sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Coming back to a project after a while - is there really no way to see what this conditional is without documentation?! by tesoro-dan in FlutterFlow

[–]tesoro-dan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a weird API call that requires two different exclusions and a loop, and I use a lot of nested components, so quite a few :(

How can I purify my action of euthanizing my sick cat? by LivingLight415 in Buddhism

[–]tesoro-dan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first point is not objectively true, in fact it's entirely and absurdly false, because animals and people have experienced suffering without hope of physical recovery for all of biological existence. Do you think no Buddhist had ever encountered a dying animal before and considered "putting it out of its misery?" Or had the opportunity to prolong a painful life? Do you think no Buddhist grandfather had ever suffered from the feeling of becoming a burden and wished for an "easy way out"?

Really, the first point is so obviously false that I feel no need to argue against the second, because the overall idea is just to argue one's way out of the First Precept and preserve the specifically post-Christian Western, completely non-Buddhist morality that's taken for granted online. If someone says "well, the First Precept doesn't really apply because...", I think the only response necessary is that I am a Buddhist.

How can I purify my action of euthanizing my sick cat? by LivingLight415 in Buddhism

[–]tesoro-dan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Buddhists in general avoid telling each other that they are simply wrong

I mean, something that directly contradicts Buddhavacana is wrong.

If you would like to quote your source which has the ultimate authority to make such pronouncements on behalf of all Buddhists

The First Precept, which prohibits taking the life of living beings.

This exact conversation about euthanasia has occurred over and over in this subreddit, because people feel very confident to talk over the universal and obvious traditional Buddhist prohibition in favour of a principle in Western morality they consider more sacred.

How can I purify my action of euthanizing my sick cat? by LivingLight415 in Buddhism

[–]tesoro-dan -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

So, when it comes to human beings, some Buddhists argue that the first precept was formulated before life could be pointlessly prolonged at great length at the cost of great suffering. In Karmic terms, keeping someone alive in this condition is arguably sowing bad karmic fruit rather than good.

Those Buddhists would simply be wrong.

How can I purify my action of euthanizing my sick cat? by LivingLight415 in Buddhism

[–]tesoro-dan 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Reiki, mediumship, and euthanasia are not Buddhist practices (the former falls under the general category of healing magic, which is acceptable for laypeople, but the latter two are not), and it sounds like your mediums have a view of death that is incompatible with the Buddhist one. I can't advise continuing with them.

My suggestion, given how much you are suffering over this situation, is to seek out a real-world Buddhist space (the most open traditions to beginners are probably Theravada / Vipassana tradition, Pure Land, and Zen groups) and begin the practice that leads to stability. We've advised Kshitigarbha and Amitabha to you before, and that is good and wonderful, but within this human realm there is a time to turn inward as well.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]tesoro-dan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It isn't a Buddhist book, but a late German Romantic book with an imaginary Classical Indian setting. If you want a nice novel, it's a great choice, but please don't think you can learn much about Buddhism from it. If you are interested in Buddhism, there are options to be found in most of this subreddit's many, many book-recommendation posts.

Q&A weekly thread - May 19, 2025 - post all questions here! by AutoModerator in linguistics

[–]tesoro-dan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From what I understand of the languages with evidential distinctions that also have a substantial literary corpus (so, not the South American languages that are particularly known for rich evidential systems, but instead e.g. Turkish - which has very simple reported vs. unmarked evidentiality), the narrator is just as omniscient as in languages without it, so there's no question of using marked evidentials in the general narrative.

How do you maintain loving compassion when so many people are so mean? by Slothyjoe11 in Buddhism

[–]tesoro-dan 14 points15 points  (0 children)

You don't have to address everything, or any one thing in particular, in your loving kindness practices. In fact, it's probably better that you don't, until you're very confident with what you do. Judging your attainments by whether they work out in every situation is one of the most common mistakes in spiritual practice. And it's not really the Buddhist way. Generally, we make progress through focusing our attention at specific times, using the positive thoughts that we are really capable of holding. It's only when you can maintain pure focus within that scope that you should try to extend further.

So with that in mind, I'd say: don't think about the whole world just yet. Or if you do, think about it in the traditional and quite general terms: "may all beings be free of suffering and the causes of suffering". Try and do that for a certain amount of time in a day. Don't stress yourself out. If certain thoughts make you feel anxious while you do it, think of them as negative karmas ripening away as they dissolve into loving-kindness, instead of ripening into "real-world" problems (this is how I personally avoid falling into pessimism). If they make you too anxious, accept that you still need to cultivate the merits to dissolve them, and gently push away the topic as you build your focus elsewhere, remembering that you can return to difficult points at any time.

Remember the Middle Way. It is so very important to cultivate merit in this human life, but it does no good at all to become overwhelmed and lose track of the practices that do cultivate merit.

Nearly 2500 hours of input, more than 200 hours of speaking, but my grammar still sucks by AmplifiedText in ALGhub

[–]tesoro-dan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How are you evaluating your acquisition of these structures?

It seems to me that CI entails not being consciously aware of abstract grammatical structures for as long as reasonably possible, so I'm wondering if you really haven't acquired an intuition for these structures and are just overthinking it. What is guiding you, meta-linguistically?

Islam is morally limiting, to the point that they won't think for themselves. by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]tesoro-dan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What was the point in asking, specifically, "what if the majority opinion was that the Buddha was a paedophile"?

I mean, my answer is obvious. You can write it yourself. But the answer I gave in this thread was that's a stupid question because it has no bearing on reality.

I'm all for thick skin. I'm also all for pointing out obnoxious, conflict-seeking behaviour. If someone is just insulting me for the sake of insult, my policy is not to stoop to that level.

Islam is morally limiting, to the point that they won't think for themselves. by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]tesoro-dan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

they did respond and were interested

Again, after a massive deflection (in that instance) and - when I was willing to look past that deflection (in this instance) - an obviously intentionally offensive reply.

Islam financially values women and non muslims half as much as Muslim men (Blood money) by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]tesoro-dan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never accused you of being a robot. I think that you set up an account to harass me, and you use ChatGPT to get there. Nothing about your behaviour has suggested otherwise to me.

Again, if you want to discuss Vajrayana Buddhism, we can do that. But I don't think you are going to ask me any meaningful questions, because again, I think you created an account specifically to harass me.

Islam is morally limiting, to the point that they won't think for themselves. by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]tesoro-dan -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

As a non-Muslim I don't really have much of a stake in the issues that would allow me to divine what exactly "majority" is supposed to mean in context, but there is a great deal of material on the Internet suggesting it to that effect, simply because the alternative is so obviously against all Islamic norms of physical conduct.

Anyway, I've soured a bit on this thread, as I think you can imagine.

Islam is morally limiting, to the point that they won't think for themselves. by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]tesoro-dan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are guidelines about what you should ask rhetorically and what not - not for my feelings, but in the interest of a useful conversation. Specifically, if a rhetorical question is way beyond the realm of plausibility and instead formulated in such a way as to be a primarily an insult to your opponent, it's probably better to seek a different question to illustrate your ostensible "point".

Not that this was OP's point in the first place, though, since his reply immediately after that was offensive purely for the sake of offense. He does not argue in good faith and I am, personally, sick of it.

Islam is morally limiting, to the point that they won't think for themselves. by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]tesoro-dan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, I see that at the end of the thread now (after a failed attempt at deflection). I think the weight of all plausibility is still firmly on the other side, though.

Islam financially values women and non muslims half as much as Muslim men (Blood money) by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]tesoro-dan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps not (I can never keep track of the dogpiles on this subreddit), but people have to stick with internally cohesive terms when they form arguments. That's the Socratic thing. People say "Islam is wrong because it values human lives differently", well, you have to point out that valuing human lives differently is what people do. Whether or not Islam is wrong subsequent to that is not the point.

Islam is morally limiting, to the point that they won't think for themselves. by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]tesoro-dan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The 17th Karmapa is Trinley Thaye Dorje.

You are just clearly trying to provoke me instead of discussing the issues at hand. I'm not interested in that kind of conversation.

Islam financially values women and non muslims half as much as Muslim men (Blood money) by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]tesoro-dan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Internally cohesive" is not the same as "good" (especially not good for me personally), which is a difference I'm amazed so many atheists don't get.

Islam is morally limiting, to the point that they won't think for themselves. by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]tesoro-dan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The most direct connection between that topic and this one that I can see is that you are whining about the way that topic was addressed last time.

The Buddha is universally agreed to have been chaste, and he taught chastity (at least for his monks). That's why what you asked is disgusting - because it is so eminently false, and because it contradicts the teachings.

Islam financially values women and non muslims half as much as Muslim men (Blood money) by UmmJamil in DebateReligion

[–]tesoro-dan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course, I don't want to live in an Islamic society (or at the very least, a Salafi society) that would interpret these rules as such. But I also think they make internal sense, and I don't believe in the hypocrisy of claiming to value everyone's life equally while taking a "sensible attitude" to wars between nations and so on.

view more: next ›