Is the Beneficiary of a Sin also Guilty?

[commonsense]

I don’t think that this is what is meant as applied ethics. You can be reported and even banned for persisting in your wont of doing this.

[Harbal]

I don’t think that this is what is meant as applied ethics. You can be reported and even banned for persisting in your wont of doing this.

In which case I would encourage him to persue his wont with increased vigour.

[Iwannaplato]

I don’t think that this is what is meant as applied ethics. You can be reported and even banned for persisting in your wont of doing this.

I'm skeptical that anything short of an illegal threat can get you banned here. I reported one of DS's just-a-link-to-a-video posts. I asked if 'they' could send a gentle reminder to DS that this is a discussion forum. I though perhaps coming from a caste society and specifically a very hierarchical ashram, DS mightr react to an autnority figure. I don't think anything happened.

[iambiguous]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4z1KoMRSmw

Yes, of course. But that's why there are nine circles in Hell. Depending on the actual Sin and how much a mere mortal benefitted from it, he or she may well end up only in limbo. Burned with a match from time to time.



Note to IC:

Is that in the videos?

[Lacewing]

You can be reported and even banned for persisting in your wont of doing this.

Perhaps if enough people use the 'Report' feature. I see pretty much all of dattaswami's posts as self-promotion or preaching.

People who claim they are speaking for a god have no sense or shame.

[Iwannaplato]

Who isn't the beneficiary of a sin?

[bahman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4z1KoMRSmw

There is no such thing as sin. That is a total misconception. A person is either wise enough or not, in the first case, they don't do mistakes and in the second case, they do mistakes. The point is to be open that you could do mistakes and learn from them. You become wise when you are old enough and learn from your mistakes.

[copequally]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4z1KoMRSmw geometry dash world

Yes, of course. But that's why there are nine circles in Hell. Depending on the actual Sin and how much a mere mortal benefitted from it, he or she may well end up only in limbo. Burned with a match from time to time.


Note to IC:

Is that in the videos?

No such thing as sin there. That is just incorrect. Almost all of dattaswami's posts come across as self-promotion or preaching to me.

[Iwannaplato]

No such thing as sin there. That is just incorrect. Almost all of dattaswami's posts come across as self-promotion or preaching to me.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'there'. And I may be misunderstanding the meaning/context of your post. But if you mean in Swami's philosophy, actually there is indeed, at least in his mind, sin there.
For example,

Swami replied: Sinners who have used their qualities greed and anger in the wrong direction to commit sins are born as trees. In those births as trees, the souls are quite peaceful, which helps them subside their anger. They also learn to sacrifice their fruits to human beings, which pacifies their greediness and anger. These punishments are given in extreme cases. Once they attain reformation, they are again given human births, depending on the judgment of God. This routine cycle of souls operates mechanically.

For the whole thread....
viewtopic.php?t=39067

[Skepdick]

I don’t think that this is what is meant as applied ethics. You can be reported and even banned for persisting in your wont of doing this.

I'm skeptical that anything short of an illegal threat can get you banned here. I reported one of DS's just-a-link-to-a-video posts. I asked if 'they' could send a gentle reminder to DS that this is a discussion forum. I though perhaps coming from a caste society and specifically a very hierarchical ashram, DS mightr react to an autnority figure. I don't think anything happened.

Hey! Why the cynicism?

I got a private message that one of my colourful epithet was redacted.

Dear ****** and Skepdick

I have redacted Skepdick's "fucking idiot" epithet. While bad language is generally not prohibited here at Philosophy Now, neither is it encouraged. Skepdick is perfectly capable of making his point and critiquing the points of others without using offensive terms, and such calculated offence, being unnecessary, is therefore unjustifiable.

However, in my judgement ******* tone has more than once been insulting to Skepdick and I consider Skepdick to have been provoked and ***** to bear some responsibility for the breakdown in civility between the two of you.

[Skepdick]

Who isn't the beneficiary of a sin?

Yeah... inductive reasoning leads to pathologies in every and all directions.

(Also, apologies for the necropost)

[Iwannaplato]

Hey! Why the cynicism?

Well, I also contacted the mods about a person who asked if we could help him because he was having trouble logging in or staying logged in. They never responded to me. Eventually, he managed to solve the problem himself. And then given what I see here I don't think they intervene much. Though I think that's mixed at worst.

I got a private message that one of my colourful epithet was redacted.

Dear ****** and Skepdick

I have redacted Skepdick's "fucking idiot" epithet. While bad language is generally not prohibited here at Philosophy Now, neither is it encouraged. Skepdick is perfectly capable of making his point and critiquing the points of others without using offensive terms, and such calculated offence, being unnecessary, is therefore unjustifiable.

However, in my judgement ******* tone has more than once been insulting to Skepdick and I consider Skepdick to have been provoked and ***** to bear some responsibility for the breakdown in civility between the two of you.

OK, noted.

[Skepdick]

Hey! Why the cynicism?

Well, I also contacted the mods about a person who asked if we could help him because he was having trouble logging in or staying logged in. They never responded to me. Eventually, he managed to solve the problem himself. And then given what I see here I don't think they intervene much. Though I think that's mixed at worst.

I got a private message that one of my colourful epithet was redacted.

Dear ****** and Skepdick

I have redacted Skepdick's "fucking idiot" epithet. While bad language is generally not prohibited here at Philosophy Now, neither is it encouraged. Skepdick is perfectly capable of making his point and critiquing the points of others without using offensive terms, and such calculated offence, being unnecessary, is therefore unjustifiable.

However, in my judgement ******* tone has more than once been insulting to Skepdick and I consider Skepdick to have been provoked and ***** to bear some responsibility for the breakdown in civility between the two of you.

OK, noted.

Heh, sorry. I was being super sarcastic...

The kind of shit that flies on here is actively harmful to humanity.

But don't say "fuck".

[Iwannaplato]

Heh, sorry. I was being super sarcastic...

Ah, ok. But did you actually get that PM?
Pardon my obtuseness if I should already know.

[Skepdick]

Heh, sorry. I was being super sarcastic...

Ah, ok. But did you actually get that PM?
Pardon my obtuseness if I should already know.

Yes, the PM is genuine.