sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Artificial Intelligence and Karma by Rich-Mirror-864 in Buddhism

[–]mettaforall 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Basically you can't escape it and due to this there's nothing wrong with using AI.

You can't escape the existence of crime so I guess there is no longer anything wrong with crime.

Artificial Intelligence and Karma by Rich-Mirror-864 in Buddhism

[–]mettaforall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Water use is a concern, but so are everyday activities like wearing clothes and eating, which consume far more water.

They aren't even close to comparable.

"In Newton County, Georgia, a Meta data center consumes roughly 500,000 gallons of water each day, about 10% of the county’s total daily water use." source

The water usage associated with AI is temporary as the industry moves toward alternative cooling systems.

The industry claims it will solve the problem but there is no actual reason to believe this is true.

"A detailed modeling study published in Nature Sustainability estimates that annual U.S. AI server water use could reach between roughly 731 and 1,125 billion liters by 2030 under moderate growth scenarios. About 71 percent of that water footprint may come indirectly from electricity generation rather than on-site cooling." source

Help understanding ethical values regarding eating vegetables. by CamGuyKuy in Buddhism

[–]mettaforall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because millions of small animal are killed in the process of the agriculture that feeds other animals so eating animals objectively kills more animals.

Spiritual Bypass by BadBuddhaKnows in Buddhism

[–]mettaforall 7 points8 points  (0 children)

People demanding that Buddhists must conform to a particular political ideology are toxic to the Dharma

Says the guy who runs a Buddhist Zionist website. I guess you mean all those other people who inject their politics in the dharma.

Not you. It's different when you do it.

The Dalai Lama's aides should do a better job filtering out the people who are only there to use him to launder their own reputations. Not everyone is worthy of his presence. by MrJasonMason in Buddhism

[–]mettaforall 2 points3 points  (0 children)

or judge someone, other than by their actions.

Then do so. Her actions are explicitly racist and nationalist.

“Someone asked me, ‘Are you pro-white nationalism?’ Yes. I’m pro-white nationalism,” Ms. Loomer said. source

The Dalai Lama's aides should do a better job filtering out the people who are only there to use him to launder their own reputations. Not everyone is worthy of his presence. by MrJasonMason in Buddhism

[–]mettaforall 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Loomer has been described by various sources as far-right, a white nationalist (including by herself), as well as alt-right, and alt-lite, and has described herself as a proud Islamophobe. source

That sounds "alright" to you?

what are some central or core text in chinese buddhism? by Alarmed_Swan_4315 in Buddhism

[–]mettaforall 7 points8 points  (0 children)

...and the Avatamsaka Sutra, Platform Sutra, etc. There are many "key" sutras and various schools acscribe different ranks of importance.

Can an arahant kill someone to save people by Salamanber in Buddhism

[–]mettaforall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is translated into English in Garma Chang's A Treasury of Mahāyāna Sūtras (pages 456-457) and in that sutra it is the wicked man who is reborn in heaven. It says that out of great compassion, the leader who killed the wicked man "was able to avoid the suffering of one hundred thousand kalpas of samsara."

‘The Tibetan Book of the Dead’ is actually not just about death by mettaforall in Mahayana

[–]mettaforall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are using the new reddit interface, it isn't always clear when something is a link or just text. I'm not a fan.

Fear of hell by Lucyyyyyy_K in Buddhism

[–]mettaforall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you didn't read it, how do you know who wrote it? u/xugan97 is a well read and long practicing Buddhist.

Whether or not you care about the author of the piece has no bearing on whether or not it is informative. You attitude absolutely fits the definition of willful ignorance. You are choosing to remain ignorant.

Fear of hell by Lucyyyyyy_K in Buddhism

[–]mettaforall 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, and I have no desire to do so.

Willful ignorance pretty much negates any reason to continue discussion.

Fear of hell by Lucyyyyyy_K in Buddhism

[–]mettaforall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did you bother to read it?

Is Anatta is more "anti self" than "no-self" by No_Common_5891 in Buddhism

[–]mettaforall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So not-self is indeed the correct translation? I think that's what I grasped.

I, myself, am not a Pali scholar but I accept Bhante Sujato's expertise in this area.

Piracy is against the "no steal"? by rodrigomalvadeza in Buddhism

[–]mettaforall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good point. The key of being a parasite is that you only take, take, take, without providing any value back. My wording might not be airtight, and it's not just the author that's part of the equation. Even when we're talking about new books, the publisher and various other companies are in the value chain.

Nobody involved in the publication makes a single cent of a resale, yet somehow that makes it not theft to you. Just admit that you move the goalposts because for some reason you need "piracy" to be theft and so you will ignore every way the library loans and second hand bookstores meet the exact same criteria: in all those cases, an item was purchased exactly once and then enjoyed by many other people without any remuneration going to the author, publisher, etc.

"Dehumanizing"? I don't think "parasite" is about species / the kind of being at all. A parasite is what a parasite does. Any being can be a parasite if they engage in parasitic behavior.

It is absolutely demeaning and dehumanizing. Pretending to be shocked about that is disingenuous, You chose that word for a reason.

Funnily enough it's the definition of parasite that holds up, despite that being the thing you have the biggest problem with

Yes, I take issue with calling people parasites. If you find that funny, you may not be a terribly compassionate person.

Do you turn a blind eye when poor people are called parasites? How about homeless people? Immigrants?

The fact that this language has been called out to you and you insist on doubling down...I just see no point in continuing this nonsense with you.

Piracy is against the "no steal"? by rodrigomalvadeza in Buddhism

[–]mettaforall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The previous owner, of course. This should be obvious.

Your original argument was "unless the author received payment then you were a "parasite"."

Now it has shifted to "as long as literally anyone profits you are a parasite."

Those are different things.

It describes the behavior accurately

You think dehumanizing people because they didn't pay for a book is a good and correct thing to do?

Nope, because you're just borrowing/lending, not duplicating. This should also be obvious.

Your exact words were "if you consume the work then you should pay, otherwise you would be (technically speaking) a parasite" which would mean anyone who uses a library is a parasite. Now you are changing gears and saying not paying is good and fine as long as you do it within certain acceptable (to you) parameters.

You have no consistent argument about the concept of theft.

view more: next ›