|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Dalai Lama
#22299094 - 09/27/15 03:23 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The next Dalai Lama could be a woman ... but she'd have to be attractive. . Like, really attractive. . His Holiness made that assertion in an interview with BBC journalist Clive Myrie that was posted online Monday. . About five minutes into an exchange that touched on the Syrian refugee crisis, Myrie asked whether there will be a 15th incarnation of the Dalai Lama, whom Buddhists believe has been reincarnated. . The current Dalai Lama said that's up to the Tibetan people. But when Myrie asked whether the next incarnation could be a woman, His Holiness said yes, but "the face should be very attractive." . Myrie then pressed on the point, asking, "So you can only have a female Dalai Lama if they're attractive. Is that what you're saying?" . To which His Holiness said, "I mean if female Dalai Lama did come, then that female must be very attractive. Otherwise not much use." . Myrie asked if he was joking, but he said, "I meant it, true!"~ Huffington Post
. What you make of that? Is the Dalai Lama a sexist pig? 
Edited by Diploid (09/27/15 04:12 PM)
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: Diploid]
#22299356 - 09/27/15 04:18 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
wow, thats awesome.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: Diploid]
#22299362 - 09/27/15 04:20 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
India, Tibet, Nepal, Pakistan, etc. are all male dominant cultures where women are good for making babies and cooking and that is about it.
--------------------
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: India, Tibet, Nepal, Pakistan, etc. are all male dominant cultures where women are good for making babies and cooking and that is about it.
In the male submissive cultures, women aren't even good for that. This is progress?
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
Good question. I am not a big fan of some of the things the current Dali Lama has said.
But Diploid, do you really help to pose the question as if he were a "sexist pig" or not? I agree that personal authenticity is part of philosophy, but to begin with an ad hominem is a poor standard.
This is not a place for media newsfeeds and pundits. If there is something to thoughtfully consider, it would make sense to allow it to be considered in those terms, and allow people to make their own ethical judgement.
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 23 hours, 51 minutes
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: Kurt]
#22299549 - 09/27/15 05:03 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'm speculating, but I'm thinking it's a good guess, that beauty is considered an indication of health in that culture. The Dalai lama's duties are strenuous, health would be a plus. Beyond that, a women would have to command respect, beauty would also engender some of that and maybe that's what Orgoneconclusion was getting at.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: falcon]
#22299585 - 09/27/15 05:14 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Here is a less mediated context of discussion.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/americanbuddhist/2015/09/dalai-lama-in-hot-water-over-sexist-comments-again.html
[Quote] In the interview, from the BBC on Monday, the Dalai Lama is asked whether a 15th reincarnation could be a woman, he responds enthusiastically “Yes! … why not?” He continues, asserting that “the female, biologically, more potential to show affection.” “And compassion” Clive Myrie, the interviewer, adds, to the Dalai Lama’s agreement, who continued, “therefore, in today’s troubled world, I think females should take more important roles.” The Dalai Lama then leaned forward and reached out to Myrie’s hand with a little smile, saying, “If a female Dalai Lama come, the face must be very, very, should be very attractive.”
Myrie, laughing, but obviously taken aback, seeks clarification. The Dalai Lama continues, “I mean if a female Dalai Lama come, then that female must be very attractive. Otherwise, not much use.” He continues, “I think some people… my face…” at which point Myrie is more direct in suggesting that the Dalai Lama is joking, but the Dalai Lama says, “I mean, true!” before the edit cuts off the conversation and jumps to the next topic, with Myrie suggesting that the Dalai Lama is seen as a religious rock star.
There however, the Dalai Lama continues with the importance of his looks, saying “and in order to become rock star, if my face [making a contorted face] like that, I think [slapping Myrie playfully across the face] many men would do…” (I’m guessing on the last 4 words, if anyone has heard them better, please let me know) In any case, Myrie laughs and says, “Okay, yes, we’re agreed you’re a very good looking man.”
Anyway nice intriguing stuff.
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 23 hours, 51 minutes
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: Kurt]
#22299603 - 09/27/15 05:18 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Ha, yep not sexist at all, but sexy as requirement for any sex.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: falcon]
#22299647 - 09/27/15 05:35 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Edited by Kurt (09/27/15 05:41 PM)
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: Kurt]
#22299871 - 09/27/15 06:32 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
but to begin with an ad hominem
It's not an ad hominem to question the qualifications of someone who holds himself out as an authority.
Quote:
An important exception is that Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument itself. For instance, the argument may depend on its presenter's claim that he's an expert. This is an Appeal to Authority which is often, but not always, fallacious. Trial judges allow this category of attacks. In this very narrow case, the Ad Hominem is valid because the foundation of the counter-argument is the opponent making claims based on his status as an expert, and therefore the personal attack questioning his expert status is valid. ~ Fallacies Sticky
This guy has reduced the net sum of the Dalai Lama's authority as a spiritual leader to male primacy or female looks.
In other words, if he says something, it's authoritative, period. No qualifications because he is male. But if a woman Dalay Lama says the same thing, her words should be given weight commensurate with how fuckable she is. If she's ugly, she should be ignored. If she's hot, her words should be exalted.
You can sugar coat it if it makes you feel better but that's what he said and affirmed twice in very clear language that leaves little to interpretation.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: Diploid]
#22299903 - 09/27/15 06:38 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I've been critical of the Dalai Lama for some time, and to boil it down the reason for that is simple: He does very little to actually help the people of Tibet. He brings in millions that never directly influence the people of Tibet. What does he do?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: Diploid]
#22300319 - 09/27/15 08:08 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not sure if you just reacted to what you read or pared the quote down yourself, but both that selection and what you said of it is laughably inflated if you see the comment in full context.
Whether it should be considered a valid point or not, due to some imagined litigation, you are clearly demonstrating a perfect example of why ad hominem is thought by philosophers to be in poor form.
Whether you look to what he said as an idea, or the record of the interview that hasn't been conveniently represented to portray something, you can see why attacking the man just doesn't make sense. Of course you are free to say what you want, but I'll point out these newsbite threads as long as they keep coming.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: Kurt]
#22300356 - 09/27/15 08:18 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Whether it should be considered a valid point or not, due to some imagined litigation, you are clearly demonstrating a perfect example of why ad hominem is thought by philosophers to be in poor form.
Once again, it's not adhominem to attack one's credentials when they go to the argument.
I didn't say his nose is ugly, I said the spirituality of which he is an authority is sexist pigish. That is correct on its face and doubly affirmed by the man himself.
I can't believe you're defending this piggishness. It's shit worthy of Donald Trump.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: Diploid]
#22300972 - 09/27/15 11:15 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
|
Tropism
ChasingTail


Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 2,039
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: Kurt]
#22302018 - 09/28/15 09:59 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
>>>Whether it should be considered a valid point or not, due to some imagined litigation, you are clearly demonstrating a perfect example of why ad hominem is thought by philosophers to be in poor form. What is worse philosophical form? To leave an ad hominem hanging to further discuss a point or to immediately side-step the topic of a discussion in order to analyze the way it was delivered?
What bothers me more is this fallen-tree in the road of discussion which was you prodding at Diploid for how he delivered his OP, rather than discussing or debating to content within it. Perhaps while running around proclaiming to other's their lack of philosophical form you could have the courtesy to have a semblance of it yourself.
Where is this article that was misquoted? Will you source it for me when you rebuttal someone else's info? Also I'd love an explanation on this computes.
>>>Whether you look to what he said as an idea, or the record of the interview that hasn't been conveniently represented to portray something, you can see why attacking the man just doesn't make sense.
You have proposed two different scenarios, one where attacking him does make sense and one where it doesn't, then proceeded to wipe both away with a well placed "so you can see" as if that somehow made the sensibility of the first scenario go away. It's fine though, I'm just sick and cranky and it probably doesn't matter as last time in this thread you seemed to just back out your arguements sheepishly and post a video as a joke. Something in all of my years of research philosphers have certainly found to be in poor form.
|
Soul-Shine

Registered: 11/02/13
Posts: 338
Loc: Within and Without
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: Tropism]
#22303213 - 09/28/15 02:35 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think that he may be acknowledging the fact that people hold a level of superficiality in more cases than not.
The 15th Dalai Lama would be a reincarnation of the current 14th Lama. Granted if reincarnation were to be a real phenomenon, the likelihood of people listening to the message of a beautiful woman is far more likely than one who was been born with a disfigured face. I forgot where I heard it, but there is a sect of buddhism that holds the notion that physical disfigurement is a karmic correction (for that spirit) after having destroyed a holy object in a previous incarnation (the object could be of any theology).
If the "superficiality" was what he had meant, he should have clarified it further. East/West cultural misinterpretation.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: Tropism]
#22303826 - 09/28/15 04:26 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
As far as I can see this was a complete misrepresentation and at that a miss, Tropism. I'd say a "misunderstanding" but you and diplod still think you seem to think you have a point. That is entertaining.
I do not need to sidestep anything, when the comment was taken out of context. Not only was that blurb out of context, but it was tailored for a certain reaction, and from Diploid, it apparently got one. It goes down the line, and yet this is not my fault or burden.
By the way... at hazard to try to keep things real, what is this?
Quote:
It's fine though, I'm just sick and cranky and it probably doesn't matter as last time in this thread you seemed to just back out your arguements sheepishly and post a video as a joke. Something in all of my years of research philosphers have certainly found to be in poor form.
All I can think of is to give you some kind advice man. Hold yourself to a standard, and straighten up. Start with yourself. That is a philosopher's substance...and you give me that passive aggressive content again and I'll teach you some judo style philosophy okay? 
As for this topic, I see no particular burden to pick it up. There's no substantive argument in the first place. What the Dalai Lama actually seems tongue in cheek, and harmless, if you look (maybe at a less slanted representation). Why don't you let the guy be a human being anyway? Is the Dalai Lama a Sexist pig, or is he just being human? One thing I do know for sure is that there are some uptight people who make a big hussie out of nothing, and pretty much dwell on that...but that says what they are made of.
Yeah to content, right? Well keep in mind that content is something that can be mediated, and portrayed, and seeded in dialogue for further in reactions, and it develops on that in a chain sometimes pretty derivatively. A philosopher's priority to something substantive is generally something else.
You are at least right that I have attempted to express my point as generally about having standards, as well. For example, I am not surprised or shocked that the pope is prejudiced against gay people. Does not being up and at arms mean I am defending him? And more to the point (the prospect of doing genuine philosophy) look at that thread. Can one of his blurbed statements, somehow lead like a discussion like a herd through typical reactions and beliefs to an ostensible discussion of a philosophical subject like mind and body problems (the nature of the soul, etc)? Is this substantive philosophy? Well I call it watered down, belief and reaction based thinking that is typical. I think a philosopher (someone who holds a standard) needs to be less of a reaction.
This news blurb and insert reaction/opinion kind of content, should go to the political forum, in my opinion, and if even they discarded it there, well that's because its trashy stuff. Some of us at least hold standards. I know and acknowledge that this is just an "opinion", or had might as well be, but I'll stand by it. A philosopher holds a standard of substance, specifically. Maybe if there was something really substantive to read into, in threads like this, that would work. It can't exactly be stated in a principle of contradiction, but when things are so clearly primed for reactions, (often to the point of misrepresentation) I'd call that at face value a more political and aggressively opinionated dialogue, and call bullshit. These spam your opinion threads are not philosophy.
So Tropism I don't feel sheepish by deferring in the prospects of engaging with what appears to me to be reactive opinions. Yeah, mmm media and reactions, nom nom nom. So intriguing.
So here's what I am saying. A philosopher has a standard of substance. Second, there is no such exemplary thing, but what people hold themselves to. Sometimes, all that's left in discussion is irony that is more or less seen. Aristotle turns over in his grave, Plato weeps, and yet maybe Socrates or Stephen Colbert laughs, all at the same time. That is this world.
That's the best I can do broheim...I think it's about time to send the rodeo clowns in. We have them around here don't we?
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: Kurt]
#22303868 - 09/28/15 04:35 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
How come Trop is your broheim? I wanna be someone's broheim!
--------------------
|
Tropism
ChasingTail


Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 2,039
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: Kurt]
#22307605 - 09/29/15 11:16 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Nice to get such a response, seems to me we almost could have skipped anyway quipping and dragging-out-of process and simply gotten your two-cents on the matter from the start. Ho-hum-diddle-dee if I have to play an antagonist so-be, as I mentioned I'm sick and cranky and everything appears antagonizing to me as of the moment. I appreciate your concern and advice but I needn't any to heed as I am not amok with claims of others. My own form is barely present but I am entirely content with it, and as such I don't bring any expectations to the table of other posters. Hypocrisy bugs me though. Either lead by example or don't bother criticizing if ya ask me.
Your post regarding the OP was informative, it backed up some of the assertions you made with your opinionated gestures. Huuza, good show, good form. Little late though.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Dalai Lama [Re: Kurt]
#22307948 - 09/29/15 12:17 PM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think you take this interwebs shit way too seriously man. This is a social forum. Yea it says philosophy, but if you really wanted hard-boiled philosophy, you wouldn't be posting on a drug board.
Besides, I'm here to have fun, not to meet anyone's standards for philosophical discussion. I post this way all the time, picking irreverently on people and ideas others hold sacred with equal alacrity. And I've been doing it for a decade before you joined. So you must know that your lectures on how I should post is not going to change anything. Given that, your critique reads of grandstanding in the guise of seeking philosophical meat.
But hey, who am I to judge. My guess is you're here for fun too. If showing off by attacking my style with dense prose gets you off, go to it. I'll reply as long as I'm having fun, eh? 
BTW, like Tropism, I happen to be sick and crancky at the moment. Maybe there's a pattern here, hmmm...
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
|