That’s surprising to see, since you have not made it your business or obligation to find out about the sophistication of Western philosophy before opining about it.
I suppose the operative word here would be “if.”
In any case, if you decide to answer the question, what I asked you was in what way it is factually (your claim) a more sophisticated philosophy (setting aside for the moment that there is not one monolythic Eastern philosophy).
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, no “monolithic” Eastern philosophy exists. In Western religions we tend to say, “Here is what’s so. You’d better believe it or you certainly will be punished, both here and in the hereafter.” Eastern philosophy progresses more along the lines of, “Here is what’s so, and here’s why. Accept or reject whatever you wish.“ That, I think, is a more sophisticated approach to teaching spiritual truths.
Well, then, fuck your Eastern “Masters,” who seem to be masters of nothing but idiocy. First of all, being gay is not a choice. It is not a behavior. It is not something one can control or select or escape. It is an unchangeable, undeniable component of one’s being.
Second, it is stupid – absolutely, completely STUPID – to think that homosexuals harm society. Where is the evidence? Where is one shred of evidence? Where is a shadow of a shred of evidence? Oooh, meditation. Wow, that’s soooo impressive. Did they chant, too?
To accuse me of being a harm to society because I am gay is sheer bigotry. To equate my love, or the acts it entails, with damage to society is pure hate. Your Eastern “Masters” are masters only of bigotry and sophistry, when it comes to this issue. And if you agree with them, then you’re no different than them.
Because they are contradicted by scientific evidence and because they are not based on any foundation of empirical research but simply upon cultural bias.
What “phenomena?” Hallucinations? Not a goal of meditation. If you want to assert the existence of “chakras,” you’re going o have to actually show some sort of observable tangible evidence. Subjective hallucinations are not evidence of anything except that people can hallucinate.
Not a result either.
It seems to me like you actually know very little about Eastern mysticism. You should try reading more than one book.
Even the word “Eastern” is hugely diverse. The yogic techniques of India have very little relationship to the meditative techniques of Buddhism. Much of yoga is rooted in ancient magical thinking and has little or no verifiable substance to it.
Meditation is a cognitive technique more than anything and while altered states of consciousness can provide the sensation of “received” messages or insights, it’s still just stuff that’s coming from your own brain and is still informed by your own inherent assumptions and cultural biases.
By benign, do you mean harmless? Well, you can’t prove the lack of something (in this case harm). That’s impossible.
As for beneficial? Why would it be beneficial? It’s simply a state of being, no more or less profound or important or moral or spiritually correct that heterosexuality.
You’re the bigot attacking me, and every other gay person in the world, by calling us a threat to society. You’re the one making the evil, hateful, spiteful claim. So back it up or back it down.
“Ooh magical mystical energy fields is all out of whack” isn’t backing it up, either.
Sorry if I am stepping on your toes, tomndebb but the lack of an actual argument is just stunning.
And the difference is? Let say you hold one position, and argue another. I the normal human reaction is to assume the position you are arguing is the same as your opinion, not the actual undisclosed one you really hold.
Yes, because we all know that an unbiased review of philosophy will show your argument is right. :rolleyes:
Skipping a bunch of nonsense about some criticizing the fact that it isn’t all that possible to discern “tone” in an online discussion.
1: When you argue about anything involving homosexuals, and you say the least thing negative, you are likely to be perceived as a homophobe. Mostly because you are.
2:Also, it is no proven that western philosophy is “practically based” more then western, and even if it was, that does not mean that the writings of one homophobic philosopher is correct.
What the hell? He is a moderator, so his job is to make sure that idiots don’t type insults in the wrong forum, plus pointing out logical errors, etc. He (They?) is a human being, and is entitled to an opinion. He is all allowed to state that opinion. What alternate universe did you come from that allowed you to say that?
P.S. About marriage… I am disturbed by the attributing of concepts like healthy children to marriage, or a positive relationship. True, these are hallmarks of a good marriage in contemporary society, but this discussion is attempting to bring in all of societies definition. Society has approved at different times, a man, and as many women as he can feed; a man and a women, both equal; a woman, and his property, a women, and so on. Attempting to define it as the form we have today, and furthermore saying that a church approved marriage, and a civil marriage are the same thing is just nonsense.
Yes, it’s so much fun being accused of being the cause of the end of society and civilization. Really, that’s just a blast. I so love it. Please, tell me more wisdom from your ignorant, bigot overlords.
Granted. Such phenomenon have to be felt to be experienced. There isn’t any instrumentation, as yet, to “prove” their existence. All of this has already been addressed previously. If you choose to remain mired in only that which is empirical, empirical phenomena is all you’ll ever know. Lots of people choose this. You’re in a real big club! And as we all know, MIGHT makes RIGHT! Or doesn’t it…
Read the thread more thoroughly. I know it’s difficult once it’s expanded this far.
Stay with that big club! You’ll have plenty of back-patters to tell you, “You’re in the right, because you think like us.” It’s a safer place, to be sure.
The benefits of just plaining knowing that homosexuality is wrong, because you “know” it is… what?
I’m sorry, but I’m unable to decipher this.
Well, the odds at any game in any casino are worse than 50%. I’m not much of a gambler, been to Atlantic City a few times and overall ended up the loser. But I’m still glad I at least have the right to play.
I have actually experienced the concepts you speak of. I spent a few years studying eastern spiritualism, and kundalini, and meditated every single day multiple times. I practiced stilling my mind and as I got better at it, I gradually became able maintain that stillness for longer and longer periods of time. I reached a point where I truly felt that I was gaining real, true insight into the wisdom of life. Really.
I currently believe that it is all BS.
drmark, I appreciate you being here and hope you stick around, but I don’t think you understand how debate works. If you make a claim, you are expected to back it up. Yes you threw out some quotes and were challenged on them. Responding to the challenge, you claim that your argument’s defense is available elsewhere in the book but instead of quoting that defense you expect us to read the book. Do you really think that we can all go out and read every book quoted in a debate thread just to come back here and respond? Oh, that’s right, you did claim the purpose of reading the book would be for our personal growth, not merely for the thread. Well, I have a whole stack of books that are way higher on my list right now, all which will hopefully contribute to my own pursuit of enlightenment.
If you want to debate here you have got to get used to presenting your evidence in an easily accessible and compact form. If you have some more compelling quotes from your sources use them. Then maybe, if your argument is compelling enough, one might go out and learn more on their own based on your recommendations. I personally am finding your argument not compelling enough.
I must say that your propensity for destroying the very essence of both philosophical schools at once via the most pithy and hackneyed cliches conceivable is nothing short of remarkable. You appear to know nothing about either.
In post 88, you claim people who disagree with you belong to some abstract club, the members of all agree with one another. Your side however embraces the idea that can’t be proven. You strongly suggest your side is better, and “my side” is missing something import. Tell me, what is my side missing, by not embracing the concept that people can simply “know” homosexuality is wrong?
Party poopers.
OK, Generally in Great Debates I don’t have to point this out, but for your sake I will:
This is (more or less) a debate.
In it, a question has been put forth as to whether or not “gays will destroy society.”
You have answered in the affirmative.
Now, it is an unfortunate aspect of debating that the “affirmative” side is actually the weaker position. People arguing for the affirmative need to actually provide evidence, (facts and so on) and logic to persuade their opponents and the audience of their position while the negative side has merely to demonstrate either errors in their argument or errors in their facts. It may not seem fair, but that is how it works.
In this case, you have posted for the positive assertion. Unfortunately, you have provided neither facts nor logic in support of that position. You quoted some western commentators on eastern philosophies in a couple of unsupported statements that demonstrate nothing more than their beliefs regarding the beliefs of (some) eastern philosophies or philosophers. (As Liberal has pointed out, there is no monolithic “eastern” philosophy, so quoting a commentary on it does not actually provide support for the affirmative position, it merely indicates that you were able to find some commentators to remark on some philosophers with comments that support your feelings.) Where is their evidence? Where (in this thread) is their logic? If you wish to persuade me (or any of the Teeming Millions reading at home or work) of your position, it is not enough to say “I agree with these (potentially out-of-context) quotations that express a belief about homosexuality.” It is up to you to bring their facts and logic to this discussion. Failing that, you are merely appealing to authority–and, in this case, setting up a double layer of “authority” wherein you first use the “authority” of the authors (without showing how they are right) to support your belief, and then appealing to the “authority” of some nebulous “Eastern” system to place their authority above the authority of any “Western” source. That is a compound error.
You have not made a personal attack on any poster. However, all of your “defenses” of your position have relied on claiming that we need to kowtow to “eastern” philosophies and trying to claim (without evidence) that those who have pointed out the weakness of your presentation have not read such philosophies. Those are the (weak) attacks that you have contributed to this thread. Insisting that I go away and read some book that you liked does nothing to persuade me (or the audience) that your position has merit. If their opposition to homosexuality cannot be explained or their rationale summarized, then it is of no use to this discussion (otherwise, if I find you posting in a debate on the value of eastern or western philosophy, I can simply find a quotation from a western philosopher that demeans eastern thought and tell you to go read his book if you want to debate the issue).
You still have failed to provide facts or logic to support your contention.
The reason that I ascribe to your quotations the epithet of homophobia (and the reason I pointed out the parallel to Fanny Hill), is that the quoted statements express nothing more than a condemnation of homosexuality without providing any reason to believe that the authors have a better reason than their own distate to oppose homosexual activity. (Cleland was noted explicitly because I would expect the vast majority of readers in this thread (including you) to have read the work and so they/we should all recognize that the scene in which (male*) homosexuality is condemned is filled with 18th century European prejudices. It was the very close parallel between that scene of unsubstantiated prejudice and the expressions of condemnation in your quotes that I found remarkable. Here you are, offering as (the totality of) your position a handful of quotations and relying on the great mystique of the East to hold them up as Truth, and I was able to find the same thoughts expressed in an underground novel from backwards old (Western) England in the middle of the 18th century.
Now, if you have an actual series of facts and logic with which to support your view, I would love to see them, but at this point I tend to doubt that you have much more than a feeling backed by some commentary that gives you warm feelings because it reinforces your feelings. You might even be right, but you will continue to fail to persuade others if you continue failing to present actual facts and a logical train of thought.
Now, as it happens, I do not believe that homosexuality is increasing (heck, since Kinsey, we keep seeing reports that continue to lower the estimates of homosexuals within society, although such reports do not seem more reliable than Kinsey) and I do believe that homosexuality is a neutral force in society. (The latter is based on the number of people of the past who have been known to have been homosexual while providing great contributions to arts and science balanced against the fact that they do not seem to have dragged society to higher levels by their mere (if noteworthy) presence.)
Now, I could be mistaken on both points, but I could be mistaken because homosexuality is either growing or shrinking and I could be mistaken because homosexuals have either caused more harm or actually have brought more good. In other words, I could err both in support of your belief or in opposition to your belief on two separate issues (which might actually cancel each other out). Since I am not putting forth the concept that homosexuality will destroy society, it is not up to me to prove or disprove my beliefs–it is up to you to demonstrate a case for your beliefs.
*(Like a lot of male authors of erotic fiction, Cleland seems to have had no trouble accepting–and writing titillating passages of–female homosexual acts.)
That “sophistication” being exactly what?
The funny thing about all this discussion is that a few extra and simple tax breaks could help “save” marriage more than wiping out homosexuals ever would.
I might add too that many homos like to have kids too… so not much chance of their becoming “extinct” if homosexuality is only genetic.
Look, I’m sorry, man, but being glad to have right to play in a losing game, whether in marriage, at a casino, or anywhere else doesn’t grab me.
How come?
I appreciate your appreciation, and I’ll certainly stick around. All I did was to present some quotations, and said that I agree with them. Others disagreed, and I referred them to the source of the quotations, which incidentally is a magnificent and broad-ranging account of Eastern philosophy and practices. Here, and elsewhere, is where the answers to their disputes can be found. No doubt, this would take time, maybe more than is feasible for some, maybe most, maybe all. Oh, well.
What strikes me most about this discussion is the reaction to the views I presented. Anger, negation, denial, defensiveness and, I think, insolent demands that I go out and do people’s research for them. If I have misperceived the nature of debate, as you define it, then I have. Then again, I never saw the Great Debates, nor any other forum on TSD, as forums for debate in the sense that we may be familiar with in high school, college, and in various TV offerings. I regard them as a sounding board, and an exchange of information, and have valued them inestimably as such.
In response to the final paragraph:
No, you have it completely backwards. You can soundboard all you like on In My Humble Opinion.
Oh, and the fact that Moe’s casino analogy didn’t stir you isn’t the point. It was a valid analogy, and it served that purpose admirably.
Why does it have to be a male/female environment, however? What proof is there that a child-supportive environment of “one male, one female” parent is the best/optimal/only solution available? Are we going to claim that “three females, four males” (father, mother, grandma, grandfather, aunt, uncle, father-in-law) is somehow less viable? Having an environment dedicated to the well-being of the offspring is one thing; stating that the optimal environment must consist of M males and N females is another.
(I’ll also note that last week’s episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! tackled the same topic, and made a decent argument that the claim “One man and one woman is best for the kids” is a bunch of hooey.)