For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
In which case I would encourage him to persue his wont with increased vigour.commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 6:05 am 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.commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 6:05 am 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.
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.
Perhaps if enough people use the 'Report' feature. I see pretty much all of dattaswami's posts as self-promotion or preaching.commonsense to dattaswami wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 6:05 am You can be reported and even banned for persisting in your wont of doing this.
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.
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.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 4:27 pmYes, 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.dattaswami wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 4:57 am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4z1KoMRSmw geometry dash world
Note to IC:
Is that in the videos?
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.copequally wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 5:47 am 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.
For the whole thread....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.
Hey! Why the cynicism?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:01 pmI'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.commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 6:05 am 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.
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.
Yeah... inductive reasoning leads to pathologies in every and all directions.
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.
OK, noted.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.
Heh, sorry. I was being super sarcastic...Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:54 amWell, 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.
OK, noted.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.
Yes, the PM is genuine.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 10:31 amAh, ok. But did you actually get that PM?
Pardon my obtuseness if I should already know.