Rara

I will answer in the next post...I can't "multiquote" on my phone

In short, no, none of the above can be true

Lol, just got back on to the forum today. Thanks for the entertainment guys XD

I've been nominated. Ugh. Best way of pulling out? It's not like anyone will get the whole "waste of world water supplies, or "so I can be as narcissistic as you", or "ALS fund researchers that test on animals" arguments, right?

Sounds like something we need to have a coffee over...typing this debate we will never reach the finish line.

Fantastic point! My girlfriend in fact is very in tune with plants, cooking, remedies. There are many female yoga practitioners, reiki healers etc. So point taken. Men just seem to want a lot of credit by the looks of things. Ego?

Absolutely..and I didn't mean to imply not caring for people with illness. On the contrary, I was talking about us finding more useful ways to care. For there are lots of things that people do where they (in a deluded way) believe they are doing a good thing, but are not aware of the potential damage. Take the war in Iraq for example. That hardly went to plan. So this thread can cover many topics of "universal wellness". "Universal" in two senses: for all living beings and for all scenarios!

Also, here's something to consider. How many female (exploring) Taoists are there in comparison to other religions. I would have a guess that in a Christian forum, you would find plenty of Christian women...but in Taoism? Living in the west, I find very few practicing Taoists (hence my presence on a forum to discuss more) and if I do meet the odd one, they just so happen to be male. How many women are interested in cultivation or esoteric practices? And if there are many, do they want to spend time on the internet talking or have they other things to do? I'm speaking generally as I don't know...and being male, I'll always be trying to figure it out and still get nowhere.

Surely by saying "this is sad" indicates it isn't hate speech. I'll leave you to figure the rest =P Edit: Just realised how that could have been taken the wrong way. No, I mean that by observing, you can see that men have dominated. This is a sad tradition. Even more sad is that some women (in the church) believe that you SHOULDN'T be allowed to have female priests.

Absolutely. But ALS for example, fundraising to find a cure for a killer disease. Why should some settle for having a disease early on in life and have their parents outlive them? Could we work in moderation and help people more? Or are animal lives just as important as people's and therefore we prioritise universal wellbeing over just out own?

Do you think this could be more appropriate to General Discussion? Just a thought. I will start by going off what MH was talking about. We all have our own idea of what is and what isn't appropriate. I am challenging MH in the other thread between the difference between this, or what nature does/allows and morality. Sure we can eat animals - and maybe it's just tough that some HAVE to for survival purposes. But here's where I argue that morals do have something to do with it. For example, is there a moral difference between one that eats just a leg or two of chicken in the evening to satisfy one's needs, to the glutton that piles 4 different meats in a naan bread, covers it in peri peri sauce and gorges? Is there a difference? Is one more moral than the other? The latter is needless...more life could have been preserved (universal wellness) Is universal wellness in our best intererest? Or is it ok to join the "dog-eat-dog" mentality and live more selfishly for one's satisfaction? MH also talks about the things we "could" be doing, and I know what he means. But who can enforce these rules? And what determines whether these are the best ways, or in my terms, moral? Such a big can of worms here, and I feel that being in general discussion, ignoring stubborn trolls/offensive ones, this can be a very powerful debate.

Ok but he didn't use that term specifically and it isn't what's being implied. This is merely a discussion about identifying things that are wrong and finding ways that could correct them universally. I'll be the first to say that there are no set in stone solutions, but the thread can be used to help people come together and unify on some points. Unification is so important, and yet so devestating if people unify with evil. So I can't appreciate the attitude of "not another one of these threads". Do you give up this easily always? Running from a challenge?

2. Vs a worldwide boys club of figureheads... Edit: Not belittling your point, just reinforcing mine

So do you not link doing the "right" thing with having "good" morals? Are they really two different ball parks?

I now agree. I'm just not doing the ice bucket challenge because a) someone has told me to and I just really don't want to. I still give to charity from time to time and do my bit for community. Maybe others don't which is why they need a meme to make them "aware".

Men dominate the majority of philosophies and religions...it is very difficult to find a reverse of this. We can name so many male philosphers, religious figureheads, "masters" etc. Someone find me a female of the sort and let me eat my hat! This is the nature, and it is sad. I have no solutions at this point, only observations, but I'll have a think and get back to y'all!

Good idea. MH, I would say that morality still has something to do with it...for even if we take a logical approach to minimise suffering (common sense) surely this is still a "good" thing. Just like its opponent, genocide, is a "bad" thing. For a title, how about something along the lines if "Logical strategies for universal wellness"?

What a great invite, Perceiver! A big lesson is that there is only me. When I was and irate, and angry man, I would blame everything and everyone around me. Nowadays, after 4 hard years, I can take a deep breath and say "ok, something's up with the approach I'm taking".

Yes, I hear that. In an ideal world, if we were able to manage the world better and be mindful of extinction, would your point of view change? What I mean is this: Hypothetically, if the "powers" could test on minimal numbers of animals with the aim to preserve as much life as possible, but to sacrifice the odd few for research, is this still immoral? You don't have to answer that...I feel it's unfair to challenge people on what IS moral because there are very few 'absolute' answers out there. I just think it's worth considering if we take history out of the equation.

Liking because of this. Who's to say animal testing is immoral if it could potentially help save a larger majority? Other sources do state that ALS' research on animals is irrelevant and wasted, as such symptoms wouldn't even appear in the ones being tested. on.

Out of context but you have reminded me to man up and do this more voluntarily for my own good!

Yeah I thought this. If I keep my head down (for I was nominated on Facebook...I could always pretend I never logged in) people will forget very quickly. Like all things Tao, best NOT shouting my response/opinion at the top of my lungs

Thank you

Thank you

Are you trying to get me to do your chores?