There's this guy named Aaron in one of the facebook groups I'm in. On rare occasion, he'll actually attribute something intelligent and worthwhile to discussion, but, for the most part, he just rants and raves about how everybody is less than he is.
I've been venting to people about him for a while, and maybe getting this written, I can put the jerk behind me.
For a while, I didn't really mind him. Probably because I didn't read into him. But then, he started attacking me. It started on a joke discussion about how he thought every pregnant woman should get an abortion. Then we wouldn't have to worry about a slew of negative whatnots now and in the future. I decided to attribute to the board with:
Me: I don't think abortions should be mandatory. My Human Sexuality prof had an interesting idea: Every male must get a vasectomy before puberty. Ta-da! No unwanted babies. They would have to reverse the vasectomy if they want kids. Also, free condoms. (Catholic college = free condoms are a NONO!)I explain myself. A lot. I got it from my mom who does it for every action she carries out. I just ignored him for the rest of the board. Then, last night (or the night before), I was talking to this girl who couldn't understand how a loving god could allow suffering in the world.
The weird thing is, I'm not sure if he was joking or not. Another weird thing is, I think it's actually a pretty good idea.
Aaron: It would be a good idea except for two little problems:
1) Vasectomies are not always reversible.
2) Like any other invasive procedure, vasectomies have a (very small) risk of permanent injury or death. Subjecting all males to at least one, and possibly two unnecessary surgeries doesn't seem worth the risk.
Me: Couldn't you apply #2 to the mandatory abortion idea? It would seem logical that more women die from abortions than men do from vasectomies. Currently, I'm too lazy to look for whether that's actually true or not.
Other guy I'm on good terms with now: Yeah, you fucking asshole.
And if you're against abortions, then just pass out cigarettes and booze to pregnant women. That won't kill them, but WILL result in a dead fetus popping out of the vagina within a few months.
Aaron: "Couldn't you apply #2 to the mandatory abortion idea?"
Yes. Your idea is, of course, far superior to the "mandatory abortions" idea . . . but that idea was a FUCKING JOKE and is just about the worst idea in history.
Me: Okay, I didn't say I was going to take over the country and make it mandatory. Chill out. It was one of those things that even I went "Why the Hell do I think that's a good idea?!" It might have to do with the 30234098987 papers I had due that week.
Watch your language. And when have I said I was against abortions? I think they're fine as long as it's first trimester.
Lastly, I was just throwing ideas into the ring, you know, creating some conversation. It was a joke from the professor too (I think. He was hard to read sometimes). For Quetzalcoatl's sake; for having a joke discussion topic, you have a hard time taking things lightly.
Aaron: "for having a joke discussion topic, you have a hard time taking things lightly."
Says the person who just dedicated 500+ words to explaining that she was not being serious.
Me: What has to be understood is that faith in a god brings a sense of comfort that the things that happen in the world aren't random; that things happen for a reason. It brings the same type of comfort that conspiracy theories do (i.e. one individual could not have assassinated a president. A whole organization had to have been involved). To think of the world as random and out of the control of people or a higher being can be a scary thought.
I'm not Christian either. I consider myself freelance Buddhist. To me, life sucks, and I just have to deal with it. Works for me.
But I couldn't get away with such a blatantly incorrect statement, now could I? *please read last sentence with sarcasm* Oh, no. Aaron must come to the rescue.
Aaron: "I consider myself freelance Buddhist. To me, life sucks, and I just have to deal with it. Works for me."
That's about as far from a Buddhist outlook on life as you can possibly get. Stop calling yourself a "freelance Buddhist." it is offensive to the half billion or so REAL Buddhists out there.
Me: I consider myself Buddhist, but I haven't gone to a temple or met any monks. I don't follow what I don't find logical (like the no dancing rule (which is for monks more than anything)). I work with what gets me closer to happiness and enlightenment, which really is what Siddhartha taught. I just put "freelance" in there because I converted myself, I taught myself, and I practice on my own. I'm offended that you downplay my beliefs.
Aaron: "I consider myself Buddhist,"
How can you consider yourself Buddhist when your beliefs DIRECTLY CONTRADICT several of the teachings of the Buddha? That's like considering yourself a Catholic, but not believing that Jesus is the Lord.
" but I haven't gone to a temple or met any monks. I don't follow what I don't find logical (like the no dancing rule (which is for monks more than anything)). I work with what gets me closer to happiness and enlightenment, which really is what Siddhartha taught. I just put "freelance" in there because I converted myself, I taught myself, and I practice on my own. "
Well you clearly haven't taught yourself very well, because if your previous statements are accurate, you believe some things that directly contradict Buddha's teachings.
"I'm offended that you downplay my beliefs."
and i'm offended that you call those beliefs "Buddhism" even though they directly contradict Buddhist philosophy. It's be like me calling myself a "freelance Muslim" and then denying that there is only one God and that Muhammad is His final Prophet.
Adam: What specifically prevents her from being Buddhist? Don't mean to butt in, just wondering.
Aaron: "life sucks, and I just have to deal with it. "
This, pretty much. It's a very un-Buddhist thing to say.
Me: What do I contradict? Please, tell me, I'm willing to learn. If you're using my "Life sucks. I deal with it." statement, I'll try to explain. Life sucks. The way I deal with it is through Buddhist teachings and practices. I try to control myself. I don't drink or do drugs or anything else that fogs my mind. I try not to lie, I try not to curse, I'm not going into a profession that promotes harm to living things. I'm trying. I'm not going to be perfect.
Also, I was going on the "does god exist" type of talk when I posted that. I was saying that, while some believe a god does everything or some things, I don't pawn off disasters or great things on a god making them occur.
Adam: I dunno, I was under the assumption that Buddhism more or less revolves around activities and philosophies that reduce the suckiness of life. You have to acknowledge the suckiness of life in order to reduce it, don't you?
In fact, if I've got my references right, the First Noble Truth is pretty much "life sucks." The other three address dealing with it. So, Buddhism = "life sucks, and here's how to deal with it." Looks to me like her problem and Buddhism's solution match perfectly.
Aaron: "Life sucks. The way I deal with it is through Buddhist teachings and practices."
no Buddhist would ever assert that life sucks. Life is whatever you make of it.
"I dunno, I was under the assumption that Buddhism more or less revolves around activities and philosophies that reduce the suckiness of life."
Well you're wrong.
"You have to acknowledge the suckiness of life in order to reduce it, don't you?"
You're also wrong about this.
Adam: Maybe you didn't read my post, but I explained it quite clearly:
The First Noble Truth of Buddhism is dukkha, or suffering. According to a Buddhist, all life is suffering, and they follow the teachings of Buddha because they want to detach themselves from the desires that cause them their suffering. I'm not wrong about this, and to know that only takes a very basic understanding of Buddhism.
If there's any particular reason you *think* I'm wrong, tell me what it is, rather than just saying "well you're wrong" and avoiding having to make intelligent argument.
Me: Noble Truth #1: Suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.
I dunno, I interpret that as life sucks, from your aunt dying to your shoe coming untied. The way to change that is to control your outlook and make the world a more pleasant place for you and everyone else. If life didn't suck, there wouldn't be too many people looking for religion/lack of it.
Aaron: "Noble Truth #1: Suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.
I dunno, I interpret that as life sucks"
And that's where you make the very un-Buddhist move. Life is suffering, but that doesn't mean that it "sucks" by any meaning of that word. Since suffering is a NECESSARY part of life, it can make life neither desireable nor undesireable, neither good nor bad, in and of itself. It simply is.
Aaron: (excerpt from the end of a post to a Christian. I know this doesn't have to do with the current argument, but his abuse isn't aimed solely at me.) Thus, your "observation" was of a state of affairs that never fucking existed. Stop telling lies aobut me, you stupid, fundie bitch.
Adam: Suffering is not a "NECESSARY part of life." If it were, there'd be no point in becoming Buddhist in order to fix it. The view of the Buddhist is not that suffering is unavoidable; it's that we create the suffering ourselves from EVENTS that are unavoidable. Losing a loved one is unavoidable, your shoe coming untied is unavoidable....but your OUTLOOK on these things is, according to the Buddhist, not.
You're right when you say that the Buddhist view is to see things just as they are, not as anything good or bad "in and of itself," but that's precisely what eliminates the suffering. "You suffer, so here's a philosophy to teach you how to not suffer." If someone becomes Buddhist because their life sucks and they want to change it, who are you to say that their view on life is not suffering?
Me: Sorry for using different adjectives.
Where does this guy get off? Is he no better than the süper duper fundamentalists and extremists that he seems to hate so much by him forcing his superiority down everyone's throats? And he does this on every topic, regardless of subject. He is above everyone, and he's going to berate you until you agree. And yes, I do feel better now that I've gotten this out of my system through writing. I don't care how depressing you find it that I'm complaining about a guy I don't know on the internet using a blog site. Venting is healthy, no matter who's listening.
Free, that's all that she could be, that's why she never stayed.
1 comment:
Bah. I believe this kid is what a forum-poster would refer to as a "troll." He goes around looking for arguments and gets his rocks off by pissing off as many people as he can. Unsolicited opinions (stated as fact), unfounded claims, outright falsehood, insult, mockery, degradation... whatever he thinks will demean you the most, because it makes him feel, as you said, better than everyone else. I've encountered his ilk more times than I can accurately estimate.
The trick to dealing with a douchebag like this is to ignore him. Don't even respond to him, because he'll just continue to be a dick. In other words, Rule Number One of forums everywhere: Don't Feed The Troll.
Post a Comment