Our “bias” is toward reality. You seem to think that there are two equal sides to this story, and there just isn’t. The objective view from anyone with more than a 4th grade education is that this is pure silliness. It’s like responding to the statement “Drinking and driving is dangerous!” by looking for objective viewpoints from people who think it’s beneficial to drink and drive.
I doubt OP will find anyone who practices sun-gazing. Although, I wouldn’t be against the OP researching the topic because I would be curious to find out who exactly practices sun-gazing.
He might. There are plenty of ways for blind people to use computers.
Thank you, Captain Amazing. This is the only attempt I have witnessed to provide any info directly related to the question.
Kudos.
I checked with the Documentary Channel and this will air again on 8/18 at noon eastern for anyone interested in seeing it.
Then, perhaps, you can form your own opinions with some actual facts as presented in the film.
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:123, topic:591333”]
He might. There are plenty of ways for blind people to use computers.
[/QUOTE]
This proves my point.
When you, a moderator insults me, it is (t)witty and clever.
When I do it, I am threatened with banishment. 
Which part of the statement you quoted insults you, and how? Are you blind? Did it happen because you looked at the sun?
Also, who threatened to ban you? I can’t see that anywhere…
Or if not seeing it, at least listening to it.
Not unless you identify yourself with those who would do something so foolhardy and misguided as to stare directly at the sun for an extended period of time.
Do you?
If you cannot “see” the condescending tone of his post, then perhaps, you should have your “vision” checked.
Implying that Sungazers are automatically blinded by the practice is entirely inaccurate.
I was threatened with banishment by private message.
Have you been sungazing and gone blind? I’ve posted comments from the film director about the outcome of the film subject’s activities. What am eye, chopped liver?
It’s not condescending to you - it’s not even talking about you (unless indirectly perhaps, if you’re a sungazer yourself, but that’s not established, is it?). Anyway, it’s quite funny. What’s your real problem?
You seem to know a lot about the subject already. Why are you asking the SDMB about it?
Fair enough then.
The belief by you or anyone else that you can stare at the sun and not go blind is bullshit.
Well, unless ‘sungazers’ really means ‘people that look at sunsets, occasionally’ - but another name for that set of people is ‘everyone’
Tell me, please, what facts are presented in the documentary that will convince me that there is something to this. Here are the facts that I am aware of: there are some people who think that sungazing is a valid practice, and claim that they have used it successfully. These people appear to be sincere in their beliefs. Is there anything else I’ve missed?
It proves nothing.
(1) I did not insult you - I merely referred to the undisputed fact that gazing directly at the sun damages eyesight. Even the subject of the documentary you cited repeatedly experienced this, and he’s an “expert.”
(2) And, by the way, that post does not say “Moderating” anywhere in it. I was speaking as just a member of the boards, helping to fight ignorance.
(3) Your “(t)witty” comment is pretty close to the line, though.
I did not threaten you with banishment.
I did not imply that sungazers are automatically blinded by the practice. I implied that gazing directly at the sun damages eyesight, and doing it enough will cause blindness. This is medical fact.
To the best of my knowledge, I have never sent you a private message on any topic whatsoever. All communication between the two of us has taken place in this thread, where it is clear to all readers that I have not threatened to ban you.
topaz, I’ve seen people defend nutty ideas with this tactic many times, and it’s baffling. If there are persuasive facts in the film, then it is the facts that are persuasive, not the format in which they’re presented: just tell us the facts yourself.
If, however, it’s the film itself that’s persuasive, not the facts contained therein, that suggests that the film is using dishonest propaganda techniques to persuade the viewer in spite of the facts. If that’s the case, why would I possibly want to watch the film and risk being persuaded of something that’s not factually persuasive?
I didn’t threaten to ban you by private message, and I’m pretty sure no one else on the staff has been in touch with you. I did say upthread that if you continued to ignore moderator instructions and hijacked your own discussion by complaining, you might not last long here.
It’s past time that I closed this thread, so I’m doing that now. If anyone wants me to reopen it, send me a private message and I’ll consider it.