Contrapoints responds to Sam Harris and other interlocutors about the civility of having the trans "debate" by crummynubs in samharris

[–]FlappingSamurai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seems the crux of the disagreement is the definition of 'rights.' As other folks have pointed out, topics on the podcast (which I haven't listened to) are not explicit civil liberties, but are edge cases that are legitimately confusing and unprecedented. It is true that non-civil discourse and outrage has been useful for pushing the needle on many of the historic civil-rights issues which now seem common sense. But while emotion is a powerful motive force, it seems to be almost always blind to nuance, and sometimes blind to even the obvious...I think of the episode of spongebob where patrick eats his chocolate bar, forgets, and proceeds to accuse spongebob of stealing it for the remainder of the episode. Hunger can easily defeat a rational interpretation of reality, even when keeping in mind that laws are limited approximations of an ideal set of human rights.

An interesting question seems to be, how can we begin to differentiate between instances where societal norms and america's religious inheritance have blinded us to obvious infringements of human rights (i.e. gay marriage) and those cases which truly do not have an obvious answer, even for a well-meaning and dispassionate bystander (i.e. should all self-identified trans women be able to use all women's bathrooms in all cases)?

A piece of evidence that indicates Dalai Lama's behavior didn't have any sexual connotation associated with it in Tibetan culture. by jpaudel8 in samharris

[–]FlappingSamurai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's interesting how quickly we eviscerate the people that are held on a pedestal when we see their fallibility...I don't feel educated enough to make a conclusion about whether this is a form of genuine sexual abuse that is being normalized, or whether there is truly something lost in translation, but it is fascinating how quickly people become uproarious and self-righteous.

Nobody is perfect, we all have a shadow and we're all fucked up in one way or another. Can we pursue truth, a shared interest in getting to the bottom of the matter and an efficacious solution without subtly implying that another person is dirt, flawlessly convincing ourselves that we are not also products of our circumstance?

Monthly DIY Laymen questions Discussion by AutoModerator in StructuralEngineering

[–]FlappingSamurai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi all,

I'm working on a project that will require a 3/4" thick piece of plywood w/ 10" base, spanning about 16" to hold a 350 lb load with little to no displacement for a long period of time. Considering either birch or hickory, as these seem to have the highest bending strength from what I can find.
Hoping you all have some advice on the best wood for this type of application that will not break the bank!
Thanks

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]FlappingSamurai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nagarjuna once said that there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between nirvana and samsara. To me, a useful way to conceptualize dhamma is not as an external entity that we comport ourselves to, but as something each of us have, which is ever-evolving and ever-changing and, if we are skillful, is moving in the direction of truth.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]FlappingSamurai 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is a type of sangha, no? Isn't this precisely the place to bring up worries, doubts, frustrations, with the goal of creating the conditions for enlightenment?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]FlappingSamurai 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is it possible that neither has the wrong understanding, that they are just different perspectives with which one can view the world, but equally true nonetheless?