Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Peregrinus]

It is nothing but your false speculation. Forget.

Observation of your repeated misspellings, awkward and or mangled grammar, and simply inappropriate word choices is not "speculation." I suggest you find a definition of "speculation."

 

[bruto]

It is true that many wild animals love their children, which is part of the reason why they are so savage to their enemies and to the food they wish their children to learn to eat. Watch seals some time, as they mangle and cripple fish to make them easier for their children to catch. Nature is filled with fascinating marvels, some of them a source for our human values. That does not work in reverse. Our human values are not a source for the way nature works.

 

[Kumar]

No. You're arbitrarily drawing a division between nature and humankind. This fallacy has been your problem from the start.[



Your model of nature comes right out of a Disney film. The real world is not cartoon animals.



The facts disagree with your point of view. Your point of view is therefore wrong.



No, a "better" understanding will not suddenly make the facts change to agree with your comically childlike view of the world.

Probably, we underestimate nature and overestimate humankind. I am not drawing a division between nature and humankind but on the contrary I am joining these. Humankind is also a part on nature and dependent on it.

 

[Kumar]

It is true that many wild animals love their children, which is part of the reason why they are so savage to their enemies and to the food they wish their children to learn to eat. Watch seals some time, as they mangle and cripple fish to make them easier for their children to catch. Nature is filled with fascinating marvels, some of them a source for our human values. That does not work in reverse. Our human values are not a source for the way nature works.

Humans are also a part of nature so should be dependent on it. Whether fully or partly, can be a big debate. Your above reply suggest nature is just not one sided i.e harsh, cruel, violent, destructing etc. These are also attribute of nature but other side is also there affected by prevailing conditions. This may suggest that all things in nature, can also become attribute of any being or religion, both sides can be valid.

 

[Kumar]

NO. I will not forget. You will not brush this under the carpet. It is not "false speculation", it is right here on this very site in black and white.

Please explain.

I can not enter into your brain and change your false perception. You are entitled to your own thinking but not valid to me.

 

[Kumar]

I would not make excuses for most of Kumar's eccentric use of words and casual disregard for grammar, but must note that some letter combinations are also rather easy to mistype, among them the "i" and "o" of violence. There are a few quickly typed double vowels and diphthongs that are easily reversed. Those of us who have some modicum of respect for our readers (for example, I, a fast typist, just had to correct "repsect"), take the tiny bit of extra time needed to check our work. But of course I am not the king of the world and the grand poobah of spiritual truth, for whom, it seems, the importance of the message trumps the need to make it intelligible to the great unwashed.

I suspect, though I have not bothered to investigate it deeply, that those of us who learned to touch type quickly, as I did, on typebar typewriters, might habitually mistype certain sequences, owing to a deeply entrenched habit of compensating for the odd timing of the letters, such that I now often get certain combinations wrong which I never did back when using a real typewriter.

That is, of course, a poor excuse for bad manners, and I try not to need it.

Moreover English is bit peculiar language. Differ in pronunciation and spelling. In pronunciation violence, should start by "voi" but in spelling it "vio". We used to make jokes in our childhood due to it

 

[bruto]

Moreover English is bit peculiar language. Differ in pronunciation and spelling. In pronunciation violence, should start by "voi" but in spelling it "vio". We used to make jokes in our childhood due to it

No, Kumar. No matter whether your neighborhood, real or imagined, pronounced it wrong, it has always been "violence" in both spelling and pronunciation where English is spoken. If it was said wrong in your neighborhood, it may explain why your English is so eccentric and rife with error, but it does not make it right.

It is a word with a Latin root, shared by English and the romance languages, all of which are in agreement. The Latin "violentia" that is the common root of the English, French, Spanish, Italian, and probably Portuguese, Romansch, Romanian and Catalans' words for violence, takes as its root the Latin word "vis" not "vos." There is no such thing as "voilence." Just for once do us a favor and stop doubling down on every error.

 

[Kumar]

No, Kumar. No matter whether your neighborhood, real or imagined, pronounced it wrong, it has always been "violence" in both spelling and pronunciation where English is spoken. If it was said wrong in your neighborhood, it may explain why your English is so eccentric and rife with error, but it does not make it right.

It is a word with a Latin root, shared by English and the romance languages, all of which are in agreement. The Latin "violentia" that is the common root of the English, French, Spanish, Italian, and probably Portuguese, Romansch, Romanian and Catalans' words for violence, takes as its root the Latin word "vis" not "vos." There is no such thing as "voilence." Just for once do us a favor and stop doubling down on every error.

Ok. I have to accept odd, because in other's
Home. Now topic subject.

 

[JayUtah]

Probably, we underestimate nature and overestimate humankind.

No, that is not the distinction to which I refer. You arbitrarily define certain human behavior as unnatural, when in fact all it does is violate your religious beliefs.

I am not drawing a division between nature and humankind but on the contrary I am joining these. Humankind is also a part on nature and dependent on it.

Equivocation. Your definition of nature is not in line with the facts. You believe nature conforms to your ascetic religious beliefs, when it clearly does not. You argue that humankind, in order to live correctly in nature, must be ascetic. Natural human behavior such as the keeping of animals for food and the raising of crops for food is not acceptable to you, and you claim it is (or should be) unnatural for humans to do that. Therefore you are drawing a distinction between human behavior you personally deem natural and human behavior you personally decry as unnatural. It is this arbitrary division that seems to be the kernel of your illogical argument. It's an assumed condition, not one borne out by fact.

 

[Dave Rogers]

In pronunciation violence, should start by "voi" but in spelling it "vio".

The only place I know where it's pronounced that way is the West Midlands. You're not a Brummie, are you?

Dave

 

[sackett]

Or in anybody else's

Ok. I have to accept odd, because in other's
Home. Now topic subject.

That's not in our culture, Kumar.

 

[Kumar]

No, that is not the distinction to which I refer. You arbitrarily define certain human behavior as unnatural, when in fact all it does is violate your religious beliefs.



Equivocation. Your definition of nature is not in line with the facts. You believe nature conforms to your ascetic religious beliefs, when it clearly does not. You argue that humankind, in order to live correctly in nature, must be ascetic. Natural human behavior such as the keeping of animals for food and the raising of crops for food is not acceptable to you, and you claim it is (or should be) unnatural for humans to do that. Therefore you are drawing a distinction between human behavior you personally deem natural and human behavior you personally decry as unnatural. It is this arbitrary division that seems to be the kernel of your illogical argument. It's an assumed condition, not one borne out by fact.

Whatever is good and constructing will remain good and constructing irrespective of suggesting by any entity, Religion or otherwise. Whatever is bad and destructing will remain bad and destructing irrespective of suggested by any entity. Need not to take personal & specific. Since, violence is destructing but still can't be avoided for basic needs(refer article recently quoted) but however still, minimum and intelligent violence violence can be opted just for basic need neither for greed nor for luxury or otherwise. To achieve this goal, following can be thought:

1. Minimum Violence just for basic need.

2. Intelligent violence giving least pain depending on complexity of beings(increasing by senses) and on means for violence(instant or slow killing).

3. Intelligent and minimum violence depending on non-compounding of violence( generation vs non generation based).

4. Supportive to nature.

I am considering all beings in it not just one kingdom. Even in vegetarian diet, fruits & milk of happy animal(probably non veg) is not compounding violence and supportive to nature so it can be taken as Intelligent & Minimum Killing. Take care.

 

[Kumar]

The only place I know where it's pronounced that way is the West Midlands. You're not a Brummie, are you?

Dave

No. Why pronunciation D O- do, G O- go is different Why do is not du?

 

[JayUtah]

Whatever...

Nothing you wrote addresses my post. You're just preaching your ascetic religion at me. I'm not interested. Please address my actual arguments.

 

[Kumar]

Nothing you wrote addresses my post. You're just preaching your ascetic religion at me. I'm not interested. Please address my actual arguments.

No, on the contrary, my last post is addressing your post very well. I do not need to preach any religion on you or any other. Yes, I can discus, what can be valid in sense with equanimity not in entity. However, you used to misunderstand on it.

 

[Kumar]

That's not in our culture, Kumar.

Yes, not primarily in my culture.

 

[JayUtah]

No, on the contrary, my last post is addressing your post very well.

No. I, not you, am the one who decides whether my questions have been addressed. I pointed out that you are making an arbitrary distinction, a begged question, regarding the nature of human behavior. You simply doubled down on the arbitrary distinction. You pontificated a bunch of your personal beliefs as if they were self-evident facts. Therefore you did not address my post. You merely repeated the claims my posted refuted.

I do not need to preach any religion on you or any other.

But that is exactly what you're doing. You're preaching an ascetic branch of Hindu mysticism as if it were fact. You are unable to reconcile that religion with actual facts.

Yes, I can discus, what can be valid in sense with equanimity not in entity.

Meaningless gibberish.

However, you used to misunderstand on it.

No, the problem with your argument is not that your critics misunderstand it. The problem is that your argument is simply the fallacy of mistaking your religion for fact. When you are able to consider that your religion is not self-evident fact, then you will be ready to continue this discussion. Not until then.

 

[Kumar]

I feel, This inspiring story is to be added in this topic. It may suggest highest level of morality or validity or justification:

Once, one GOD at basic level preferring natural living was getting married. Many competent angels came to greet and gift HIM.

One Angel A competent in building/city making asked: "O great Lord, since you are getting married, you shall need a house. I shall made a big & beautiful palace for you having maximum needed facilities".

God asked: "for how much time your house will sustain and will it give all nature like facilities?

Angel A: House will be sustainable for about 100 years but it can not provide all nature like facilities.

God: Then why I should take it, when I have this consistent permanent nature house all around with all nature facilities? Why I should opt an inferior thing against superior thing?

Angel A: Awnserless.

Then Angel B competent in wealth asked: O Lord, your wife will need so many ornaments and wealth. I shall give these.

God: Whether these will serve, soft pleasing touch, ever changing, good sense/smell, healthful and still looking more beautiful?

Angel B: no these can not?

God: Then, why I should take these? Lot of nature had been destroyed in making these and still with no real benefit. Lot of fallen flowers are available here, my wife can use those having all those real things as I mentioned above i.e.soft pleasing touch, ever changing, good sense/smell, healthful and still looking more beautiful.

Angel B: Awnserless.

Then Angel C competent in farming asked: O Lord, you shall definitely need grains, vegetables etc. to run your home. I shall clear lot of land for you suitable for farming.

God: whether such crops will be better healthful, no efforts in getting these and making food, and if enjoyable like fruits/milk?


Angel C : No Lord but you will get more & continuous means for foods. She can cook.

God: Why I should take it? You will kill lot of plants and devoid inhabitants of those plants from their home in clearing land and without additional real benefits. Lot of fruits and sufficient milk is available here which is sufficient for my family survival. That food is more healthful, enjoying and no energy and killings are needed to get and prepare those for food. I can conserve such energy and use for other better purpose.

Angel C; also awnserless

So on.......

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Drivel, and preachy drivel at that.

Also, this thread is where you present your half-baked ideas about domestic animals, not the one with your half-baked ideas about religion.

 

[JayUtah]

I feel, This inspiring story...

No. It's just pontification, another entry in your ongoing holier-than-thou hypocrisy. You have been presented with the facts that dispute your personal beliefs. Clinging to them publicly is not an appropriate response. Fix your behavior.