Right Speech: Getting Personal

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).

I can see how the following comment(s) might reasonably be taken personally by someone else.

(1) "I disagree with you."
2
3%
(2) "You are incorrect."
6
8%
(3) "How could a person with the qualities you advocate ever take the position you hold to be true?"
6
8%
(4) "Here is the source of your confusion." (When you do not believe you are confused.)
7
9%
(5) "... backing away slowly ..." (followed by eye-roll emoji)
13
17%
(6) "You are too pig-headed to listen."
14
18%
(7) A post pointing out "your increasingly hysterical comments."
10
13%
(8) "You are a solipsist."
7
9%
(9) "That is your own idiosyncratic view, but the Buddha teaches ..."
7
9%
(10) "I can see how my comment may have offended you."
4
5%
 
Total votes: 76

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by L.N. » Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:12 pm

retrofuturist wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:23 am
retrofuturist wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:02 am
That's funny, you were awfully insistent that any discussion and critique of Islam and Mohammad should be stopped.
L.N. wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:09 am
Yes, I still am insistent the discussion and critique should be much more measured. You should rein in the hate speech about other faiths, especially in light of the persecution of Rohingya Muslims at the hands of self-identified Buddhists. But again, that is your business, and your kamma to perform.
Ah, so in fact you are advocating censorship and controls, despite your "Nobody has advocated censorship. I don't know where you got that from" protests. Glad we cleared that up.
Censorship is a government function. This is a private website. Censorship is not even an applicable concept. You have TOS, and you can decide the face of Buddhism which you choose to present here. So far, it has included disparagement of other faiths, and disparagement of individuals with whom you disagree.
L.N. wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:09 am
I does not feel as though you have respected the autonomy of others to speak messages with which you personally disagree.
That's interesting.... I don't recall censoring or starting up a rally cry for the censorship of those with whom I personally disagree. I don't recall starting up a poll trying to demonize, tar, and feather those whose speech upset me. I don't remember reporting a whole swathe of posts that violated my personal feelings, but did not violate the Terms of Service.
No, but bulling behavior is chilling. You are the administrator. You hijacked this thread for the purpose of making personalized comments about me. Also, please stop mischaracterizing my reporting. I have reported a grand total of 6 posts, as follows: (1) when Sam Vara went off the rails on the locked topic and got offensively personal; (2) at Mike's instructions as I understood them, and (3-6) various posts which showed open contempt for other traditions, in violation of TOS as I understand it. That is all.
Oh, that's right, that was you, wasn't it? :)
I had assumed private reporting was confidential, and PMs were confidential. I have come to understand this is not the case, and if someone makes a report, they may be subject to retaliation by DW admin.
Don't think your double-standards and hypocrisy will get you very far with me, mate.
More personalized comments.
Metta,
When you use that word, I hope you use it with sincerity, not sarcastically.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by L.N. » Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:17 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:28 am
L.N. wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:01 am
It is not meant to be workable for the forum. It is meant to be workable for oneself. In other words, when one makes a personalized comment, playing the person rather than the ball, one can anticipate unexpected responses. In which case one can take personal responsibility for the words spoken. As the poll shows, different people have different ideas of what comments might reasonably be taken personally.
I didn't say "workable for the forum". I said "workable on the forum".
Same meaning.
I entirely agree that when one makes a personalised comment, playing the person, etc., one can anticipate unexpected responses. But as I didn't make a personalised comment, your point does not apply.
Yes you did. You repeatedly discussed "your confusion" and alleged "hysterical" comments. See poll results above. These terms could reasonably be taken personally.
Your entire point is based upon simply choosing your particular interpretation against the good advice of others.
No it is not. I created a Topic about Right Speech. You and others have chosen to play the person, not the ball. I invite you to play the ball. I know you probably will not.
The poll does not show that anyone would take the comment that I made personally.
But a reasonable person might. You never know, when you start talking to someone about their supposed confusion.
The poll does not ask whether people would take a particular statement personally, having been told by the person who made it that it was not personal. I also note that the poll does not ask whether, having taken a particular interpretation, one should repeatedly denounce the author despite their remonstration that the interpretation is wrong. Nor does the poll ask whether people think that it is possible to misinterpret someone's utterance.


Unsupported repetition. Who allows you to judge with objectivity and finality whether comments are personal? The point is that it was a comment that you chose to interpret as being personal. Despite reassurances that it was not, and that you did not need to. And yet you maintain that you take responsibility for your actions. Why do you not take responsibility for interpreting the words of others? That interpretation is a mental act which is free in that you could have done otherwise, you could have revised that interpretation. It could have been a misinterpretation. It is this insistence on your own self-righteousness that makes your holier-than-thou routine so risible.
More personalized comments.

Please play the ball, not the person. But you can do whatever you want. It's your kamma to perform.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 2974
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by Goofaholix » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:54 pm

L.N. wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:23 am
When we do something which has an unintended consequence, we all (myself included) can recognize the kernel of truth regarding our role in the situation or conflict which has arisen conditioned by our words/actions.
That's right, each time we hit the reply button we have the choice to escalate or de-escalate. De-escalating is not that hard it just takes a bit of objectivity, a bit of tolerance, and impersonal language in the reply.

I haven't seen the posts that started this but I believe you, can you take responsibility for each time you had the opportunity to de-escalate and chose to escalate?
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

binocular
Posts: 5606
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by binocular » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:51 pm

L.N. wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:12 am
When we make a personalized comment, we run the risk of creating conflict.
Conflict arises when there are competing interests. Which is how people who have less or more harmonized interests don't consider themselves to be in conflict with eachother, even though they make plenty of personalized comments. In contrast, no amount of proper speech can harmonize people who have competing interests, and so these people will be in conflict with eachother.

And a conflict is only worth attempts to solve it if one wishes to have a relationship with the other person.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4397
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by SDC » Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:33 pm

L.N. wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:17 pm
...
Do you know what makes your efforts typical? That you, like so many others, assume public activism will affect change. All it does is break down the community. Everything you are doing here is a carbon copy of someone else's previous efforts to take the forum in one direction or another. Truth is, there is no right thing to say to directly and immediately affect the change you claim to represent. Many right things need to be said repeatedly in order to create the appropriate context which can then help generate enough momentum to allow for the necessary density to be there in your words so that they won't go to waste. And not all of those words must be in reference to that proposed change. Either way, you skipped over that step.

Perhaps you have the whole history of the forum at your disposal and figured that was enough, but I assure you it isn't. Because even if you're a former member I doubt enough of your fellow members know enough about you to trust in what you are claiming to stand behind.

You're an echo for what you despise and you're maintaining one another's prominence. You have me perplexed in same way your predecessors did. Now what? If people like you only knew the influence regular members have had working in good faith behind the scenes you would realize why the public displays such as this accomplish very little in comparison.

I've been tending to some affairs off the forum so please do not offended if I don't return frequently to this discussion.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by retrofuturist » Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:16 pm

Greetings L.N.,

L.N. wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:12 pm
Censorship is a government function. This is a private website. Censorship is not even an applicable concept.
Censorship isn't strictly a state function. I suspect you're conflating ideas about "the first amendment" here. Staff govern this website, and in that capacity, may find it necessary to censor certain content in accordance with the Terms of Service.

L.N. wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:12 pm
You have TOS, and you can decide the face of Buddhism which you choose to present here. So far, it has included disparagement of other faiths, and disparagement of individuals with whom you disagree.
You speak often of kamma. Do you believe kamma is "collective" or "individual"? If the Buddha taught it to be individual, why do you shift the goalposts to make it "collective"?

My action (kamma) is to administer this forum, such that the Terms of Service are enforced. What other people say within those parameters is not "my" kamma, nor is it "our" kamma. I do not decide what other people say, and neither do you.

L.N. wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:09 am
You hijacked this thread for the purpose of making personalized comments about me.
And you toss this accusation about like a rain cloud tossing down raindrops. Perhaps reviewing your reactions and sensitivities might be a more productive endeavour than trying to force the world to comply with your fussy sensibilities.

L.N. wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:09 am
I had assumed private reporting was confidential, and PMs were confidential.
Yet you "publish" a PM from venerable Dhammanando, and then traipse it around, by making an extract from it your signature.

Your hypocrisy and double-standards are laughable and are as clear as day, to anyone who has eyes to see.

retrofuturist wrote:Don't think your double-standards and hypocrisy will get you very far with me, mate.
L.N. wrote:More personalized comments.
It sounds like merely responding to you is a "personalized comment". :?

Good luck finding peace and happiness in life with that self-imposed burden hanging around your neck! :thumbsup:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by L.N. » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:19 am

Aloka wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:08 am
Why keep on arguing all the time ? Let go, let go, let go!
Who is arguing? This is supposed to be a friendly Dhamma discussion. We can all agree to disagree. I understand very well that people have contempt for me, but it doesn't bother me so much. Those who wish to argue are illustrating why it is important to be mindful of personalized comments, whether they are directed at one by others, or whether one says them.

This Topic is a mirror. I think an interesting exercise would be for everyone who has posted here to go back and put himself/herself into the shoes of the person addressed and see if they can understand the perspective of the other person. I have respect for everybody who has posted here, including those who have extremely negative opinions about me as a person.

If you step back and look at the overall Topic, giving everybody the benefit of the doubt, you see the potential pitfalls of making personalized comments. Personalized comments are not intrinsically bad, and I never have said that they were. I have only said that when one makes a personalized comment directed at another (playing the person, not the ball), then one "should be" mindful of one's personal responsibility for one's own part in any resulting misunderstanding. Perhaps instead of "should be" I should say "has an opportunity to." People have taken this Topic extremely personally when in fact I intended it in a friendly manner.

Remove the messenger and look at the message. The only reason people are rejecting the message here appears to be because of strong opinions regarding me as a person, as expressed by Bhante, retrofuturist, Sam Vara, etc. It doesn't really bother me. Rather, the comments reinforce the original point. If some other person had created the Topic, I suspect the reaction would be more positive.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by L.N. » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:38 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:16 pm
Censorship isn't strictly a state function. I suspect you're conflating ideas about "the first amendment" here. Staff govern this website, and in that capacity, may find it necessary to censor certain content in accordance with the Terms of Service.
Taking the broader definition of censorship, yes, it's what the TOS is intended to do, in part--put controls and limits on what people may say.
L.N. wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:12 pm
You have TOS, and you can decide the face of Buddhism which you choose to present here. So far, it has included disparagement of other faiths, and disparagement of individuals with whom you disagree.
You speak often of kamma. Do you believe kamma is "collective" or "individual"? If the Buddha taught it to be individual, why do you shift the goalposts to make it "collective"?
I have no idea why you are asking about my beliefs, as they are irrelevant to the Dhamma. However, kamma is one's personal volitional conduct. Your kamma is, as administrator, choosing not to prevent horrible comments such as those which have been expressed about Muhammed being a rapist etc. Such comments appear to violate TOS but are allowed. Meanwhile, you as DW admin feel very free to call people names and engage on a very personalized level to demean Members with whom you disagree.
My action (kamma) is to administer this forum, such that the Terms of Service are enforced. What other people say within those parameters is not "my" kamma, nor is it "our" kamma. I do not decide what other people say, and neither do you.
I never said other people's actions were your kamma. I don't know where you get that from.
L.N. wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:09 am
You hijacked this thread for the purpose of making personalized comments about me.
And you toss this accusation about like a rain cloud tossing down raindrops. Perhaps reviewing your reactions and sensitivities might be a more productive endeavour than trying to force the world to comply with your fussy sensibilities.
You keep saying that. But I have not tried to force anyone to comply with anything, fussy or otherwise. I consistently have said that I defer to those who provide an manage this forum, including you.

Of course you realize "your fussy sensibilities" is a personalized comment which may come across as an attempt to demean and provoke. This is the kind of statement which runs rampant here on DW, in part by virtue of what you allow and what you encourage by your example on this forum devoted to discussion of Dhamma. I am not trying to stop you. It's your kamma to perform.
L.N. wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:09 am
I had assumed private reporting was confidential, and PMs were confidential.
Yet you "publish" a PM from venerable Dhammanando, and then traipse it around, by making an extract from it your signature.
I did this following your example that such communications are not actually regarded as private. If you had not discussed my private communications, I would have understood that such discussions are in fact private and I would not have disclosed Bhante's comment about me. Besides, do you think Bhante Dhammanando has said anything unwise? I like the comment, because a good slap on the face can wake us all up. I don't see the issue.
Your hypocrisy and double-standards are laughable and are as clear as day, to anyone who has eyes to see.
More personalized comments.
retrofuturist wrote:Don't think your double-standards and hypocrisy will get you very far with me, mate.
L.N. wrote:More personalized comments.
It sounds like merely responding to you is a "personalized comment". :?
No, a "personalized comment" is when you play the person, not the ball. Or, if you can't understand PC speak, when you play the man, not the ball, as you prefer. This is precisely what you have been doing ever since you hijacked this Topic.
Good luck finding peace and happiness in life with that self-imposed burden hanging around your neck! :thumbsup:
I have no idea what you are referring to or why you believe you are a fit judge of me, but peace and happiness lie in the Dhamma. I sincerely wish you peace and happiness (even though I understand this wish will be viewed as nothing more than my "hauteur and prissiness").
Metta
When you use this word "metta," I hope you mean it sincerely and not sarcastically. Do you understand what Metta means? It is not a synonym for "Sincerely yours" at the end of a letter.

I would appreciate if you could get back on Topic and play the ball, not the person.
:focus:
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:39 am

Greetings L.N.,
L.N. wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:19 am
If you step back and look at the overall Topic, giving everybody the benefit of the doubt, you see the potential pitfalls of making personalized comments.

:rofl:

Stepping back and "giving everybody the benefit of the doubt", you'd understand that you've twisted what is otherwise general discourse into an exercise about fretting over so-called "personalized" comments, such that nobody dare address you or what you're doing, lest they get accused of the blanket crime of "personalized comments".
L.N. wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:19 am
If some other person had created the Topic, I suspect the reaction would be more positive.
Further to my last point, I think you over-estimate the extent to which participants (other than you), care about "you". I have no idea who "L.N." is. All your name and avatar do is provide a degree of continuity that signals that it's the same stranger who made one post, as who happened to make another.

Yet, from that continuity, I can discern that "L.N." expresses desires to control the nature of discourse. I can see that "L.N." wishes to shut down certain topics of discussion, and certain modes of interaction. I can see that "L.N." wishes to exert control or influence over what others say, do, and possibly even think. I can see that "L.N." frequently makes baseless accusations about others, their intentions and their motives. I see as clear as day that "L.N." does not practice what he preaches.

So what to make of this? Well, it doesn't paint a pretty picture, but since I don't really care about your identity, I'd be perfectly pleased for you to start afresh... stop making ordeals over preserving identity... stop hectoring others and trying to control them.... and just try to move forward without trying to interfere with the autonomy of others. Just chill out, calm down, be decent... and start saying and doing things that aren't so uptight and intolerant. It's never too late...

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by L.N. » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:42 am

Goofaholix wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:54 pm
I haven't seen the posts that started this but I believe you, can you take responsibility for each time you had the opportunity to de-escalate and chose to escalate?
I believe I am the only Member who has said anything nice or positive about other people here in this Topic. My efforts have been to respond in a measured, respectful way to the personalized comments, and to give praise where it is due. Do you think that any response other than non-response or bending over is a form of escalation? How would you respond if you created a Topic intended as a serious discussion about Right Speech etc. and were met with a slew of personalized comments addressing your prissiness, your confusion, your hauteur, your hypocrisy, why you are not to be taken seriously, etc. Honestly, this all adds to the discussion for anyone outside looking in. I have never been outraged or bothered. I thought this was a good opportunity to discuss why personalized comments can lend themselves to issues and are an opportunity for all of us to be more mindful and take personal responsibility.

How is that escalation?
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by L.N. » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:48 am

SDC wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:33 pm
Do you know what makes your efforts typical? That you, like so many others, assume public activism will affect change. All it does is break down the community. Everything you are doing here is a carbon copy of someone else's previous efforts to take the forum in one direction or another.
What are you talking about? You may be conflating this with the other Topic about disparaging other faiths. There, I was assuming a role of public activism. Here in this Topic, I was trying to start a friendly and respectful conversation at the invitation of Sam Vara, whose idea it was to start a different thread.
Truth is, there is no right thing to say to directly and immediately affect the change you claim to represent.
What are you talking about? I have not claimed to represent any change. Rather, I have suggested that we all have personally responsibility for the kamma we perform. Again, you may be thinking of the "disparaging other faiths" Topic.
Many right things need to be said repeatedly in order to create the appropriate context which can then help generate enough momentum to allow for the necessary density to be there in your words so that they won't go to waste. And not all of those words must be in reference to that proposed change. Either way, you skipped over that step.
What last step?
Perhaps you have the whole history of the forum at your disposal and figured that was enough, but I assure you it isn't. Because even if you're a former member I doubt enough of your fellow members know enough about you to trust in what you are claiming to stand behind.
Please be more clear. What specifically are you referring to?
You're an echo for what you despise and you're maintaining one another's prominence.
What are you talking about? What do you think I despise, and how is that relevant?
You have me perplexed in same way your predecessors did. Now what? If people like you only knew the influence regular members have had working in good faith behind the scenes you would realize why the public displays such as this accomplish very little in comparison.
What are you referring to by "public displays such as this"? I created a Topic. This is a forum. I am not following what you are trying to say to me. Can you be explicit?
I've been tending to some affairs off the forum so please do not offended if I don't return frequently to this discussion.
No worries. I just would like to know what you're talking about.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:00 am

Greetings,
L.N. wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:38 am
I have no idea why you are asking about my beliefs, as they are irrelevant to the Dhamma.
This is a Buddhist forum and I asked about how you understand kamma. Is that some kind of egregious sin according to L.N.'s fastidious laws of discourse?
L.N. wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:38 am
Your kamma is, as administrator, choosing not to prevent horrible comments

...

I never said other people's actions were your kamma. I don't know where you get that from.
Pick one.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by L.N. » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:01 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:39 am
Greetings L.N.,
L.N. wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:19 am
If you step back and look at the overall Topic, giving everybody the benefit of the doubt, you see the potential pitfalls of making personalized comments.

:rofl:

Stepping back and "giving everybody the benefit of the doubt", you'd understand that you've twisted what is otherwise general discourse into an exercise about fretting over so-called "personalized" comments, such that nobody dare address you or what you're doing, lest they get accused of the blanket crime of "personalized comments".
Where did that come from? I have never said "personalized comments" are a crime. I have made personalized comments, such as when I praised Sam Vara's post early in this Topic. Personalized comments are not the issue in and of themselves.
L.N. wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:19 am
If some other person had created the Topic, I suspect the reaction would be more positive.
Further to my last point, I think you over-estimate the extent to which participants (other than you), care about "you". I have no idea who "L.N." is. All your name and avatar do is provide a degree of continuity that signals that it's the same stranger who made one post, as who happened to make another.
Ok, so you don't care about me. That's fine. Then why the big effort to hijack this Topic for the purpose of directing repeated negative personalized comments toward me? Do you comprehend that I am not the subject of this Topic? Nor do I want to be the subject of this Topic? I had hoped people would play the ball. You have played the person and continue to do so.
Yet, from that continuity, I can discern that "L.N." expresses desires to control the nature of discourse.
What are you talking about? I don't want to control anything. I want to cultivate self control. I wanted to start a topic about Right Speech and personalized comments. How is that trying to control people?
I can see that "L.N." wishes to shut down certain topics of discussion, and certain modes of interaction.
Huh? I wish no such thing, except to the extent that I do believe blanket disparagement of other faiths should be strongly discouraged on a forum devoted to Dhamma discussion, and that friendly discussion is conducted best if Members self-regulate and take a friendly approach. Also, you habit of calling people names and demeaning Members should be reined in. So, yeah, I guess I can see what you are saying. I would like to see certain types of comments "shut down" so to speak, but it's not up to me, as I have acknowledged.
I can see that "L.N." wishes to exert control or influence over what others say, do, and possibly even think.
Why are we still talking about me?
I can see that "L.N." frequently makes baseless accusations about others, their intentions and their motives.
Please look in the mirror, friend.
I see as clear as day that "L.N." does not practice what he preaches.
That is your judgment, but my responsibility. I certainly try to practice what I preach, and if I do not, then I should. But why are we still talking about me? I thought you didn't care about me.
So what to make of this? Well, it doesn't paint a pretty picture, but since I don't really care about your identity, I'd be perfectly pleased for you to start afresh... stop making ordeals over preserving identity... stop hectoring others and trying to control them.... and just try to move forward without trying to interfere with the autonomy of others.
Well, as I have not tried to do any of those things, I'm not sure how to respond. Will you stop beating your wife?
Just chill out, calm down, be decent... and start saying and doing things that aren't so uptight and intolerant.
Well, I have felt very relaxed and tolerant, but I understand you do not see inside my mind. I think you are overlaying your perceptions on me, but it doesn't matter.
It's never too late...
I fully agree.
Metta,
Paul. :)
Metta
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by L.N. » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:11 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:00 am
This is a Buddhist forum and I asked about how you understand kamma. Is that some kind of egregious sin according to L.N.'s fastidious laws of discourse?
L.N. wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:38 am
Your kamma is, as administrator, choosing not to prevent horrible comments

...

I never said other people's actions were your kamma. I don't know where you get that from.
Pick one.

Metta,
Paul. :)
I pick both. Your kamma is as follows:

(1) not enforcing TOS in a manner which cracks down on highly offensive and provocative comments about other traditions. Please note the fuller quote was as follows: "... choosing not to prevent horrible comments such as those which have been expressed about Muhammed being a rapist etc. Such comments appear to violate TOS but are allowed." The kamma to which I was referring is the volitional act of not enforcing TOS to prevent such comments from appearing on a forum devoted to discussion the Dhamma. - and -

(2) Other people's actions are not your kamma, and I never said they were.

It doesn't matter. My view of kamma, very simply, is that it is one's volitional action, the fruits of which one experiences oneself. One experiences only the fruits of one's kamma. But this does not mean we are incapable of harming others. If Jack's kamma is to kill Jill, Jill is just as dead no matter whose kamma is involved. I would never say that Jack's decision to kill Jill was a result of Jill's kamma. It doesn't work that way, in my view. Of course I understand kamma is much more nuanced and the foregoing summary doesn't do it justice and probably will be shot down with some valid remarks by someone who has a different view. We can agree to disagree, I hope.

Can we get back on Topic at some point?
:focus:
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:16 am

Greetings,

You do realise the post you're fretting over is over seven years old, and in a closed topic don't you?

Shall we pull down the statues too?

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests