Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[MRC_Hans]

Many time I feel, probably a child is more intelligent than adult(naturally) because he always progress and gain inspite of doing so many odds. Similar look like with the animals.

However, you are mistaken.

 

[Mojo]

Light switch is not live being and natural but plants are. Can't say how much valid but someone used classical music to play daily in his garden and felt, his plants grown much better than others. If ok, it can also interpret feeling vibration or somewhat hearing sense.

Then you can't use it to support your argument.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Many time I feel, probably a child is more intelligent than adult(naturally) because he always progress and gain inspite of doing so many odds. Similar look like with the animals.

Also, a seedling is taller than a full grown oak, because it's growing more rapidly...

 

[Kumar]

Also, a seedling is taller than a full grown oak, because it's growing more rapidly...

Not taller but more potent.

 

[Kumar]

Then you can't use it to support your argument.

But still dynamic argument can be made. We have yet to know much more.

 

[Kumar]

However, you are mistaken.

Ok, potent? Why we can't be result oriented/based?

 

[Kumar]

Then you can't use it to support your argument.

....2

Study Proves That Music can Help Plants to Grow Faster
Gardeners swear by it, and now South Korean scientists have proven that they are right by finding that playing music, especially classical pieces, to plants really does help them grow more quickly.
http://www.medindia.net/news/Study-Proves-That-Music-can-Help-Plants-to-Grow-Faster-25678-1.htm

I can not say, if above will meet your standards.

Anyway intresting but this is off topic, so can discuss elsewhere later.

 

[MikeG]

But still dynamic argument can be made. We have yet to know much more.

What's this? What is an undynamic argument?

 

[Kumar]

What's this? What is an undynamic argument?

Discussions on routine understandings. I feel more comfortable to discuss on potential new understandíngs. Routine understandíngs are well available on internet, books etc., So what is the sense in discussing those. Yes we can argue or take referance if need arise.

 

[MikeG]

Is that just an easy way of you side-stepping stuff that we know for certain, and dismissing it, such that you don't need to discuss it? You're silly ideas about homeopathy and what food we should eat are only "dynamic arguments" if we don't raise the mountains of evidence which shows you are wrong. Is that about right?

Oh, and "dynamic" is completely and utterly the wrong word.

 

[JayUtah]

Some plants clearly show sense of touch. I think, they also feel vibrations. Sunlight affect on them and moving towards sunlight soure, roots towards water/nutrient source should suggest they have sense for life.

No. You're reading cognition into autonomic response.

 

[JayUtah]

The only consideration to put that link was "Human's natural diet" as it looked bit logical but not PETA as a whole.

But you keep trying to defend PETA as a whole. No, I'm not buying your attempt to backpedal out of using them as a source. If they are not essential to your argument then simply concede that it was a mistake to quote them as a source and move on.

Their motto seems to be to give respectable or required death to those poor animals who are unfit to live healthy natural life and do not get any one who can adopt them.

No, you weren't listening. PETA is morally opposed to adoption in any form, so whether the animals are adoptable or not does not matter. They kill perfectly fine, perfectly healthy, perfectly adoptable animals. There are affidavits on record from former employees who testify to that. You're trying to change the facts so that PETA seems to have a widely acceptable moral mandate. Pay attention to the facts as they are, not as you imagine they should be. PETA considers their own custody of animals they rescue to be morally unacceptable "enslavement."

There are many animal rights organizations that behave as you suggest. PETA is not one of them.

As per my last reply pls.

Your last reply ignored the facts and didn't address at all PETA's support of criminal activity. Please address those points.

Yes, anything done for some vested commercial selfish intreasts ignoring moral and humanity will be more odd than not doing. Irreligion in the name of religion should be much bigger irreligion or sin than not following the religion.

This gibberish doesn't address anything I wrote. Your response is entirely pointless. Try again, please.

 

[JayUtah]

But still dynamic argument can be made. We have yet to know much more.

No, you have yet to know much more. You're patently ignorant on practically every subject that relates to your questions and claims. You have assiduously resisted all efforts to teach you. You don't want an argument, "dyanamic" or others. You simply want a pulpit to preach from.

 

[JayUtah]

Many time I feel, probably a child is more intelligent than adult(naturally) because he always progress and gain inspite of doing so many odds. Similar look like with the animals.

No, animals are not like human children.

 

[Kumar]

No. You're reading cognition into autonomic response.

I think, there is no autonomic mechanism in plants.

 

[JayUtah]

I think, there is no autonomic mechanism in plants.

That's all they have. Plants do not think. I'm surprised I have to say that to you. You seem to be vying for the ignominy of most patently absurd statement.

 

[Kumar]

But you keep trying to defend PETA as a whole. No, I'm not buying your attempt to backpedal out of using them as a source. If they are not essential to your argument then simply concede that it was a mistake to quote them as a source and move on.

You are misunderstanding. I quoted one of their article not PETA as a whole, since that article looked logical to me. However I am knowíng more and more about them by these discussions. I also quoted two quotes from wiki about them. I feel, now there is no relevance of PETA with this topic, so we should move on on topic subject.

No, you weren't listening. PETA is morally opposed to adoption in any form, so whether the animals are adoptable or not does not matter. They kill perfectly fine, perfectly healthy, perfectly adoptable animals. There are affidavits on record from former employees who testify to that. You're trying to change the facts so that PETA seems to have a widely acceptable moral mandate. Pay attention to the facts as they are, not as you imagine they should be. PETA considers their own custody of animals they rescue to be morally unacceptable "enslavement."

There are many animal rights organizations that behave as you suggest. PETA is not one of them.



Your last reply ignored the facts and didn't address at all PETA's support of criminal activity. Please address those points.



This gibberish doesn't address anything I wrote. Your response is entirely pointless. Try again, please.

It appear, they are unable to accept any outside control on animals. They may just be taking it like caging the birds. But I feel it is not rational. Some adopt and kéep animals in love and affection, for companionship etc. and they may love them like they love their children or family members. However, I am bit doubtful, if wiki has given the same picture as yoú gave above.

Leave it.

 

[JayUtah]

You are misunderstanding. I quoted one of their article not PETA as a whole...

And since then you been trying to defend all of PETA's practices. You even went so far as to make up new facts and attribute them to PETA to make them seem like a less radical and less egregious organization.

Leave it.

We will, as soon as you concede the parts of your argument that relied solely upon PETA as a source.

 

[Kumar]

No, you have yet to know much more. You're patently ignorant on practically every subject that relates to your questions and claims. You have assiduously resisted all efforts to teach you. You don't want an argument, "dyanamic" or others. You simply want a pulpit to preach from.

Discussing with equanimity may not be rationality but will be truth. It is very difficult to achieve it. You get many oppositions and sufferings by opting it because most people like rationals not truths. However, in heart and on ultimate it wins. If this is preaching, then ok for me.

 

[JayUtah]

Discussing with equanimity may not be rationality but will be truth. It is very difficult to achieve it. You get many oppositions and sufferings by opting it because most people like rationals not truths. However, in heart and on ultimate it wins. If this is preaching, then ok for me.

No. By "preaching" I mean you're just spewing your uninformed and clearly absurd opinion and calling it truth. Truth requires proof, which you simply do not have. You relied upon people like PETA to indoctrinate you into a moral view that's simply not based on fact. What you're doing has nothing to do with truth. It has everything to do with trying to foist your private morality on other people. That's what the worst religions do, and they have nothing to do with truth.