• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

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.
Even if you're preaching it would be better to be right than wrong, and if you cannot tell the difference or have not the courage to acknowledge it your preaching will fail. So far the record is not very good, is it?
 
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.

Um, maybe you should define your vague term 'sense of life', does water evaporating from a pan have a sense of life?
 
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.

I think, there is no autonomic mechanism in plants.


No, Kumar, when I wrote:
I've just tried to explain that photons have zero rest mass to a cabbage, and it understood the concept at least as well as you do.

I did not mean that the cabbage was capable of cognition.
 
Kumar, here's a bit of a thing to chew on.

I mentioned before that a bee, when it stings, disembowels itself and dies. And yet, I think it safe to say that bees are not idiots. They are bees, and bees, like many animals, do not think as we do, do not have our values, and if there were anything that a person mistakenly thinking his metaphors have ontological importance might call values, they would be those of the hive and of the species.

Why might that not be true of other animals too? Take cows for example. It is true, of course, that we eat cows, but are they fools for coming back to the barn? There are many many many more cows living and mating and eating and sheltered from the rain than there ever were wild cows. In fact there were no wild cows, only aurochs, and they are extinct. You, in you human-centric way, say cows are the fools but cows as a species are flourishing, but the aurochs, even more than the flower fed buffaloes of the spring, roar no more and trundle no more.

This is, of course, a little bit facetious because I think your whole argument and attitude are so far from reasonable that they are immune to reasonable argument, but why not think a bit about the bargain here? The death of individual cows matters only if cows value individuality, but who is to say they do? Bees and ants, it seems, do not. What cows have you interviewed to substantiate your point of view? Thinking in terms of the species-wide, or even the herd-wide bargain, the cows are doing pretty well.
 
Last edited:
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.

Unless absolute and complete, truth also has multiplicity in POVs or non-absolutism. Under it, truth of one may not be valid on truth of other. We should try to make truth absolute & complete. I didn't based PETA in that quote but based logic in that. It can also be possible, one aspect of anyone is true but other odd. Nature has not naturally given us hunting, killing and directly digesting mechanisms which can suggest, opting it may not be natural to humans. It is quite logical so can be made a basis for truth. Accordingly, we can not deny PETA was not true in it. To me, one truth of anyone still hold value for me even he tell lie in all others. I am not marrying with them. Whatever good in anyone we can take that and leave bad.
 
Um, maybe you should define your vague term 'sense of life', does water evaporating from a pan have a sense of life?

How water will be getting life from its evaporation? A plant moving towards sunlight or towards nutrient souce will be getting life--so having sense of life.
 
We can. You can't, because you persistently ignore actual results in favour of your unsupported conjectures.

I am not ignoring that children commonly do always grow so they are more intelligent or potent. It is result based statement.
 
Unless absolute and complete, truth also has multiplicity in POVs or non-absolutism.

No. That's the opposite of truth.

I didn't based PETA in that quote but based logic in that...

No, there was no logic in what you wrote. You reproduced a few facts from Wikipedia and then said PETA disagreed, and decided to side with them. You cited them as your authority on morality and fact, without doing the least bit of due diligence about them and their position.

Accordingly, we can not deny PETA was not true in it.

And here you are, back defending PETA. Make up your mind.

To me, one truth of anyone still hold value for me even he tell lie in all others. I am not marrying with them. Whatever good in anyone we can take that and leave bad.

You haven't shown that what PETA said is true. In fact you had previously cited facts that they disagreed with, then said you agreed with PETA over a more objective analysis. You are most certainly "marrying with them." You defend them at every turn and selectively look the other way when we talk about their immoral and borderline criminal behavior. As long as you keep citing PETA as your moral foundation, I will continue to hold you to the fire.

You asked me why people still contributed to PETA given their egregious behavior. Well look in the mirror, buddy. People like you keep them in business -- people who are willing to be told what to believe and to ignore all their evil.
 
How water will be getting life from its evaporation? A plant moving towards sunlight or towards nutrient souce will be getting life--so having sense of life.

No, you're simply not getting the point. Autonomic cause-and-effect behavior is not at all the same as cognition. You've really drunk deep from the PETA Kool-Aid. Just because two things are both alive doesn't mean they have the same level of cognitive capacity or emotional expression.
 
No. That's the opposite of truth.

I feel, my this post, posted previously in other thread, will explain it;

"MPOVs, even true, can be there in anything which is not yet A&F. E.g. To a Alphonso mango tree, you are still right to call it a green tree, a big tree, a shady tree, a fruit tree, a mango tree, with mistaken vision or in dim light--a small mountain, a ghost, in selfish interest--an Asoka tree etc. Unless you say it an alphanso tree, nothing can be clear in A&F. You can not draw its figure unless Alphonso tree is told. This way, MPOvs or non-absolutism, partial truth, conditional prediction and selfishness work. "Half (non A&F)truth is often a great lie".




No, there was no logic in what you wrote. You reproduced a few facts from Wikipedia and then said PETA disagreed, and decided to side with them. You cited them as your authority on morality and fact, without doing the least bit of due diligence about them and their position.

Pls limit to first PETA quote. Rest all is response to subsequent discussions.



And here you are, back defending PETA. Make up your mind.

I neither defend nor oppose to anyone, I simply base of substance not of entity.



You haven't shown that what PETA said is true. In fact you had previously cited facts that they disagreed with, then said you agreed with PETA over a more objective analysis. You are most certainly "marrying with them." You defend them at every turn and selectively look the other way when we talk about their immoral and borderline criminal behavior. As long as you keep citing PETA as your moral foundation, I will continue to hold you to the fire.

You are just trying to spark or put fire without fuel.

You asked me why people still contributed to PETA given their egregious behavior. Well look in the mirror, buddy. People like you keep them in business -- people who are willing to be told what to believe and to ignore all their evil.
One very senior and well experienced big personality told: "Economic upgradation can lead to moral degradation". Most of the time vested interests can resist morality and make anyone to argue in that favor.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom