ion

27 minutes ago, ReturnDragon said:

Sorry, Tao is both. Either one sees or doesn't. Tao is omnipresent. 

I see.

Porn is poison to the mind and perception.

 

Training the mind to percieved women as sex objects while watching other men out perform you.

 

Now days more and more women are watching porn, and statistics show they are getting them selves off watching some pretty sick stuff. Rape fantasy along with other forms of sexual domination are some of the most popular, but you'd also be surprised at how popular beastiality videos are becoming.

 

Weep now for the future.

 

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/bm9w7v/why-are-so-many-women-searching-for-ultra-violent-porn

 

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-012-9934-6

 

Birth control alone has changed men and womens perception of sexes, the sexual act and what it's universal and primary purpose is to begin with. When you consider that humans are biocultural organisms you can see that the assimilation of birth control has caused what is equal to an evolution of a new species.

 

Women NOT experiencing fertility, NOT ovulating, NOT experiencing periods of gestation and child baring yet parttaking in the sexual act on a regular basis with multiple partners has completely altered everything about them except their physiology.

 

Now they are watching more and more porn, and the type of porn they are watching combined with the unnatural and naive perception formed by taking birth control for years after only menstruating a few times is going to form an entirely different breed of female.

 

And because guys want to get laid they will encourage the formation of these women, the same way women have always encouraged the formation of toxic males in men.

 

Society is done for.

 

I'm sure I'll be called a mysogonist, hate speech for saying porn is bad and for portraying the state of women to be a culturaly caused mess and for not being supportive of how women ended up with women's rights.

 

In defense I don't think the way things were idealized in the 1950s of as better, or even separate from how they are now.

 

We live in a screwed up society so men, women, and other are all screwed .

 

You can't go from sexually repressed to over sexxed, on the pill, hopped up on porn to Tinder as a mating ritual without thoroughly warping the collective psyche of women.

 

 

So the dao is one distinction, but not the other? It is this and not that?

 

I see...

A negative ion generator would help to bring the spore count down but very minimally.

 

What you would need to do is to get a few hepafilter air purifiers that are equiped with a negative ion generator.

 

They need to be powerful enough for each room you put them in. Then put two in your bedroom even if one is supposedly strong enough for that ammount of Ft³.

 

Run them 24 hours a day and keep your bedroom door shut with them running constantly.

 

UV lights for sterilization are tiny. They are used to sterilize scalples and things like that. If one was powerful enough to sterilize an entire room I would not advise entering that room while it was on. 

 

 

I've had a couple that the peanut M&Ms were a little stale.

Things and philosophies can definitely be categorized as Buddhist or not Buddhist and they really should be.

 

Buddhism is a precise doctrine. If it is not authentic dependent origination it is NOT Buddha, Buddhist philosophy, Buddhist doctrine or Buddhism.

 

All of Gotamas teaching points, the marks of existence, no self, impermanence, emptiness, and the four noble truths are based on the doctrine of dependent origination.

 

People often have ideas that are in conflict with the core and foundation of what Buddhism is about (dependent origination). When they do and they are trying to pass it off as Buddhism they should be told it is not Buddhism.

 

People pass off new age ideals as Buddhism, but the Buddha said there was many wrong views, & wrong understandings.

 

People like to say that it is not very Buddhist to correct others about such things, they say that all religious philosophies are the same and that it is not very Buddhist to be so unaccepting of other doctrines. They say " who are you to say what is not Buddhist?"

 

But the Buddha himself did not have such a permissive view of things, infact he said there were many wrong views and many wrong understandings. Infact he studied many religions Hindu certainly included and he said they were ALL FALSE PATHS that lead you to no where. He said they were all steeped in ignorance and should be abandoned.

 

Several of the sutras are infact Buddha completely renouncing other religious beliefs.

 

So Buddha was not as open minded about religious views as you would think.

 

Many of the fundamental texts are refutations of FALSE ideologies. 

 

Nagarjunas bodies of work which are rightly thought to be the most precise and articulate works expounding Buddha's philosophy thoroughly refutes and rejects many things that people today still try to pass off as Buddhism.

I have not been to the store since before the lockdown started because I only go once a month.

 

I usually buy 12 gallons of milk at a time to last the month

 

I butchered some chickens a couple of months ago, and had some venison so the freezer was stocked but I am down to just two chickens.

 

I have 22 live chickens so have lots of eggs. My friend just bought two cows so we're getting some really good jersey cow milk which is much creamier than the milk produced by the Holstein cow milk that we get at the store.

 

I live in the wilderness, 1.5 hours drive to the store.

 

Tomorrow I was thinking of going to town to go to the store

 

 

Might harvest some squirrels for extra meat. Plenty of wild greens and acorns.

15 hours ago, C T said:

Convenience.

People argue and defend and deflect because its convenient. 

Care to explain using something I have said as a direct example?

17 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

Are you almost done creating foolish arguments for me and then defeating them? It's kinda silly, and if you would rather just have a conversation with yourself you could do so without making a caricature of me in your mind to duel with. 

Care to explain directly? I have no idea what your talking about. Please use actual examples to explain.

17 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

Because I have experience which indicates your understanding of this isn't entirely accurate. 

 

 

I believe it may be this concept of "hardwired" which is creating the disconnect.

 

You have crafted an idea of women, and you are reifying it imo.

 

 

Why do you seem to equate physical attributes with spiritual realization?

Spiritual realization and total enlightenment are not the same thing.

The 'self' that makes decisions daily is not the self that can decide to override their own makeup. Those arent the types of decisions you have ever made

 

Again I also make decisions daily, or so it appears, but I can't decide to have a baby. 

 

It appears you really think there is a self that decides and can override even its own existence. Like a flame that wants to burn hotter than the type of fuel (conditions) will permit, just because it feels like it should be able to despite the conditions.

 

Even though it is not cloudy, can it still rain?

3 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

Cognitive dissonance? 

 

When you start off with a need for peer reviewed research to prove women are even capable of thinking for themselves, this certainly is polarizing, and what, at this point, I would refer to as your own ideology.

 

 

Perhaps you've missed something here. I am a woman. I make numerous decisions daily (i.e. think for myself), and your ideology doesn't match up with the reality I live.

 

 

Imo, you are using facts to prop up your predetermined conclusions and biases. If you stopped at facts, and left your woven narrative out of the presentation, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. 

The need for peer reviewed research to show that woman think for themselves is absolutely necessary because there is so much research already so uggesting that they don't. So it's actually logical, and critical thinking that makes a statement like that, not mysogony.

 

Are you a person who believes in  indipendently existing selves and self governing organisms? 

 

If you are, than maybe arguing in the Buddhist discussion forum I s not the right place for your views.

 

It f you are not, then why is it so hard to understand that when a being is hardwired to behave a certain way and to have certain tendencies influencing every aspect of their being that they are not capable of over riding those tendencies?

 

If there were those kinds of selves I would say that and all sorts of other impossible things were possible, but there are not those types of selves, that is not the kind of universe this is. 

 

Everything in this reality is dependent upon other things, conditioned in their arising, dependent in their origination.

 

If a being is wired to go up, it will not go down on purpose.

 

This is not using facts to prop up my predetermined bias, the opposite is true in fact. This is a conclusion I have come to after believing the opposite for years. I always figured that if men and women were equal why shouldn't a woman be allowed to do what Buddha did?

 

But being equal does not mean being the same, the fact that men can't have babies is another case of that, and it's not a matter of being "allowed" just like men not having babies is not because they are being discriminated against. It's not because we are not allowed to, it's because we are different.

 

And as you pointed out there are the facts, and it is those facts that caused me to see things differently, which is more realistically.

 

 

1 hour ago, Heartbreak said:

Yes.

Then we are discussing different things.

2 hours ago, silent thunder said:

any energy is better spent elsewhere...

 

Na, this is my last troll feeding here io.

You would not be able, or willing to engage it from within your fishbowl.\

Nor is any of this worthy of further energy.

peace.

Lol

And presenting controversial facts is not an example of trolling, but calling that trolling is an example of cognitive dissonance.

2 hours ago, silent thunder said:

yup, gender troll.

 

 

Provide an example or you're the one trolling

2 minutes ago, Miroku said:

Since this is a buddhist part of the forum I would drop few names here.

Lama Tsultrim Allione, Lama Lena, Pema Chödron and others. There are many great and succesful female practitioners and these are just western women. Yeah, they might not be enlightened, at least I have not met them to make such a statement. However they are definitely qualified teachers.

There are many qualified teachers who are women.

33 minutes ago, Heartbreak said:

I would love some examples of women who are truly enlightened to be in this thread. 
 

I would provide my examples of enlightened women who are older Caucasian American females just to prove I am not racist or sexist.

 

http://www.kellylarsen.net/about/

 

http://www.leighannphillips.com/about/

Are you comparing these peoe to Buddha and Laotzi?

2 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

What you presented was (intentionally?) polarized.. and then you play "victim" when this polarization is reflected back to you?

 

Where is the rationality in that?

 

Perhaps if you stick with facts things will progress differently.

No, what I presented was not polarized. Due to a baseless ideology held, people were polarized when presented with controversial facts.

 

No, I'm not playing the victim. I'm just pointing out that no one has presented any facts, charts or links supporting their arguments but they ha e only attacked my character for holding an evidence based view as opposed to an ideology that is not based on facts.

 

I am the one sticking to facts, and the one encouraging others to do so too.

21 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

If he keeps typing this could change. 

That would be pretty predictable coming from an ideolog.

 

It's quite common for ideologs to become aggitated and go rage when they've been confronted with data that is contrary to their ideology even when it is sensible information and nothing more than data and charts like I provided.

 

So if you do become unkind it will not only do nothing for your argument, it will just be more support that my own observations are correct which are that the claims against what I've presented are coming from an ideology not from facts or even evidence, and that there is no facts or evidence that you could provide to support the IDEA that men and women have the exact same utility and no differences, significant or otherwise.

 

I will also point out that I have been kind in all my words and interactions in this thread and that I have done or said nothing that should warrant unkind behavior from others in return.

6 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Your not presenting anything we haven't heard before. And, imo, you are presently entrenched in your paradigm - making conversation rather pointless. This however, isn't an overreaching negation of your personal value. 

The research I'm referring to is recent, but at any rate, I think the fact that you are mentioning paradigms is actually more indicative of where you are standing, not where I am.

 

I'm not saying that women are of lesser value then men, and you could not really derive that that is my belief from anything I've said or any of the data I've provided.

 

The reason you guys are projecting that on to me is you have an ideology that you believe in and you believe that this ideology some how makes you a more advanced human than me, hence the remark about old paradigms.

 

So instead of me providing more data and logical statements about my belief how about you can tell me how the reality is that there is no differences between men and women?

 

I've provided charts, and can easily provide links to research on the differences between men and women,

 

so now you provide charts and links to research that supports the idea that there are absolutely no differences between men and women, and provide charts and links to research that suggests that anything a woman can do including birthing a child so can a man, and charts and research that shows that any thing a man can do a woman can also do. Also please provide research and charts showing how there are no differences between men and womens brains, cognitive ability and intellegence.

 

So please, be a spokesperson for the new paradigm and show me that there are no differences. Don't just try to convince me that your ideology is right because it is advanced, SHOW ME.

 

You guys have a habit of making lofty proclamations and when some provides evidence of the contrary you try to shame them into seeing things your way by using terms like " parardigm" or if you can't see that then you are dense"

 

Show me,  don't shame me.

 

It does not speak well of you, your argument or appearently the new paradigm just to try to make people you don't agree with look stupid with out ever providing support for your argument.

 

So how about evidence that there are no differences and men and women have the exact same uitility?

 

 

 

 

"If you understand what you have read" is not a derogatory statement, but you are excused from the conversation and I will not be offended by you proclaiming my lack of value.

2 hours ago, moment said:

 

Is that enlighted data was a joke that you did not get at all.  Instead you are going to get all serious and philosophical with it. Geez, get a clue.  No one is being elusive.  You just either do not have a sense of humor or you are dense.

No, this was taken in context of people becoming irrationally polarized due to the controversial nature of the facts I presented, and coming from a person who says if I can't see that you are joking and take that joke gleefully then I must be "dense".

 

So you say it was just a joke but when you told it you failed to mention that if I failed to see it as a joke then that means I have certain character flaws for not getting it.

 

Nice

2 hours ago, moment said:

 

On one hand you want to argue with hard science, then on the other hand you want to use subjective hearsay as hard evidence.  Well, that certainly gives you wide latitude to spin anyway you want.

I use the word evidence by the most scientific standard. Look it up to see what the word means and if you can comprehend what you read you will see that there is certainly a veryy large body of evidence to support that they existed.

 

But humanity is so screwed that I would not believe it without that evidence.

 

Do you really have a problem with that?

1 minute ago, moment said:

 

That just blew right past you didn't it?

So far past me that it appears that you are holding a strawman.

 

Please don't respond by stating that you are not, but instead respond by showing you are not.

 

Otherwise, as it stands that you have posted twice without ever once saying anything.

 

Stop trying to be elusive if that's what you are doing because it doesn't work for you, it just appears that you aren't saying anything at all; be direct, maybe even respond directly to something I've said and try to make that clear.