Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

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.

Sorry, it is beyond my understanding.

 

[JayUtah]

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

It doesn't. It's just another pile of your typical gibberish. In the post to which I responded you were literally claiming that preaching the truth sometimes makes you irrational. I don't need to belabor the inherent contradiction in that statement.

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

No, I will not limit my rebuttal only to the parts you want to take responsibility for. Your entire approach to PETA -- including your irrational and deceptive defense of them -- is all on the table.

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

You are clearly defending PETA and have been for some time. Even when you pretended to distance yourself from them, you had to soften it.

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

No, I spelled out things PETA has done and said that PETA does not dispute. You're so eager to defend them you have presupposed that they must be lies or spin.

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.

Your morality is simply absurd. Most of it you borrowed from PETA without realizing how immoral most of the knowledgeable people consider them to be, and the rest is just patent nonsense like pretending plants can think and therefore deserve protection from our "greed and luxury." Your claims are being opposed because they're self-evident crap, not because your critics are biased.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, it is beyond my understanding.

Clearly.

 

[Kumar]

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.

Good writing. Simply:

Whether bees prefer that by their own will/nature and Cows get that by their own will/nature? Whether a person is nursing and saving cows is to give service to them or to increase his profits/values in selfish commercial interests? Suppose for example, if we have to opt either living like a bee or like that cows, what we shall prefer?

 

[Kumar]

It doesn't. It's just another pile of your typical gibberish. In the post to which I responded you were literally claiming that preaching the truth sometimes makes you irrational. I don't need to belabor the inherent contradiction in that statement.



No, I will not limit my rebuttal only to the parts you want to take responsibility for. Your entire approach to PETA -- including your irrational and deceptive defense of them -- is all on the table.



You are clearly defending PETA and have been for some time. Even when you pretended to distance yourself from them, you had to soften it.



No, I spelled out things PETA has done and said that PETA does not dispute. You're so eager to defend them you have presupposed that they must be lies or spin.



Your morality is simply absurd. Most of it you borrowed from PETA without realizing how immoral most of the knowledgeable people consider them to be, and the rest is just patent nonsense like pretending plants can think and therefore deserve protection from our "greed and luxury." Your claims are being opposed because they're self-evident crap, not because your critics are biased.

"preaching the truth sometimes makes you irrational" yes it is true. Rest all is just your overestimation and over expression like fire without fuel. Many time, some thinking can match with others unintentionally, does not mean, we are supporting, favoring etc them intentionally. Sorry Bye.

 

[JayUtah]

"preaching the truth sometimes makes you irrational" yes it is true.

No, it's contradictory on its face.

Rest all is just your overestimation and over expression like fire without fuel.

This makes no sense.

I have presented you with facts you clearly cannot cope with. You tried to deny them. You tried to supplant them with made-up crap. You tried to say they didn't matter. These are all excuses for your failure to address the real world. This is not my problem or any of your critics' problem. This is your problem.

Many time, some thinking can match with others unintentionally, does not mean, we are supporting, favoring etc them intentionally. Sorry Bye.

Gibberish. Seriously take an English class. If you're going to spend so much time conversing with people, you need to learn the language you're conversing in.

 

[Kumar]

No, it's contradictory on its face.

It is true. Travel by walking id basic truth. But today, practicing only it, is irrational.

This makes no sense.

I have presented you with facts you clearly cannot cope with. You tried to deny them. You tried to supplant them with made-up crap. You tried to say they didn't matter. These are all excuses for your failure to address the real world. This is not my problem or any of your critics' problem. This is your problem.

.

It is upto you to agree or not. But however, if you will go on impressing me that my views matches with PETA views, I shall say, grouping or common thinking exist in nature(like 12 signs/groups suggested in astrology) so I shall go deep inti PETA affairs and will thank you for provoking me,if note that their views are really good and natural.

 

[MikeG]

........Gibberish. Seriously take an English class. If you're going to spend so much time conversing with people, you need to learn the language you're conversing in.

And yet, when it suits him, Kumar is capable of writing coherent, perfectly normal English. The uncharitable might think that the gibberish style was part of the weaponry.

 

[MikeG]

Good writing. Simply:

Whether bees prefer that by their own will/nature and Cows get that by their own will/nature?........

You really haven't been following, have you.

Why don't you go away and read "The Selfish Gene", then revisit this discussion. You'll find yourself laughing at some of your own assumptions and errors, even if you manage to only absorb 5% of the book's lessons.

 

[Mojo]

One very senior and well experienced big personality told: "Economic upgradation can lead to moral degradation".

Who was this "very senior and well experienced big personality"? The only hit Google gives for that phrase is this thread.

Most of the time vested interests can resist morality and make anyone to argue in that favor.

What is your vested interest in vegetarianism?

 

[Kumar]

Who was this "very senior and well experienced big personality"? The only hit Google gives for that phrase is this thread.




What is your vested interest in vegetarianism?

You may not find my things on internet. Still
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&s...PMAo&usg=AOvVaw12XuBc3zQM5ZJOeykTCjHV&ampcf=1
Some one that time had interpreted above as I mentioned. Sense is same.
To me, all violence and cruelty is odd. May it be for veg or non veg. Didnt you yet noted it? Surprising. Had you gone through my thread, Fruits?

 

[Mojo]

You may not find my things on internet.

Who is this "very senior and well experienced big personality" that you are invoking as an authority?

ETA: I see you edited the post to add a link while I was posting, but the quotation doesn't actually appear there.

 

[Mojo]

To me, all violence and cruelty is odd. May it be for veg or non veg. Didnt you yet noted it? Surprising. Had you gone through my thread, Fruits?

What evidence do you have that anyone else here has a vested interest?

 

[Kumar]

What evidence do you have that anyone else here has a vested interest?

If you are sleeping, I can't wake you up. Anyway, limit to topic.

 

[Kumar]

Who is this "very senior and well experienced big personality" that you are invoking as an authority?

ETA: I see you edited the post to add a link while I was posting, but the quotation doesn't actually appear there.

If you can not understand the sense, I can not argue with you. Stop arguing TTTT and concentrate on subject. While moving ahead, yes, few bounces are relaxing so maintainable but not all times.

 

[Kumar]

You really haven't been following, have you.

Why don't you go away and read "The Selfish Gene", then revisit this discussion. You'll find yourself laughing at some of your own assumptions and errors, even if you manage to only absorb 5% of the book's lessons.

From the gene-centred view, it follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other.

A lineage is expected to evolve to maximise its inclusive fitness—the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual). As a result, populations will tend towards an evolutionarily stable strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

Is it the essence of this thought? Then what do you want to tell?

 

[MRC_Hans]

If you can not understand the sense, I can not argue with you.

I will bounce this on right back to you, Kumar. You don't understand the responses here, you don't understand the links you post, I even suspect you don't always know what your own posts actually mean.

Hans

 

[MikeG]

Is it the essence of this thought? Then what do you want to tell?

What do I want to tell? Go away and educate yourself, and stop the nonsensical anthropomorphising. That's what.

 

[Kumar]

What do I want to tell? Go away and educate yourself, and stop the nonsensical anthropomorphising. That's what.

If you can not tell, why have you asked me?

 

[MikeG]

What are you whittering on about? I haven't asked you anything.