Jwayne

Someone claiming 'I have paranormal powers' means nothing except to position themselves atop a new imaginary hierarchy of superheroes, unless said abilities can be demonstrated to others.

Polls show a majority of Russians support the war. That's even reported in Western media.

Tailored to their interests and abilities, as you would any education.

That's why polling and surveys are done anonymously. There's no fear of reprisal because there's no way to trace who said what. As for social media and public speaking, that's different. Even in Western democracies, you will be censored, targeted and surveilled for expressions of wrongthink.

That's highly presumptuous of you. Are you omniscient? Upon what basis can you say what 'most Russian citizens' think?

He has a domestic approval rating over 80%.

It is a matter of clarifying how we come to determine the nature of phenomena. Especially when it is a matter of extrapolating from subjective experience. What a person considers to themselves to be obvious has nothing to do with the veracify of the thing. There must be standards to measure whether a paranormal phenomena has substance or not. You may prefer to not scrutinize the thing and it can retain legitimate significance and meaning in your mind. But that does not translate to it having any bearing on others. Others do not have your direct, inner perception of whatever your experience is and hence demonstration and evidence is necessary to substantiate the thing with significance for others. What matters to others is what demonstration the thing can manifest into our shared reality.

First a disclaimer, I write provocatively. But mainly as a strategy to carry dialogue forward. It's not malicious. And I'll apologize now if some sensitive people take it insultingly. Interfacing over screens is very impersonal and when conversation gets heated then both sides are forced to read/project things into the text. If we talked on the phone, or met in-person, that wouldn't be an issue. When I ask Devil's Advocate questions, it doesn't mean I believe the opposite. I haven't yet stated a position about the paranormal. I only asked for evidence about Dalai Lama's supernatural powers, which raises the issue of how these things are to be known in general. And how should we go about finding out? What about your spiritual practice has led to the development of your 'high intuition' and being 'supernatural'? Was it bestowed at birth, or nurtured? Or a freak accident like Peter Parker and Bruce Banner? Next, your claim has the side-effect of positioning yourself atop a new hierarchy. You've basically created a new social hierarchy of 'People With Superpowers'. And then stepped on top of it. What are the rest of us supposed to do with that? This is an epistemological issue. Both, how did you come to determine you have paranormal abilities, and how should others verify that? You don't expect us to pedastalize you and accept you at your word, do you?

The original argument was that Dalai Lama used supernatural powers to create a snowstorm. Which is very obvious and apparent even to the 'unevolved'. Now you are shifting to saying the 'supernatural' powers are ethereal/only perceptible to 'evolved' beings. Which implies you are yourself such an 'evolved being', or that you are a mutant like Professor Xavier who can see the 'supernatural powers' of others. In either case, maybe you should work for an intelligence agency like the CIA (as the Dalai Lama did) because they are very interested in such paranormal abilities. Or, you are trusting another authority on the matter of Dalai Lama having 'paranormal powers'. Because I don't believe he has ever claimed it for himself. So upon what basis do you claim knowledge of Dalai Lama's 'supernatural powers'?

There's no grounds that he has 'supernatural powers'.

Here comes his supernatural tongue magic 'right in front of your nose'.

Where's all that magic been since then? Is it like a video game where has 100 magicka points and then needs to re-charge? Or like a Hollywood movie where he exhausts his vitality and then needs to rest for a while (i.e. 70 years)?

He always speaks from his political and religious biases. It's not about commitment but mutual understanding. Even moreso than that its about respect and fun.

I agree there is little evidence (i.e. a single ambiguous isolated incident) to support he is a sexual predator. This video is not definitive either way. Although I agree with the internet outrage on the basis of defending victims of abuse. Even if it was not intended, the Dalai Lama's actions come far too close. I consider this was an inappropriate act, and I also consider the possibility of repressed sexuality. He was right to issue an apology. He would be wise to issue a further statement. Not to self-deprecate himself or to appease the media, but to address the genuine and legitimate concerns that have been raised about pedophilia and sexual predation.

The favorable interpretation ranges from Dalai Lama can do nothing wrong because he's a spiritually superior being to he made an innocent mistake. The unfavorable interpretation ranges from he is expressing the dark side of volcel sexual repression and perhaps has done similar (or worse) behaviors before in-private to he acted inappropriately. We cannot know his intentions. The benefit of the doubt goes to his lifetime(s) of spiritual practice. We cannot know the suffering he may have brought to the kid. The benefit of the doubt goes to take caution in protecting the child. It is logical that there ought to be more evidence of his 'inappropriate' lifestyle/activity, if it exists. And it is also reasonable to expect some statement from the family if they felt the situation was inappropriate or not. Another context is whether Tibetan culture accepts the Dalai Lama'a actions. That may be a mixed reaction. Maybe something more definitive will surface.

Where is the evidence that its normal in Tibet to do this behavior between old men and children? There should be other videos of old Tibetan men and young boys behaving like this, right? Can you find anything like that?

Go and ask some children in your neighborhood (doesn't matter what country it is) to 'suck your tongue' and see how many of them find it playful. And see how many parents are offended. And see how many people in the community are alarmed. And try to defend your action to them on the basis of your spiritual superiority, specifically your deep love and compassion for children. We don't need to rush to judgement on the character of Dalai Lama based on a 50-second clip. But neither do we need to normalize old men mouth kissing and asking for 'tongue sucking' from young boys as 'playful'. Dalai Lama is a role model, right? A supposedly very spiritual being. He should be held to the highest standards. Instead many are making excuses for him.

He requested the boy to share (small) acts of intimacy with him. That's a kind of greed. It's not sharing but demanding (e.g. kiss my mouth, suck my tongue). It's exploitative. Holding a hand is more than enough to show compassion. Or even more subtle is just a look, or a smile. Or some words. Anything that shares and doesn't demand from the other. Especially not a physical demand.

'Innocence' doesn't need to mouth kiss, does it? Why not kiss the forehead? Why kiss at all? And why not just stick out your tongue and make a silly face? Why tell him to suck it, and after saying it, why not be silly and laugh? Why keep the tongue extended? Why lean in as if it were serious? There are millions of other harmless jokes that don't have obvious predatory connotations.

How are you going to determine or measure the suffering this brought the boy? It may not be felt until many years later, as is often so with trauma. There is also the suffering brought to his family, specifically, his parents. The way to prevent suffering in such situations is to go nowhere near them. Don't put yourself in such a dangerous place where you are an old man kissing a young boy and asking him (joking or not) to suck your tongue. Once you have crossed that line. There is no telling what you may have done. So it was a wild misjudgement for the Dalai Lama to go into this kind of situation. Why would he risk this unless it is his normal disposition?

You are spinning in circles on the question of his 'intention'. I'm saying the 'intention' of the abuser is irrelevant to whatever abuse follows. That's the reason cultural norms exist. There are behaviors that are nearly universally prohibited because nothing good can come from it. One of those is old men mouth-to-mouthing young boys. It's the decision to take such an action which is problematic. There are millions of other ways to show compassion, playfulness and love which don't infringe upon the rights (and bodily integrity) of a child.

The implication is that Salvijus (you) possesses a unique ability to detect 'genuine compassion' and that victims everywhere were abused because they couldn't differentiate 'genuine compassion' from 'lust'. Otherwise, what's your point? What you call 'compassion' millions of others consider to be abusive. So maybe keep that 'compassion' away from other peoples' children.

It's easy? That's victim blaming. As if it were the fault of the abused for not detecting a predator. If it were easy then there wouldn't be scandal after scandal all over the world.

I want you to be careful, because you may have kids one day. Or be responsible for children in some capacity. A predator may be a very pious and compassionate person. They may be loving and friendly towards the kid without any obvious signs. But, if you were to follow them around, you would see the things I mentioned: compliance testing, trust-building, keeping secrets, increased physical contact, and so on. My point is that the Dalai Lama exhibited increased intimate contact (e.g. mouth kissing) and some degree of compliance testing in this 50-second clip. And not with an adult woman (or man), which would be a normal part of the mating ritual. But with a young boy. That's an abnormal red flag you should pay attention to in your real life. You may want to dismiss it because he is recognized to be a very spiritual person. But please, be skeptical, in your own life, for the sake of potential victims. Don't be naive about how, unfortunately, common child abuse is.

Yes, theoretically. But we are discussing an actual moment recorded on video. Are you omniscient? Can you see inside other people's minds? So what's the point of you saying whether someone is acting out of 'lust' or 'playfulness'?