can't you see the gods can take away your family, your children, your wealth, your health, even your sexual abilities anytime they want to?

[Non]

No I am chasing after something .. a prize greater than money or sex or family or children..

 

I am chasing after immortality itself...

 

How is that any different?

 

Because the powers gained when immortality is given will give you the new freedoms of creating any reality which you want..

 

including the powers to benefit others and relieve them of suffering and ignorance if you wish to..

 

as long as you are only hankering after money and sex and family and children, you will be extremely limited in your capacity to create new improved realities..

 

Chasing after immortality and enlightenment is vastly different from chasing after money and sex and family and children..

 

Please do not put both groups in the same basket.

 

The only fear I have is wasting time and energies on useless activities eg sex,money family, children while ignoring the main goal of life which is enlightenment and immortality.

 

I am totally fine with death and suffering as long as it is death and suffering endured while chasing the CORRECT goals of life.

If I have to suffer and even die in vain while chasing immortality, then so be it. I am totally fine with it. My suffering will not be in vain and my death will serve a higher purpose!

 

What I detest however is to suffer and die in vain while chasing after women and sex and money and family and children. This will totally result in useless suffering and useless deaths!

 

well aren't you cahsing immortality to get sex, money, family, children, etc.?

 

What would you want when you're immortal?

[goldisheavy]

I don't think it is being dishonest. It is possible to disagree in the strongest of terms without being disrespectful to the individual we are disagreeing with.

 

I disagree completely. Sometimes it's not only that you disagree with someone, but you also don't respect a certain point of view. Pretending that you respect something when you don't is what's dishonest.

 

Afterall, on a forum such as this we don't even know the people we are talking with except the little that has been shared by each individual and that is only what they wanted to share with us and even that may not even be true.

 

So we are discussing concepts, not the individual. Why the need to insult the individual?

 

Insults are healthy because they prevent people from taking themselves too seriously. I think it would be bad if insults were the only content, or if they were the dominant content, but if the insults merely pepper an otherwise interesting post from time to time, it's perfectly healthy. Moderation is the key.

 

Also insults convey a level of informality which is important to bring people closer together. When the speech is formalized and regulated it makes it harder to trust anything that's being said. This is where "political correctness" comes from. Formalisms get in the way of the real thing and if anywhere it should be obvious, it should be obvious to the Daoist community.

[henro]

 

And actually, buddhism doesn't really say to seek happiness but to be emotionless. When you're trying to accept reality, you're actually still seeking happiness. Accept unacceptance also.

 

 

Uh no, Buddhism does not say one should be emotionless, the teaching says to not be attached to emotion. There's a difference, a common misconception. The emotionless person tries to shut out feeling. A buddhist feels the emotion, processes, lets it do the work, and then lets it go.

[Mandrake]

 

And actually, buddhism doesn't really say to seek happiness but to be emotionless.

 

Utterly wrong, as robmix already pointed out. Buddhism amongst other things states that there is no permanent self in the sensation skandha (encompassing feelings, and sensations of course), and also that there are causes for afflictive emotions that can be found and eliminated. All emotions are not afflictive. "Joy", is one of the factors of enlightenment, and many, many times the sutras speak about joy and bliss. In buddhism people frequently practice the four immeasurables - forms of meditation: loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, impartiality.

I could go on and on, but the key understanding is that eliminating emotions is not buddhist practice, eliminating ignorance is. Emotions can become afflictive when ignorance is mixed in, and thus it is the latter that is to be eliminated. It is ignorance that defines afflictive attachment and aversion, not vice versa. Blocking out emotions will create more problems, more suffering, hinder the practicioner from entering samadhi, and increasing ignorance - i.e. regressing and not progressing.

 

 

Mandrake

 

PS. I here presume that the reader knows what ignorance means in buddhism, if not, point it out. DS.

[Mandrake]

Moderation is the key.

 

 

What what? GiH advocates moderation!

 

 

Mandrake

[Vajrahridaya]

Utterly wrong, as robmix already pointed out. Buddhism amongst other things states that there is no permanent self in the sensation skandha (encompassing feelings, and sensations of course), and also that there are causes for afflictive emotions that can be found and eliminated. All emotions are not afflictive. "Joy", is one of the factors of enlightenment, and many, many times the sutras speak about joy and bliss. In buddhism people frequently practice the four immeasurables - forms of meditation: loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, impartiality.

I could go on and on, but the key understanding is that eliminating emotions is not buddhist practice, eliminating ignorance is. Emotions can become afflictive when ignorance is mixed in, and thus it is the latter that is to be eliminated. It is ignorance that defines afflictive attachment and aversion, not vice versa. Blocking out emotions will create more problems, more suffering, hinder the practicioner from entering samadhi, and increasing ignorance - i.e. regressing and not progressing.

 

 

Mandrake

 

PS. I here presume that the reader knows what ignorance means in buddhism, if not, point it out. DS.

 

Very good! I would venture to say that "ignorance" in Buddhism has to do with not even intellectually understanding "right view" the first of the 8 fold noble path of the Buddhas. This really means not seeing the internal meaning of dependent origination/emptiness, a deceptively profound truth about the nature of things.

[Marblehead]

Well just WTH is God then?

 

What love? There is love?

 

How do you "attain love and communion with God" if all is failure and seeking gets you nowhere?

 

Well if "God" is the "atman" or "higher self" whatever you want to call it, then what is godS plural?

 

Hi Non,

 

I don't speak of gods because I know of none.

 

So where does that leave me? It leave me to do what needs to be done on my own. Well, sure, sometimes I ask for help from others. That's where love and compassion come in. Those who care about me will offer the best help they can afford.

 

What's left? Reality. I need to live within 'my' reality. I can't live in yours; you can't live in mine. Your needs are different from my needs. And I think that this is bottom line. Our needs.

 

The fewer our needs the fewer things we will be running after. What's to do? Reduce our needs and desires. (And remember when you read my words that I am an old man and have had a lot of time to work with these considerations.)

 

Yes, there is love. I don't speak of it too often because my personal history has all too many times made a joke about love because the word and its concept has been misused far too often.

 

So let's just forget about love for the moment. Rather, consider 'cooperation'. Offering help to others when they are in need, accepting help from others when we are in need. But everything involved in these acts should be honest and up front, without alterior motive. We help because we can - that is all.

 

Success and failure are quicksand traps for us. We must avoid these concepts as much as we can. If we have done the best we can what value does success and failure have? None, I think.

 

So we do the best we can, accept full responsibility for what we have done, or not done, and accept the results without placing value on these results. Of course, if we don't like the results we can always try again after we have gained more knowledge (and hopefully, wisdom).

 

There are many members here who can talk about the gods and love with you. Listen to what they say and consider what usefulness it might have in your life.

 

Best wishes.

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. Are we having fun with this?

 

I disagree completely. Sometimes it's not only that you disagree with someone, but you also don't respect a certain point of view. Pretending that you respect something when you don't is what's dishonest.

 

Now you have added depth to what we are talking about. Have I not on a number of occasions said something like "That's bullshit!"? I don't respect bullshit. That should be a given by now. But it doesn't mean I have to be disrespectful to the individual who spoke the bullshit. Afterall, maybe they are going through a process right now and they are trying to weed the garden.

 

Insults are healthy because they prevent people from taking themselves too seriously. I think it would be bad if insults were the only content, or if they were the dominant content, but if the insults merely pepper an otherwise interesting post from time to time, it's perfectly healthy. Moderation is the key.

 

Also insults convey a level of informality which is important to bring people closer together. When the speech is formalized and regulated it makes it harder to trust anything that's being said. This is where "political correctness" comes from. Formalisms get in the way of the real thing and if anywhere it should be obvious, it should be obvious to the Daoist community.

 

I agree that in 'real life' your first sentence is valid. On a forum we have less control over how they will effect the other person. We really don't know their condition at the time and an insult may have the opposite effect of what we intended, and that, I think, is to gain the person's full attention.

 

Oh, I agree that we should tell it like it is - to be honest with what we say. But if we are trying to have a conversation on a forum we want to draw the person closer to us instead of pushing them away. When we use personal insults we will cause the other person to stop listening to what we are saying and concentrate on finding words that are suggesting an insult so that we can return the insult or report us to the moderators.

 

I do understand what you are saying and in 'real life' I don't normally hold back too much. On a forum sometimes I think it is best to just remain silent rather than saying something.

[Marblehead]

What what? GiH advocates moderation!

 

 

Mandrake

 

Hehehe. I think he is speaking to self-moderation.

[Mandrake]

Success and failure are quicksand traps for us. We must avoid these concepts as much as we can. If we have done the best we can what value does success and failure have? None, I think.

 

 

Wonderful, thanks Marble!

 

 

Mandrake

[Mandrake]

Hehehe. I think he is speaking to self-moderation.

 

Haha, I couldn't resist ;- )

 

 

M

[Apech]

Hehehe. Are we having fun with this?

 

 

 

Now you have added depth to what we are talking about. Have I not on a number of occasions said something like "That's bullshit!"? I don't respect bullshit. That should be a given by now. But it doesn't mean I have to be disrespectful to the individual who spoke the bullshit. Afterall, maybe they are going through a process right now and they are trying to weed the garden.

 

 

 

I agree that in 'real life' your first sentence is valid. On a forum we have less control over how they will effect the other person. We really don't know their condition at the time and an insult may have the opposite effect of what we intended, and that, I think, is to gain the person's full attention.

 

Oh, I agree that we should tell it like it is - to be honest with what we say. But if we are trying to have a conversation on a forum we want to draw the person closer to us instead of pushing them away. When we use personal insults we will cause the other person to stop listening to what we are saying and concentrate on finding words that are suggesting an insult so that we can return the insult or report us to the moderators.

 

I do understand what you are saying and in 'real life' I don't normally hold back too much. On a forum sometimes I think it is best to just remain silent rather than saying something.

 

I think you are exactly right about this.

 

On a forum you are (mostly) talking to someone who you have never met. You have no idea about their state of mind or feelings. For instance you can't pick up things like sarcasm and humour because the tone of voice isn't there. If you start attacking the person and not the content of the post then not only could it be unjustified but also plain wrong. Its very easy when typing to make mistakes which change the whole meaning of the post.

 

One of the good things about TTBs is that people will quickly challenge ideas if they think they are wrong. I don't see any reason why this can't be done while also respecting the other poster's right to their opinions. Insults always seem to make the quality of debate degenerate into a slanging match ... which is as unproductive as it is tiresome. So the 'no insult' policy is a good way of making sure that issues are properly aired without descending into flaming.

 

There is a fine balance between colourful language and insult though and no one wants this place to become insipid or anodyne.

[searcher]

It seems that the OP is very much a vajrayana fan. In my humble opinion, there are zealots in every tradition and some of the vajrayana students can be among the fiercest zealots out there. Everybody has a right to live the lifestyle and practice in the manner which they wish.

 

Yet the OP and his many opponents of the monastic lifestyle can't seem to tolerate each other's lifestyle and practices. If people want to practice as a Ngagpa (lay practitioner) then maybe the OP has no right to criticize other people's free will to practice in the way which they want to as long as they don't harm others and infringe on the rights and free will of others. A lot of people's karma in the outside mundane world have not been extinguished yet and maybe this is why they need to practice in the outside mundane world to finish clearing up their karma before they can see the benefits of leaving the outside mundane world.

 

Similary, if the OP wishes to practice spirituality as a celibate monk, the rest of the people have no right to criticize the OP's free will to practice in the way he wishes to as long as he doesn't harm others and infringe on the rights and free will of others. The OP should be more compassionate for people who have not extinguished their karma yet.

 

For eg, yes we can say the ex-alcoholic woman is responsible for her own drinking problems but the high enough master know that no one in the world will willingly drink themselves to suffering health problems and even death. Some talk of swimmers and flyers in other thread but if the OP is high enough, which I think he is not, the OP will see that it is the swimmers and flyers, the spiritual thought forms which are influencing most humans in possible negative behaviour.

 

The OP may be smart enough to run away from problems of the outside world and he may be strong enough to fight off the swimmers and flyers pulling him to stay in outside world but this doesn't mean OP should have no compassion for people who are not strong enough to fight off influences of the outside world. Where is your compassion, OP? Buddha teach about loving kindness but you already betray principal principle of buddha teachings.

 

Maybe the OP and his opponents should take a good look in the mirror. No one in the world can decide what lifestyle or what life other humans should have. Otherwise we become like bad bad government telling everybody what to do and what not to do and I know many people in the world do not like government telling them what to do and what not to do. Respect free will and free choice everybody please!

[searcher]

[Marblehead]

Respect free will and free choice everybody please!

 

I just wanted to repeat this.

 

However and at the same time, if we put our business in the street we should expect others to voice our opinions and understanding concerning the subject so if someone disagrees with us we should not take that as a personal attack.

[Marblehead]

I hope thetaobum doesn't become like e-sangha forum.

 

It won't as long as I am a member here. And I know I have the support of many others here.

[steve]

I know this may sound a bit mamsy-pamsy to some but when discussing debate that verges on personal insult I would also add the following. I carefully reread every post I write in its entirety AT LEAST once. I consider whether the words I'm using will be hurtful, embarrassing, or insulting to anyone. If so, I rewrite or delete. As I'm writing I also consider whether there is a way to make my words encouraging to people rather than discouraging. Sometimes I'll even go so far as sharing something about myself that shows the other person that I understand how they seem to be feeling or have experienced the things they may be relating, or that I at least recognize that I'm no better than them. I hope that comes through in my posts and if it does not, I will try harder.

 

What would it be like if we all tried to develop skill in communicating in such a way that we build each other up rather than tear each other down? What if we actively tried to express love, compassion, and support in our communication? For all the Buddhist words bandied about on this forum, and all the debate intended to demonstrate the depth of Buddhist knowledge and thought, I see very little expression of love, compassion, and metta. A few really beautiful people have abandoned this community due to this lack of compassion and civility, and that's OK, forums, like life, change.

 

So I would simply like to offer the perspective that communicating our ideas from a place of love, compassion, and mutual support is possible even during a heated and intellectually honest debate. Insults are never "healthy," period. Insults are never necessary, there is always a more skillful alternative in communication. Sure, most of us can shrug them off and see the humor in them, and just see them for what they are - which is an expression of the character of the person offering them rather than an indication of the character of the person on the receiving end. They are an indication of lack of skill or lack of maturity in communication, in my opinion. They are intended to cause pain or embarrassment and there is always a healthier alternative. Sometimes, an insult is unintentional, and that may be unavoidable. But if we think about what we are saying before posting, most can be avoided. Hence, if my expression of this opinion causes anyone embarrassment or pain, then I apologize, but I do think this is an area where we can all grow and better ourselves. If we can become more skillful in our communication, as a community, imagine how healthy and supportive we could be for each other.

[goldisheavy]

What what? GiH advocates moderation!

 

 

Mandrake

 

I have always advocated moderation when it comes to rough language. I always said it's OK to curse and to insult as long as it's done tastefully, within a proper context and not too much. Some people on this forum have selective memories. I've always advocated a middle way approach for cursing. As long as cursing is not the main content of the post, and as long as it's not the only thing you come here to do, it's OK to curse once in a while or to insult and whatever else, if it helps to illuminate the truth. Unlike some others I don't think there is anything absolutely worthless under the Sun, so cursing and insults sometimes have their worth and should be admitted. As long as I remember I've always maintained this. It's nothing new.

Edited May 22, 2011 by goldisheavy

[ralis]

I know this may sound a bit mamsy-pamsy to some but when discussing debate that verges on personal insult I would also add the following. I carefully reread every post I write in its entirety AT LEAST once. I consider whether the words I'm using will be hurtful, embarrassing, or insulting to anyone. If so, I rewrite or delete. As I'm writing I also consider whether there is a way to make my words encouraging to people rather than discouraging. Sometimes I'll even go so far as sharing something about myself that shows the other person that I understand how they seem to be feeling or have experienced the things they may be relating, or that I at least recognize that I'm no better than them. I hope that comes through in my posts and if it does not, I will try harder.

 

What would it be like if we all tried to develop skill in communicating in such a way that we build each other up rather than tear each other down? What if we actively tried to express love, compassion, and support in our communication? For all the Buddhist words bandied about on this forum, and all the debate intended to demonstrate the depth of Buddhist knowledge and thought, I see very little expression of love, compassion, and metta. A few really beautiful people have abandoned this community due to this lack of compassion and civility, and that's OK, forums, like life, change.

 

So I would simply like to offer the perspective that communicating our ideas from a place of love, compassion, and mutual support is possible even during a heated and intellectually honest debate. Insults are never "healthy," period. Insults are never necessary, there is always a more skillful alternative in communication. Sure, most of us can shrug them off and see the humor in them, and just see them for what they are - which is an expression of the character of the person offering them rather than an indication of the character of the person on the receiving end. They are an indication of lack of skill or lack of maturity in communication, in my opinion. They are intended to cause pain or embarrassment and there is always a healthier alternative. Sometimes, an insult is unintentional, and that may be unavoidable. But if we think about what we are saying before posting, most can be avoided. Hence, if my expression of this opinion causes anyone embarrassment or pain, then I apologize, but I do think this is an area where we can all grow and better ourselves. If we can become more skillful in our communication, as a community, imagine how healthy and supportive we could be for each other.

 

 

Well said! All I ever hear from the Buddhists is 'dependent origination' ad infinitum. Also Buddhism is the most subtle of the subtle and anyone who doesn't realize Buddhist subtlety is ignorant. That is why I left the whole Buddhist trip. 'Right speech and loving kindness are rarely or never expressed.

Edited May 22, 2011 by ralis

[Mandrake]

I have always advocated moderation when it comes to rough language. I always said it's OK to curse and to insult as long as it's done tastefully, within a proper context and not too much. Some people on this forum have selective memories. I've always advocated a middle way approach for cursing. As long as cursing is not the main content of the post, and as long as it's not the only thing you come here to do, it's OK to curse once in a while or to insult and whatever else, if it helps to illuminate the truth. Unlike some others I don't think there is anything absolutely worthless under the Sun, so cursing and insults sometimes have their worth and should be admitted. As long as I remember I've always maintained this. It's nothing new.

 

Relax, I was joking! Sorry for not being clear on that ; )

[goldisheavy]

What would it be like if we all tried to develop skill in communicating in such a way that we build each other up rather than tear each other down?

 

Steve, many people can't see any difference between their viewpoints and themselves. So when the viewpoint is subject to criticism or even disrespect, they take it personally. That's a problem.

 

I don't think I must respect every single belief out there. In my opinion many beliefs lead to harm both for oneself and for others. I tolerate a huge amount of things, especially in the so-called "physical" sphere, but when we come together in a forum, in the mental sphere, I let it be known what's what. Why? Because you can always just skip the post. You don't have to read any specific post here. So in other words, everything on a forum like this is non-coercive. Everything is voluntary. So this is the only realm where we can express criticism and disrespect without physically hurting someone, which is vastly superior to actually physically hurting people and property (which is what eventually happens when disagreements fester and aren't addressed in the open forum).

 

Just like light and shadow, construction and destruction, they all have their place, so does the rough language. Rough language is what allows us to avoid tangible bloodshed down the line. It's what allows us to prevent extremism from crystalizing and stabilizing itself into something less manageable than a forum discussion. It's like a disease that's caught early and requires only a minimum intervention vs one that's left to fester and either requires a dramatic intervention or is fatal at that stage.

 

What if people only built up things and never demolished them? Well, if that's how we did things, we'd never be able to renovate or fix anything.

 

The key to making discussions like these painless is to remember that your opinions are not you. When your opinion is criticized or disrespected, it's not you who is criticized or disrespected.

 

I've always said that too much is too much, but at the same time, there is an allowable limit for just about anything that's well short of "too much." It's my responsibility not to go overboard with the disrespect but at the same time, it's also my responsibility to avoid becoming too upset when "I" am the subject of criticism and disrespect. Of course in reality it's not actually me, it's my opinions that I put forth that could be criticized and disrespected. If everyone else on this forum thought the same way, then all our problems would be manageable and solvable almost always without bans. Then our use of rough language would be moderate and at the same time, people would learn to gracefully handle criticism in a way that allowed people to be productive and flexible with their beliefs and opinions.

 

It's wrong to put the entire onus on one or the other party here, imo. I don't say the entire onus is on the one who is criticized to be more detached and mature, to be less egoistic and more innerly stable. I don't say that. But neither do I say the reverse, that the entire onus is on the person who itches to criticize to completely avoid doing so, or to present criticism in a dishonest way, respectfully, when in fact one doesn't experience true respect for this or that belief or opinion.

 

I believe my approach is not only healthy, it's realistic and attainable. Your approach Steve is essentially non-attainable and will lead to censorship and repression.

Edited May 22, 2011 by goldisheavy

[steve]

In general, I agree with most of what you are saying but you are misrepresenting my intention and I'd like to respond to a few points.

 

Because you can always just skip the post. You don't have to read any specific post here.

Generally, you don't know if it's a post that may contain something insulting or hurtful until its too late. Certainly we can turn on the ignore function but if you are participating in an active discussion you usually can't anticipate someone offering an insult and skip that post until you've already read it.

 

Rough language is what allows us to avoid tangible bloodshed down the line. It's what allows us to prevent extremism from crystalizing and stabilizing itself into something less manageable than a forum discussion. It's like a disease that's caught early and requires only a minimum intervention vs one that's left to fester and either requires a dramatic intervention or is fatal at that stage.

I disagree completely. Insults lead to escalation of tensions, not relaxation. Kind words and understanding, finding some common ground upon which we can share and agree leads to relaxation. Gandhi, Mandela, and similar great men and women recognized this. Violence, whether by words or deed, never solves violence. Only non-violence can do that. And insult or "rough language" as you put it is violence using language.

 

What if people only built up things and never demolished them? Well, if that's how we did things, we'd never be able to renovate or fix anything.

Insults are not an effective way of demolishing something unwanted for the purposes of renovation and rebuilding. Insults are not criticism. Insults are an attack on the person providing an opinion. Criticism is an attack on the opinion. Criticism, when constructive and compassionate, is a much more effective method than insult. Insult only causes defensiveness, making it much harder to renovate or reconstruct.

 

The key to making discussions like these painless is to remember that your opinions are not you. When your opinion is criticized or disrespected, it's not you who is criticized or disrespected.

I agree 100%. You have proven my point. When we insult, we are intentionally and exactly disrespecting and attacking the person, not their opinion. I never said not to criticize. I said do not insult.

 

I've always said that too much is too much, but at the same time, there is an allowable limit for just about anything that's well short of "too much." It's my responsibility not to go overboard with the disrespect but at the same time, it's also my responsibility to avoid becoming too upset when "I" am the subject of criticism and disrespect. Of course in reality it's not actually me, it's my opinions that I put forth that could be criticized and disrespected. If everyone else on this forum thought the same way, then all our problems would be manageable and solvable almost always without bans. Then our use of rough language would be moderate and at the same time, people would learn to gracefully handle criticism in a way that allowed people to be productive and flexible with their beliefs and opinions.

 

It's wrong to put the entire onus on one or the other party here, imo. I don't say the entire onus is on the one who is criticized to be more detached and mature, to be less egoistic and more innerly stable. I don't say that. But neither do I say the reverse, that the entire onus is on the person who itches to criticize to completely avoid doing so, or to present criticism in a dishonest way, respectfully, when in fact one doesn't experience true respect for this or that belief or opinion.

 

I believe my approach is not only healthy, it's realistic and attainable.

I agree with everything here but notice that you have substituted the word criticize for insult. I was specifically referring to personal insults, not criticism. Furthermore, it is not impossible or even difficult to show respect for the person while not respecting their opinion or idea.

 

Your approach Steve is essentially non-attainable and will lead to censorship and repression.

Again, I disagree with you on this point. It is very easy to avoid insult. One simply has to be aware and mindful.

Simply read your post before hitting the 'Add Reply' button. If anything seems personally insulting, edit or delete.

Continued use of insults will and should lead to censorship and repression exactly as is occurring right now on this forum and that is completely appropriate, IMO. Personal insult should be censored and those communicating using personal attacks will necessarily be repressed. Criticism should not be censored. Disrespect, IMO, should be focused on the idea, not the individual. Disrespect is a bit more of a judgement call for the mods. Personal insult is clearer.

 

Like I said, I agree with much of what you are saying. The problem is that you are confusing insult (an attack on the person) with criticism (an attack on the idea). Certainly, some people perceive an insult when what is offered is a criticism, that is unavoidable but can be generally be clarified with rational discussion. Furthermore, the moderators are doing a very good job of drawing that line and helping participants to see the difference. And I have confidence that they will continue to do so.

[goldisheavy]

In general, I agree with most of what you are saying but you are misrepresenting my intention and I'd like to respond to a few points.

 

Are you lying right now?

 

Generally, you don't know if it's a post that may contain something insulting or hurtful until its too late. Certainly we can turn on the ignore function but if you are participating in an active discussion you usually can't anticipate someone offering an insult and skip that post until you've already read it.

 

Good point. But you can always take a break from the forum, and you tend to learn which people are likely to disagree with you and which ones are likely to agree. So while insults can indeed be surprising, they aren't always all that surprising.

 

I disagree completely. Insults lead to escalation of tensions, not relaxation. Kind words and understanding, finding some common ground upon which we can share and agree leads to relaxation. Gandhi, Mandela, and similar great men and women recognized this. Violence, whether by words or deed, never solves violence. Only non-violence can do that. And insult or "rough language" as you put it is violence using language.

 

This goes completely against my experience. I've even had situations where a physical fight has turned a relationship of animosity into a friendship. It's true that fights are not how you generally make friends. But at the same time to say that roughness is always negative is wrong. It's too extreme a stance.

 

Insults are not an effective way of demolishing something unwanted for the purposes of renovation and rebuilding. Insults are not criticism. Insults are an attack on the person providing an opinion. Criticism is an attack on the opinion. Criticism, when constructive and compassionate, is a much more effective method than insult. Insult only causes defensiveness, making it much harder to renovate or reconstruct.

 

Criticism and insults are not all that separate. They are part of one single unbroken spectrum of expression.

 

I agree 100%. You have proven my point. When we insult, we are intentionally and exactly disrespecting and attacking the person, not their opinion. I never said not to criticize. I said do not insult.

 

Nonsense. If insults are personal, then no matter what the person believes we'll feel like insulting that specific person. This isn't what happens in most cases. In most cases as soon as the beliefs and/or opinions that are expressed change, the insults stop. So the insults are not in fact personal, no matter how they may appear.

 

Some people really do hurl personal insults that have nothing to do with beliefs and behaviors. Some people just hate one person and no matter what that person does, they can do no right. These cases are very rare and they are pathological.

 

I agree with everything here but notice that you have substituted the word criticize for insult. I was specifically referring to personal insults, not criticism. Furthermore, it is not impossible or even difficult to show respect for the person while not respecting their opinion or idea.

 

My whole point is that insults are on the same spectrum as criticism and that a small and judicious amount of them are admissible. Keep in mind that one man's constructive criticism is another man's destructive criticism. One man's polite criticism is another man's insult of intelligence that's taken personally. It would be better to go beyond seeing everything as a black or white caricature of reality.

 

Again, I disagree with you on this point. It is very easy to avoid insult. One simply has to be aware and mindful.

 

It's very easy to be dishonest. So what? What I am discussing here has nothing to do with the ease if implementation.

 

Simply read your post before hitting the 'Add Reply' button. If anything seems personally insulting, edit or delete.

 

I do that already. But at the same time my goal is not to eliminate expressions that some may consider insulting, but to moderate them. Do you understand the difference between elimination and moderation the way I use these terms?

 

Continued use of insults will and should lead to censorship and repression exactly as is occurring right now on this forum and that is completely appropriate, IMO.

 

I strongly disagree. I also now think you're a snake in the grass who's possibly backstabbed me behind my back, while being all nice and smiles to my face, possibly bitching to moderators in private. I hope that's not personally insulting to you Steve, but it's only honest. I still respect you, but I will appreciate it if you stop lying. In particular you said you agree with almost everything and then proceeded to disagree with practically the entire post. So at best you agree with 5% and disagree with 95%. And then you presented it as a slight disagreement. Is this your idea of being "nice"? Don't you see this kind of dishonesty is exactly what I oppose? So you think you're doing me a service by presenting such false front to me? No, I reject it. I don't want that kind of service. Be straight with me. If you disagree don't try to sweeten your post artificially.

 

I am disappointed.

[Marblehead]

... so cursing and insults sometimes have their worth and should be admitted. As long as I remember I've always maintained this. It's nothing new.

 

Yes Gold, you have always been consistent in this belief of yours. I respect consistency.

[steve]

I think I've struck a nerve.

 

Are you lying right now?

Absolutely not. With respect to criticism, I agree with you. With respect to insults, I disagree. My post referred to insults. Nearly your entire post referred to criticism, therefore I was completely honest in saying I agreed with your post. I believe the difference is meaningful. The intention of an insult is to attack the person. The intention of a criticism is to challenge an idea, opinion, or behavior.

 

 

Good point. But you can always take a break from the forum, and you tend to learn which people are likely to disagree with you and which ones are likely to agree. So while insults can indeed be surprising, they aren't always all that surprising.

Surprising or not, they are unnecessary and unhelpful.

 

This goes completely against my experience. I've even had situations where a physical fight has turned a relationship of animosity into a friendship. It's true that fights are not how you generally make friends. But at the same time to say that roughness is always negative is wrong. It's too extreme a stance.

Then your experience is limited or you are being disingenuous. Nearly every insult on the web or in person leads to reprisal followed by escalation. Most violence begins with words. You are welcome to deny that but such denial is empty.

I agree that fighting can often lead to friendship but I don't think insults are a healthy or predictable way of making friends and you certainly don't mean to say that you insult people to make friends, do you?

Is roughness always negative? Perhaps not.

Are personal insults appropriate and acceptable on this forum? No.

Not only is that the rule of the forum, it is a basic principle of civil discourse.

You are welcome to disagree with me, perhaps you are right and I'm wrong.

I will refrain from insulting people and you may do as you see fit.

 

Criticism and insults are not all that separate. They are part of one single unbroken spectrum of expression.

Again, I agree. All communication is an unbroken spectrum of expression. Insults and criticism are closer to one another on that spectrum than to praise. If you feel drawn to personal insult, that is your prerogative. I maintain that it is an immature and unskillful method of communication. Criticism can be skillful or unskillful, depending on the presentation. Criticism is valid and welcome on this forum. Crossing the line at personal insult is not permitted, nor should it be in my opinion.

Again, you are free to disagree.

 

 

Nonsense. If insults are personal, then no matter what the person believes we'll feel like insulting that specific person. This isn't what happens in most cases. In most cases as soon as the beliefs and/or opinions that are expressed change, the insults stop. So the insults are not in fact personal, no matter how they may appear.

 

Some people really do hurl personal insults that have nothing to do with beliefs and behaviors. Some people just hate one person and no matter what that person does, they can do no right. These cases are very rare and they are pathological.

Again you are being disingenuous here. My point is well made and incontrovertible, IMO (but of course, it is just my opinion). It is certainly possible to insult someone on occasion without insulting them with every comment. It happens on this forum all the time. Insults, by definition, are personal: Merriam-Webster - insult: to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt : affront; also : to affect offensively or damagingly. Not every insult is associated with a personal vendetta. Certainly that does occur rarely, as you suggest. Occasional insults are much more frequent but are insults nonetheless. Just because an insult is offered in association with a belief does not mean it is not hurtful and not an insult.

Case in point -

A: I belief Laozi is an immortal

B: I disagree, Laozi just means old man, you are wrong and you are gullible and I can prove it (criticism)

B: I disagree, Laozi just means old man and you are a moron and an asshole because you're stupid enough to believe that (insult)

 

My whole point is that insults are on the same spectrum as criticism and that a small and judicious amount of them are admissible. Keep in mind that one man's constructive criticism is another man's destructive criticism. One man's polite criticism is another man's insult of intelligence that's taken personally. It would be better to go beyond seeing everything as a black or white caricature of reality.

I agree with all of the above except the assertion that the judicious use of insults is acceptable. It is not acceptable to forum rules and not acceptable to my values. Even though insults and criticism are on the same end of the communication spectrum, in most cases it is quite clear what is personally insulting and what is aggressively critical. The moderators are charged with making this distinction and do a very good job for the most part.

 

It's very easy to be dishonest. So what?

It certainly is.

 

What I am discussing here has nothing to do with the ease if implementation.

Nor I.

 

I do that already. But at the same time my goal is not to eliminate expressions that some may consider insulting, but to moderate them. Do you understand the difference between elimination and moderation the way I use these terms?

No need to be patronizing. My original post was not an attack on you personally, it was my intention to share a personal view that could potentially benefit others.

If you feel that the difference between elimination and moderation is sufficiently complex or subtle to require elucidation, please expound.

 

 

I strongly disagree. I also now think you're a snake in the grass who's possibly backstabbed me behind my back, while being all nice and smiles to my face, possibly bitching to moderators in private. I hope that's not personally insulting to you Steve, but it's only honest.

Fascinating, why would you think that? I've never complained to any moderator about any post since I joined the TaoBums with one exception. I complained to Sean about procurator - a self-proclaimed Nazi who was verbally attacking a Jewish member through personal mail on the forum. I'm not insulted at all. Your paranoia is yours, not mine. I've not backstabbed you nor have I made any particular effort to be nice and smiles to your face. Thank you for your honesty.

 

To be continued - I've exceeded the allowed number of blocks of text.