as such, usually with the responsibility of both generating, enforcing, and judging moral codes, their observance and their violation. — TheMadFool

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that “generating, enforcing, and judging moral codes, their observance and their violation” don’t need to be... Godified. What matters is that it comes from an authority with supernatural access to this knowledge/experience.

You know that karma/postmortem rebirth are integral to Buddhism, right?

The incongruity of treating Buddhism as a religion becomes starkly apparent once we take it to its logical conclusion - treating those who subscribe to a worldview of a certain philosopher as constituting the creation of a religion: We would have, on our hands, "religions" such as Aristotelianism, Humianism, Schopenhauerism, if you know what I mean. — TheMadFool

Not at all, Aristotelianism, Humanism, and Schopenhauerism do not rely on an authority with access to supernatural knowledge/experience.

Well, the story goes that the Buddha's question revolved around suffering and its cessation, and what he found was the truth; if you teach about that, you're teaching the truth (until you start saying things that undermine the path to that cessation of suffering). — TLCD1996

Philosophically, you would need to show how it's true, but that's not possible.

You misunderstand, no philosophy teaches truth, it studies fundamental questions, etc, so to say that Buddhism is philosophy is to say that it does not teach the truth but merely theorizes.

Or a philosophy, albeit with a certain twist:
Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Such questions are often posed as problems to be studied or resolved. The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – 495 BCE). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.
— Wikipedia

Buddhism incorporates all of the above elements — TLCD1996

Then Buddhism studies, is concerned with worldly affairs, and doesn't contain truths but only theory.