I’ve already responded to the emails explaining to me that I have violated some otherwise unstated “rules” of this forum, when I have asked people to do their own work, and gain their own experience, to “prove” or “disprove” the assertions I cited. Take a look at page #1 of this forum. There are two posts at the top explaining a couple of ground rules; don’t flame, and be specific in your title descriptions. I haven’t violated either of those requests, although I consider that I have been flamed repeatedly in this thread (more on that below). There is nothing stating, “These threads must be discussed in this certain way.” Apparently, there should be. Sure, the word “debate” does imply some things, but I’ve read plenty of other threads on this board (including this one) that departed substantially and repeatedly from debate, in the strictest sense. No, I’m not going to provide cites on this. Do your own work. Fat chance.
Maybe this isn’t so for you, but in my experience I have found it entirely possible to accept a belief without harboring personal attachment to it; in other words, having some personal investment in it being “true,” and feeling some need/obligation to “prove” its validity to others. I think that history shows pretty clearly (no cites; do your own work) the brutal effect of personal attachment to any belief. We kill each other over them. A form of this is Liberal’s statement that this thread is a “hopeless mess that only demolition can cure.” Don’t like it; destroy it. THAT gets rid of whatever you don’t like. It’s the cyber-equivalent of book burning. And we all know who did a lot of that.
As I have already stated, and I think more than once, I consider this forum an exchange of ideas. Toss something into the mix, and find out what people have to say. That’s the essence of a forum like this, as far as I’m concerned. The effort may follow a nice, tidy little line of reasoning the result of which is pat agreement by all parties, or (and more than likely) follow a lot of tangents, invoke some controversy, and perhaps (and more than likely) never conclusively establish “The Truth.” I’m fine with either.
And this is interesting: Monday night, I finally printed out this entire thread (to that point), all 70+ pages of it, and read it over. I’m pleased, overall. I want to hear arguments different than my own, confirming of my own, and whatever else. I want to see my knowledge expanded, even if I don’t necessarily agree with a given opinion. If I don’t agree, I’ll take it upon myself to do the rest of the work of educating myself, should I so choose.
If I, or anyone, went through this entire thread, picked out every assertion that was made without cites, and responded, "I don’t (or don’t necessarily) agree with that. In any case, you have provided no cites. You owe us this. This is how we do it around here. It’s a ‘rule,’ we say, " the thread would be expanded by, oh, maybe 33%, probably much more, with nothing but posts like that. Is this the forum that you want? If so, then then engage in absolute and unrelenting rigorousness in pointing out each and every one of such instances (both in others’ posts and your own), not just on the assertions with which you happen not to agree, or that even “offend” you.
Over the course of this thread, I have been referred to as a “bigot,” a “homophobe,” an “armchair hack,” a maker of an “evil hateful and spiteful claim,” a holder of “actual undisclosed” opinions (unspecified), of having “a twisted view”, of being a minion, I guess, of “ignorant, bigot overlords” (to whom I have been directed to “masturbate,” by the way), a destroyer of “the very essence of both [Eastern and Western] philosophical schools,” a “drunk man pissing in a rainstorm,” an unleasher of “pure hatred,” a purveyor of “pure condemnation laced with seething hatred,” and have been accused of “attacking” others’ views when I have done nothing of the sort (eventually acknowledged).
Oh, I can hear the cries coming back, “It’s because you are all of those things, drmark! WE have determined it to be so!”
But if at least some of the above (and I haven’t quoted all of it) doesn’t qualify as flaming, not to mention attacking, then you (or someone) tell me what flaming is. And flaming is a direct infraction of one of the explicitly stated ground rules of this board, loosely defined as “Direct personal insults.” And as to that, as far as I’m concerned, have at it. Stick and stones, et cetera. I can take it. The point is that these posters have directly and repeatedly infracted upon one of the stated ground rules of this forum. If these are the examples that I’m supposed to be living up to, then I’d just as soon not.
Poor, old Eastern philosophy hasn’t fared too well, either, around here. The energies to which they refer have been summed up as, “a load,” and “Garbage. Pure Garbage,” among other equally well considered and articulated terms. I have been told to “fuck [my] Eastern masters,” (mine?), and that the results of meditation on a given topic are “hallucinations.” Cites? Just kidding, again. I’ll confirm or disconfirm such observations for myself.
I have also been graciously requested to “stop fucking posting on this thread,” as well as the pathetically plaintive, “Please stop.” I have been referred to another forum with all of the intellectual enthusiasm and helpfulness of a bureaucrat telling me, “That’s not our department. Try over there.” You ever dealt with a government agency? That process can take a LONG time. As I’ve already stated, this forum is rife with uncited assertions and plenty of opinions, so the request doesn’t really hold up.
What this boils down to is disagreement with the quotations I have cited. Disagree away. I want to hear it. But when tomndebb posts his opinions “Based on [his] limited reading on the topic,” and “personal observations,” and cosmosdan deems those opinions “Very insightful and thoughtful,” (#151) it’s because cosomsdan happens to “tend to” agree, as he himself states. No demand for cites, no negation of the ideas presented or vituperative exclamations of contempt just because there aren’t any cites.
Finally, on the topic of “hate.” Those who hate, and hate themselves for being hateful, look all around them for something they can identify as hate, and then wag their little fingers at it shouting, “Look! Hate! Hate! Let’s get together and stop that hate!” attempting to deflect the focus from themselves, and hoping against hope all the while that no one will notice that it is they, themselves, who are full of the hatred, and are at least as much the enemy as that to which they point at. They are what they claim to loathe, sometimes much more.
