Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

No, that's just evidence that they do it. It doesn't support your claims about the purported benefits of the practice.

Even a child can confirm it.

 

[Mojo]

Even a child can confirm it.

Kumar, can you not see that the argument on this point boils down to this:

Kumar: "I do this, and it's a good thing to do."

JayUtah: "what evidence do you have that it's a good thing to do?"

Kumar: "I and my family and other people known to me are following it, intentionally or intentionally. All humans who are eating fruits having bigger seeds are also following this type of seed dispersal."

I agree that even a child should be able to see that that is not evidence for the proposition that it's a good thing to do. Why can't you?

 

[Kumar]

Kumar, can you not see that the argument on this point boils down to this:




I agree that even a child should be able to see that that is not evidence for the proposition that it's a good thing to do. Why can't you?

No, on the contary it is A&F well apparent evidence. Sun shine during daytime , is well apparent A&F evidence, so need no further evidence and contradiction. Since, you are doing it, it is big odd preception from your side. Leave it.

 

[Mojo]

No, on the contary it is A&F well apparent evidence. Sun shine during daytime , is well apparent A&F evidence, so need no further evidence and contradiction. Since, you are doing it, it is big odd preception from your side. Leave it.

Yes, but it is only evidence that the sun shines in the daytime. It doesn't tell us, for example, what the sun is made of.

What you have posted about distributing seeds from fruit is just evidence that you do it. It is not evidence of the merits of the activity.

 

[Kumar]

Yes, but it is only evidence that the sun shines in the daytime. It doesn't tell us, for example, what the sun is made of.

What you have posted about distributing seeds from fruit is just evidence that you do it. It is not evidence of the merits of the activity.

We are concerned with Sun shine & Sun light not with what the sun is made of.

Seed dispersal, in any way, is an A&F merit in itself need no further evidence about its merit or demerit.

 

[Kumar]

First, you provided an anecdote, not evidence. Second, you were supposed to be providing evidence that the human way of picking seeds and consuming the pulp was a pattern found elsewhere in nature. Claims that the humans you know do what you say humans do does not provide relevant evidence, even if believed.

I think, you need such an A&F evidence that unless I or majority of people on earth, experience it personally like a foot ball in their fingers, tellings of few, can not be an true evidence. Or, unless we go onto Sun and observe personally that sunlight is coming from it, just telling will not be a true evidence. My telling is just like, you accept earth shape or sunlight coming from Sun. If it is not acceptable to you, nothing can be a better evidence than this A&F knowledge. Practice rational skepticism not egoistic irrational skepticism.

 

[Kumar]

No, as long as you are posting on a public forum you know to be inhabited by skeptics, you are responsible for addressing all critics. If you want a favorable audience, go find a forum for Jains or other dharmic religions.

Your proposed food and dietary policy is not scalable. The existing population of the world requires a scalable food supply. Humans, with their well-developed intelligence, have become adept and ensuring a food supply using economies of scale. Your uneducated opinion that this is somehow "unnatural" simply does not matter. Your indifference to the problems your religiously motivated proposal would cause is unconscionable.

I felt I am at rational skeptic forum but now feeling I am at egoistic wrongly perceived irrational skeptic forum. It is not my fault if you misusing skepticism in your ego or preception.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

I think, you need such an A&F evidence that unless I or majority of people on earth, experience it personally like a foot ball in their fingers, tellings of few, can not be an true evidence. Or, unless we go onto Sun and observe personally that sunlight is coming from it, just telling will not be a true evidence. My telling is just like, you accept earth shape or sunlight coming from Sun. If it is not acceptable to you, nothing can be a better evidence than this A&F knowledge. Practice rational skepticism not egoistic irrational skepticism.

Again, this A&F nonsense exists only in your head.
You are saying that anything you like is A&F and doesn't need any evidence (like your ideas on seed dispersal), and everything you don't like can be dismissed because it's 'not A&F' (like the rather conclusive evidence that homeopathy doesn't work).

This is a very dishonest anbd self centered way of arguing.
You are basically saying that everyone should accept what you believe, and you never need to explain yourself.

I felt I am at rational skeptic forum but now feeling I am at egoistic wrongly perceived irrational skeptic forum. It is not my mistake if you are such.

When people ask you to support your claims, you insult them. How nice of you.

 

[Kumar]

Again, this A&F nonsense exists only in your head.
You are saying that anything you like is A&F and doesn't need any evidence (like your ideas on seed dispersal), and everything you don't like can be dismissed because it's 'not A&F' (like the rather conclusive evidence that homeopathy doesn't work).

This is a very dishonest anbd self centered way of arguing.
You are basically saying that everyone should accept what you believe, and you never need to explain yourself.


When people ask you to support your claims, you insult them. How nice of you.

No, basically you are saying, whatever I say, even on A&F level, all of you should oppose it.
This is rather a very dishonest and self centered way of arguing. No one can be wrong in A&F.
Moreover technically, non A&F things are bit odd to me. Even though you accepted non-A&F also from my side, still it do not initiate me to present here, intentionally.

 

[bruto]

We are concerned with Sun shine & Sun light not with what the sun is made of.

Seed dispersal, in any way, is an A&F merit in itself need no further evidence about its merit or demerit.

Actually even that is not necessarily true. If you are concerned about nature, it can be a damaging and destructive practice, for example, to spread the seeds of alien plants in places where they are not native. Invasive species are a serious threat to the ecology in many places, and the ill-considered spreading of seeds by ignorant people contributes. As a small example the parsnip is a valuable edible plant when controlled and cultivated in a garden, but the feral parsnip in New England is a plague threatening native species of plants and, owing to its toxic sap causing pain and inconvenience to people. If you had any true respect for what you so tout as "the balance of nature," you'd refrain from the indiscriminate scattering of domesticated seeds where they don't belong.

 

[JayUtah]

I felt I am at rational skeptic forum but now feeling I am at egoistic wrongly perceived irrational skeptic forum. It is not my fault if you misusing skepticism in your ego or preception.

You've shown no evidence that I'm misusing skepticism. You've shown no evidence that my objection to you claims is based on ego. You've shown no evidence that I'm irrational. You're simply lashing out emotionally because no one is accepting your foisted claims.

 

[JayUtah]

No, basically you are saying, whatever I say, even on A&F level, all of you should oppose it.

What evidence have you presented on any topic here that can rightly be called "absolute and final?" As has been said, you're simply declaring your belief and then further declaring it to be beyond question. That's tantamount to insisting your beliefs must be self-evidently correct, which is laughable in the face of the contravening facts your critics bring to the table.

No one can be wrong in A&F.

Absolute and final proof is an impossible standard of proof. You know this, because every time we point this out you, you use it as a premise to the argument that if nothing can be absolute and final then everyone must be equally wrong.

No, your beliefs are not "A&F" correct simply because your religion tells you so, or because you -- for whatever reason -- think your religious beliefs are somehow universal truths. That's a very immature approach to religion.

Moreover technically, non A&F things are bit odd to me. Even though you accepted non-A&F also from my side, still it do not initiate me to present here, intentionally.

It is clear you're not competent at any form of argument that goes beyond stating your religious beliefs and insisting they are universally true and must be accepted without question. Which then raises the question why you're here among skeptics. You have a long enough tenure at a skeptics' forum to have learned something about how a logical, evidence-based argument proceeds. But in reviewing your threads I can't find any evidence that you've tried to learn anything.

 

[bruto]

I felt I am at rational skeptic forum but now feeling I am at egoistic wrongly perceived irrational skeptic forum. It is not my fault if you misusing skepticism in your ego or preception.

Ah, we arrive at the last refuge of the credulous fringe: skeptics aren't really skeptical because they don't abandon their principles to buy into my blue-sky puffery. The usual term that fringe nutters have used here is "pseudo-skeptic." Go for it.

 

[Peregrinus]

No, basically you are saying, whatever I say, even on A&F level, all of you should oppose it.
This is rather a very dishonest and self centered way of arguing. No one can be wrong in A&F.
Moreover technically, non A&F things are bit odd to me. Even though you accepted non-A&F also from my side, still it do not initiate me to present here, intentionally.

It would seem nobody on the face of the Earth is convinced of this "A&F" except yourself, therefore anything you say is subject to dismissal until further notice.

 

[Dancing David]

There is a limit of fully maturing of seeds. Like fruits naturally fall down on full ripening, seeds should also seprate from pulp.

Why 'should' they do that?

 

[Kumar]

Actually even that is not necessarily true. If you are concerned about nature, it can be a damaging and destructive practice, for example, to spread the seeds of alien plants in places where they are not native. Invasive species are a serious threat to the ecology in many places, and the ill-considered spreading of seeds by ignorant people contributes. As a small example the parsnip is a valuable edible plant when controlled and cultivated in a garden, but the feral parsnip in New England is a plague threatening native species of plants and, owing to its toxic sap causing pain and inconvenience to people. If you had any true respect for what you so tout as "the balance of nature," you'd refrain from the indiscriminate scattering of domesticated seeds where they don't belong.

This is modern approach. If this is true, whole natural mechnism will be under question mark because anyway seeds are dispersed. Do you suggest that seed dispersal nature's mechanism is a curse of nature to its inhabitants?

 

[Kumar]

You've shown no evidence that I'm misusing skepticism. You've shown no evidence that my objection to you claims is based on ego. You've shown no evidence that I'm irrational. You're simply lashing out emotionally because no one is accepting your foisted claims.

You have also not provided that type of evidences as you want from me. Show me quotes of evidences in your posts. You simply interpreted your in your good language but not given scientific documentry evidences. Henceforth, please give valid supporting scientific link to your claims and criticisms, if we do not believe each other.

 

[JayUtah]

This is modern approach.

A modern approach is necessitated by living in modern times with a large population. One of the principal lines of objection to your proposal is that it cannot scale. It may work fine for a hundred people living in isolation on some mountainside, which was likely the case in Mahavira's time. But it cannot work for billions of people living in dense population centers.

If this is true, whole natural mechnism will be under question mark because anyway seeds are dispersed.

No. Prevailing seed dispersal mechanisms generally do not proliferate seeds in great numbers and at great range. It is difficult to disperse invasive species under those limitations. Your proposal ignores the modern ability for millions of humans to transmit seeds across a wide area, and to disperse them indiscriminately. Modern humans have learned how to manage plant species responsibly, so as to avoid violence to indigenous plants. You propose to ignore that knowledge.

Do you suggest that seed dispersal nature's mechanism is a curse of nature to its inhabitants?

No, he's suggesting that your proposed method of dispersing seeds is foolhardy.

 

[abaddon]

This is modern approach. If this is true, whole natural mechnism will be under question mark because anyway seeds are dispersed. Do you suggest that seed dispersal nature's mechanism is a curse of nature to its inhabitants?

Yes. Japanese Knotweed is perfectly natural, but if it gets the opportunity to invade it will do so strangling every other plant in it's path. This is entirely natural, no man made intervention. The knotweed is simply good at out-competing it's rivals.

 

[JayUtah]

You have also not provided that type of evidences as you want from me. Show me quotes of evidences in your posts.

Do not reverse the burden of proof.

You have claimed that I am a malfeasant skeptic, that I am irrational and egotistical, and (previously) that my profession dishonestly brainwashes people. If you cannot provide evidence for any of those insults about me personally, I shall have to treat you as the wanton liar your dereliction will have proven you to be.