Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Belz...]

can this thread sink any lower?

Only if the dinosaurs ended up in Tartarus instead.

 

[Kumar]

No, we already went through this. Minimization of consumption is not a natural law. You're trying to pretend your moral beliefs derive from nature, versus something someone just made up and told you to follow. The whole point of my post is that you keep trying to confound natural law and moral presupposition. They aren't the same thing, and you missed the point once again because you just restated the argument I was refuting.



Nature has no goal to "minimum violence." It has no goals at all. And it doesn't naturally behave in a way that minimizes violence. Your holier-than-thou attitude has nothing to do with nature. If you want to follow an ascetic lifestyle, that's your business. But don't try to tell us that ascetism is the "natural" way. It obviously isn't. It's just you foisting your religion on everyone else.

I think, we need to understand, how beings livings in different prevailing states can behave differently. In plenty and sufficiency state of availability of means for survival AND in scracity state. Live & let live can be the attribute of former whereas might is right of later

 

[Peregrinus]

I think, we need to understand, how beings livings in different prevailing states can behave differently. In plenty and sufficiency state of availability of means for survival AND in scracity state. Live & let live can be the attribute of former whereas might is right of later

You're at it with the incomprehensible babble again. Even overlooking your poor command of English grammar, your syntax, word choice, and thought patterns (such as they are) are simply astonishingly off the wall. These rambling, babbling, incoherent disconnected dependent clauses without a main clause aren't even good enough to be wrong.

And your A&F is a total fantasy. As has been pointed out innumerable times by numerous posters.

 

[Kumar]

They just die, Kumar. They don't "go" anywhere. Religious platitudes of rewards or punishments in some afterlife are not concepts in nature. Animals (and plants) having a soul to subject to any of that after death is a religious concept -- not a nature concept. Your religion may talk about it, but that's an opinion applied to nature, not something that actually derives from nature or is in any way a part of it. You can't seem to separate the concept of something being of nature versus somebody giving you his opinion about nature. Your only concept of nature is that which your religion told you to believe.

But my point was that you claimed nature was fair-minded. In fact all the dinosaurs died off, regardless of their place in the food chain or whatever righteous intent you wanted to attribute to one dinosaur caste versus another. And in fact that's one of five near-total extinction events our planet has endured throughout its lifetime. Nature is harsh, and it is under no obligation to coddle any species, no matter how noble your religion tells you it is, or how deserving of divine preservation.

I hàve nothing to comment on above since quite fair. That my reply was bit emotional reaction to your askíng that question whose awnser you and most other knowing well. Sorry.

 

[Kumar]

No, actually that's not surprising one bit.

By your logic, if I watch a movie five times and notice new details and develop new interpretations each time, it's the movie itself that's changing, not my appreciation of it.

No it is not my logic. My logic should be try try again, you will gain. Acceptance or non acceptence of mistake can depend on type of post. Yes, I just tend to go to a&f level which is already told in my sign.untill I tired too much. Then I simply compromise.

 

[abaddon]

I think, we need to understand,

Sure. We need to understand. I can agree with that. Everyone here can agree with that.

how beings livings in different prevailing states can behave differently. In plenty and sufficiency state of availability of means for survival AND in scracity state. Live & let live can be the attribute of former whereas might is right of later

But not this. Nobody has the foggiest what that even means.

how beings livings in different prevailing states can behave differently.

WTF does that even mean? I have no idea.

In plenty and sufficiency state of availability of means for survival AND in scracity state.

Nope. Still makes no sense. By "scracity" I can guess you mean "scarcity" but that does not help.

Live & let live can be the attribute of former whereas might is right of later

More incomprehensible gibberish. Tell you what, why not abbreviate this as L&LL so that your posts become even more obscure. Good idea, right?

 

[Dancing David]

Only if the dinosaurs ended up in Tartarus instead.

Will Sameal and Sandman keep them there?
I think they were actually in Downtown

 

[JayUtah]

I hàve nothing to comment on above since quite fair. That my reply was bit emotional reaction to your askíng that question whose awnser you and most other knowing well. Sorry.

Of course I knew the answer; it was a rhetorical question. The point was to prompt you to reconcile the obvious answer with what you had just previously claimed. That's how rhetorical questions work in an argument.

 

[JayUtah]

I think, we need to understand, how beings livings in different prevailing states can behave differently. In plenty and sufficiency state of availability of means for survival AND in scracity state.

Asceticism has nothing to do with scarcity or plenitude. It is, on the contrary, minimalism for its own sake, not in response to any environmental factors. You've already been show that nature doesn't behave ascetically in the face of plenty. Nor even in the face of scarcity. Asceticism is not natural no matter how hard you want it to be.

Live & let live can be the attribute of former whereas might is right of later

"Might means right" is a moral judgment. Rightness of conduct isn't a concept from nature.

 

[Kumar]

Asceticism has nothing to do with scarcity or plenitude. It is, on the contrary, minimalism for its own sake, not in response to any environmental factors. You've already been show that nature doesn't behave ascetically in the face of plenty. Nor even in the face of scarcity. Asceticism is not natural no matter how hard you want it to be.



"Might means right" is a moral judgment. Rightness of conduct isn't a concept from nature.

Then, how behaviour of beings can change in case of plenty and scracity in nature?

 

[Kumar]

Of course I knew the answer; it was a rhetorical question. The point was to prompt you to reconcile the obvious answer with what you had just previously claimed. That's how rhetorical questions work in an argument.

Okay, thís will help me.

 

[Kumar]

We need to understand that choice and validity are two different àspects. We can avoid mixing these. Otherwise, it will lead to personal attack.

 

[Peregrinus]

We need to understand that choice and validity are two different àspects. We can avoid mixing these. Otherwise, it will lead to personal attack.

Aspects of what?

 

[Kumar]

Aspects of what?

Anything.

 

[Kumar]

S..

Nope. Still makes no sense. By "scracity" I can guess you mean "scarcity" but that does not help.

Don't people feel something different in change of their behavior, when means for survival are in plenty or scarcity?

 

[abaddon]

Don't people feel something different in change of their behavior, when means for survival are in plenty or scarcity?

I don't know exactly what you mean. My best guess is that you are asking if humans behaviour alters on the basis of availability of resources. If so, that is true, so does every other animal. What of it?

 

[Mojo]

I think, we need to understand, how beings livings in different prevailing states can behave differently. In plenty and sufficiency state of availability of means for survival AND in scracity state. Live & let live can be the attribute of former whereas might is right of later

No, i both situations creatures will go on eating whatever they eat in the way they always eat it. If food is plentiful the result is increased population and increased consumption, if it is not plentiful the population will tend to decrease. Your slogans are irrelevant.

 

[Mojo]

Where they can go after their extinction?

All over the UK.

 

[Mojo]

No it is not my logic. My logic should be try try again, you will gain.

Not if you are wrong, and refuse to learn. That way you lose every time.

 

[Mojo]

Asceticism has nothing to do with scarcity or plenitude. It is, on the contrary, minimalism for its own sake, not in response to any environmental factors. You've already been show that nature doesn't behave ascetically in the face of plenty. Nor even in the face of scarcity. Asceticism is not natural no matter how hard you want it to be.

You have to remember that as far as Kumar is concerned, "natural" is good and "unnatural" is bad. Everything he posts is afflicted with that basic fallacy.