The spiritual conversation is difficult, and therefore, skillful

[7luminaries]

For the record...I agree it sux to have lost discussions and threads where there was much of value in some way.

Also for the record, I have only ever reported 1 poster to the mods, EVER, LOL. And just one time. It was on the Mars/Venus thread and it was re: Raz after about 50 rounds of pretty darn vile insults flung at me and having given up on civil attempts at remediation at that time, hahaha However I never want to see a thread closed (or removed). That one was re-opened but if the mods don't have time to sort through the thread, they are probably forced to close it.

What this means is that I have skin a mile thick...and I WILL call folks on their cr*p...but many other posters do not and it's very difficult for them to deal with it. Most folks have normal skin thickness, LOL...and obviously some folks must have been upset by the attacks and/or my calling it out and naming it. A few folks posted to that end as well. And some folks must have been upset and reported it. For myself, I see we really do need to keep that in mind -- if we don't want threads closed. I'm not sure what all the other reasons are for threads being closed, of course...I may be out of the loop.

So...my lesson learnt is that I really enjoy hearing everyone's views, truly...and the stranger the better in fact -- just like Hozier says...and I really don't give a fig if we agree or not, as long as folks feel they can share as honestly as they like and exactly when and where they like. Courteously, preferably, LOL...

...at the same time, I will not back down on the most fundamental rights or ethic of consent and inclusion I will do so courteously but I will call it out. Really, I've rarely had to do it more than once or twice with more than a couple folks over the many years I've posted here.

Why? Personal attacks shut down voices. Also, whilst I am basically immune to intimidation, and that goes for real life as well, many are not and they are very sensitive to it and the atmosphere it creates when others are personally attacked and labelled. I pick up on it even whilst I am not intimidated, so I feel an obligation to call it out, because I can.

What that means is that other folks will have to pick their battles (Raz -- I appreciate the rational end of your contributions and no offense, but you know who you are hahahaha!!! ) If I call you out and you persist, I too may have to report rather than continue to engage, so they can speak to you privately and we don't upset others and bring the whole damn house down.

...whilst we all take part in the spiritual conversation and how to discuss stuff without personal attacks and name calling

I strongly prefer to dialogue and folks come round to right behaviour on their own...but if they don't come round immediately and just leave off, well, now we see what happens...more than a couple rounds of back and forth may upset others and they will report it.

Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Raziel

It's been my point in this thread also - trying to ban the word "you" is essentially the language police.

All belief systems allow or quash notions & actions considered to be fine by others. Circumcision, abortion, pork, how prayer is performed ...

It is part of discussion to point out why poster A doesn't subscribe to a set of rules or principles. Poster B will have a counter point.

I don't see the issue in that. I understand the principle of circumcision for example even if a vast majority of the time its an overreaction from my pov - it's a fact of life that they happen.

There is no disparagement in pointing out perceived flaws in logic - the take away is that A & B disagree.

Often when a counterpoint cannot be made other than "my feelings tell me" there ends up being one side that is silenced which is despicable in my view.

It's putting one viewpoint above another.


.

So Raz I'm not sure what threads or subforums you're referring to, but generally I do know that if posting on the various religious traditions subforums, you may run into a lot of more traditional or set perspectives...so you may want to steer clear there if that's problematic.

Interesting abt circumcision...studies were done comparing circumcised and uncircumcised men in sub-Saharan Africa, where HIV/AIDS is endemic in so many places. The rate of disease transmission in uncircumcised men was significantly higher and the magnitude of the difference was such that the trials were stopped on moral grounds after several months, so that circumcision could be offered to all. This is in addition to the many other known and similar health-related advantages.

Obviously, this is best done in infancy if you're going to do it. But the medical and health benefits are irrefutable. I will say this, however. If, like in so much of humanity's past, you as a man were partnered off very young (teens, even and at least by your late 20s even in lean times) and only had sex with your partner and she with you (and perhaps one of you remarried if a partner died) then in truth it would matter not if you were circumcised or not -- neither for your own health nor that of your partner, aside from the hygienic and any non-lethal bacterial/viral downsides to being uncircumcised.

The true advantage of circumcision was never realized in historic times (aside from hygiene etc, particularly historically). In fact, it is only in a heavily promiscuous era that the benefits conferred are so much more stark and advantageous. Who knew?

Obviously, I would not be having this conversation with anyone who had a strong religious belief one way or the other, LOL As I realize it might be very upsetting to them...

Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Raziel

It's been my point in this thread also - trying to ban the word "you" is essentially the language police.

All belief systems allow or quash notions & actions considered to be fine by others. Circumcision, abortion, pork, how prayer is performed ...

It is part of discussion to point out why poster A doesn't subscribe to a set of rules or principles. Poster B will have a counter point.

I don't see the issue in that. I understand the principle of circumcision for example even if a vast majority of the time its an overreaction from my pov - it's a fact of life that they happen.

There is no disparagement in pointing out perceived flaws in logic - the take away is that A & B disagree.

Often when a counterpoint cannot be made other than "my feelings tell me" there ends up being one side that is silenced which is despicable in my view.

It's putting one viewpoint above another.


.

So Raz I'm not sure what threads or subforums you're referring to, but generally I do know that if posting on the various religious traditions subforums, you may run into a lot of more traditional or set perspectives...so you may want to steer clear there if that's problematic.

Interesting abt circumcision...studies were done comparing circumcised and uncircumcised men in sub-Saharan Africa, where HIV/AIDS is endemic in so many places. The rate of disease transmission in uncircumcised men was significantly higher and the magnitude of the difference was such that the trials were stopped on moral grounds after several months, so that circumcision could be offered to all. This is in addition to the many other known and similar health-related advantages.

Obviously, this is best done in infancy if you're going to do it. But the medical and health benefits are irrefutable. I will say this, however. If, like in so much of humanity's past, you as a man were partnered off very young (teens, even and at least by your late 20s even in lean times) and only had sex with your partner and she with you (and perhaps one of you remarried if a partner died) then in truth it would matter not if you were circumcised or not -- neither for your own health nor that of your partner, aside from the hygienic and any non-lethal bacterial/viral downsides to being uncircumcised.

The true advantage of circumcision was never realized in historic times (aside from hygiene etc, particularly historically). In fact, it is only in a heavily promiscuous era that the benefits conferred are so much more stark and advantageous. Who knew?

Obviously, I would not be having this conversation with anyone who had a strong religious belief one way or the other, LOL As I realize it might be very upsetting to them...

Peace & blessings
7L

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

For the record...I agree it sux to have lost discussions and threads where there was much of value in some way.

Also for the record, I have only ever reported 1 poster to the mods, EVER, LOL. And just one time. It was on the Mars/Venus thread and it was re: Raz after about 50 rounds of pretty darn vile insults flung at me and having given up on civil attempts at remediation at that time, hahaha However I never want to see a thread closed (or removed). That one was re-opened but if the mods don't have time to sort through the thread, they are probably forced to close it.

What this means is that I have skin a mile thick...and I WILL call folks on their cr*p...but many other posters do not and it's very difficult for them to deal with it. Most folks have normal skin thickness, LOL...and obviously some folks must have been upset by the attacks and/or my calling it out and naming it. A few folks posted to that end as well. And some folks must have been upset and reported it. For myself, I see we really do need to keep that in mind -- if we don't want threads closed. I'm not sure what all the other reasons are for threads being closed, of course...I may be out of the loop.

So...my lesson learnt is that I really enjoy hearing everyone's views, truly...and the stranger the better in fact -- just like Hozier says...and I really don't give a fig if we agree or not, as long as folks feel they can share as honestly as they like and exactly when and where they like. Courteously, preferably, LOL...

...at the same time, I will not back down on the most fundamental rights or ethic of consent and inclusion I will do so courteously but I will call it out. Really, I've rarely had to do it more than once or twice with more than a couple folks over the many years I've posted here.

Why? Personal attacks shut down voices. Also, whilst I am basically immune to intimidation, and that goes for real life as well, many are not and they are very sensitive to it and the atmosphere it creates when others are personally attacked and labelled. I pick up on it even whilst I am not intimidated, so I feel an obligation to call it out, because I can.

What that means is that other folks will have to pick their battles (Raz -- I appreciate the rational end of your contributions and no offense, but you know who you are hahahaha!!! ) If I call you out and you persist, I too may have to report rather than continue to engage, so they can speak to you privately and we don't upset others and bring the whole damn house down.

...whilst we all take part in the spiritual conversation and how to discuss stuff without personal attacks and name calling

I strongly prefer to dialogue and folks come round to right behaviour on their own...but if they don't come round immediately and just leave off, well, now we see what happens...more than a couple rounds of back and forth may upset others and they will report it.

Peace & blessings
7L

I'll agree to disagree about the thick skin for the sake of this thread.

When accused of being a rape apologist & women hater a poster has a fundamental right of response.

Especially when they are like me for example:
I've been to a stay & play all morning getting on wonderfully & being the only adult male in a group of 23.

Please don't start again 7luminaries, calling someone out for not actually doing what they are being accused of is a form of bullying in itself.
The example here again is that I have never been "spoken to" about behaviour or given any type of formal warning.

Just as with everything it's interpretation. Perhaps long winded soliloquies are considered by some as over saturating a specific narrative - it's going to happen.

We are not supposed to moderate each others behaviour - on a forum or in real life.

Once that behaviour starts it's asking for trouble.
.

[7luminaries]

Raz,
I said I didn't report you, LOL. And I am not a moderator. That is not what I'm doing.
I'm having a discussion about lessons learnt and possible ways to handle this going fwd.
On the spiritual conversation thread.

I also said -- full disclosure -- I will continue to call you out if you attack or name call.

And don't worry about being wrongfully accused as I will only have a problem with any clearly posted verbal attacks and labels .
And that we will either need to resolve it in a few rounds, or I will report it so that it doesn't go on.

I saw plenty of other long posts on the other thread and in many threads generally by whomever.
So no, I don't mind who posts what about their opinions on the SUBJECT
and no, I don't think that's a biggie as far as skin-thickness goes for most folks, hahaha

It's more the direct insults or attacks that are problematic IMO.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

So Raz I'm not sure what threads or subforums you're referring to, but generally I do know that if posting on the various religious traditions subforums, you may run into a lot of more traditional or set perspectives...so you may want to steer clear there if that's problematic.
Peace & blessings
7L

There is that presumption again - it's merely an example - I never go into religious traditions sub forums.

The character being portrayed in this tale does not exist.

Why does mentioning traditions that are potentially not my own seem in any way problematic?

.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Raz,

It's more the direct insults or attacks that are problematic IMO.

Peace & blessings
7L

Like being accused of being a woman hater .. for example ..?

Coming from a place where I know my own spirituality & demons I have come across many hypocrites in a religious guise as well as those in authority.

They never play by their own rules yet are happy to point the finger at others.

It's quite common for them to insist on others behaving a certain way - the "you" language is the perfect example. I have a real inner strength that most likely intimidates others but should I be silenced due to their lack of confidence?

If we are at peace with ourselves we merely offer perspective: often those with differing perspectives but no justified response simply shut it all down.
.

[Gem]

The basic idea behind the difficulty is related to the continual awareness of what is arising in one's own intents, feelings, reactions, thoughts... basically, all that's going on with oneself. It's not like we're perfect people. We're typically prone to become distracted into our reactive habits, but we only have to be conscious of these rather than mindlessly compelled by them. It's not a ban on them or any expectation that it should be otherwise. It's the mere awareness of it - nothing more.

It's simply true that we are aware of our own minds, although somewhat distracted at times.

The little animosities that arise here are not caused by the other - they are laced with our own intent. To categorise this intent in a very general way, we oppose it as good will and ill will. From that crude classification there are more precise nuances, and all we say contains some measure of it, for we speak to communicate, which is to have an effect and be affected.

There is no time between the intent and the result thereof, because the mind moves in the moment of intent. There is no duration between the urge of intent in which we can prevent our minds from moving accordingly. The mind moves within intent's immediacy. Hence, things are 'like this' - already happened - so we have to face the fact of what is. There is only the awareness of this or distraction from it - and in distraction we can become imagined selves living in the reactive aftermath of our real lived experience - distracted from the reality of life.

The inevitable is already here.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Raziel

Like being accused of being a woman hater .. for example ..?

Coming from a place where I know my own spirituality & demons I have come across many hypocrites in a religious guise as well as those in authority.

They never play by their own rules yet are happy to point the finger at others.

It's quite common for them to insist on others behaving a certain way - the "you" language is the perfect example. I have a real inner strength that most likely intimidates others but should I be silenced due to their lack of confidence?

If we are at peace with ourselves we merely offer perspective: often those with differing perspectives but no justified response simply shut it all down.
.

Raziel,
I'm not here to argue with you about all the things you're upset about, hahahah You can feel however you feel and that's your right.

How about this? You mind your manners and refrain from attacks and labels, and I'll hold back on my assessments as well.
If you attack or label me, I will try to strictly stick to calling it out and withhold too much further comment.

I have been restrained but on a few occasions yes, I said what I thought regarding your statements and behaviour.
You can do as you like, but I recommend you leave it and refrain from living in the past.

You'll notice I do not keep throwing back at you some of the particularly vile stuff you've said. It's called letting it go and living in the NOW
It's in the past. I trust you can do the same

Peace & blessing
7L

[Raziel]

Honestly ...

When we know where our own power lies, there is nothing any other person on earth can say. There is not a single question of ones morality that can undermine it.

A spiritually confident person will in no way require to dominate.

Dominance comes in many forms - one is language. I understand the true context of all of this insistence & word play but it is unfair for me to state it.

Living in the past is a reflective term best applied elsewhere, let's leave it at that perhaps.

"I shall do as I must Obiwan"
Qui-Gon Jinn.

And so shall Raziel.

I will speak as I always have & always will. The banning of terms & words, insistence on the behaviour of others - no thanks.

I'm a free spirit.

.