Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

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

Ok as you calculate. It is personal not valid universally. Yes, due to overload some bounces can be possible but not all.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Suppose for example, if we have to opt either living like a bee or like that cows, what we shall prefer?

Philosophers are already referring to this as "Kumar's Dilemma"

 

[Mojo]

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

Kumar, you implied, in the last paragraph of this post, that other posters were "resist[ing] morality" and arguing against you because of vested interests.

What do you think those vested interests are, and what evidence do you have to back up your implication?

 

[Kumar]

Kumar, you implied, in the last paragraph of this post, that other posters were "resist[ing] morality" and arguing against you because of vested interests.

What do you think those vested interests are, and what evidence do you have to back up your implication?

Better try to carefully read whole thread and know by yourself. You can do so. If cant, then forget it.

 

[Kumar]

This is Religion and Philosophy forum. One should talk on these levels not on science forum level by asking proofs, evidences etc.Pls take care.

 

[MikeG]

This is Religion and Philosophy forum. One should talk on these levels not on science forum level by asking proofs, evidences etc.Pls take care.

Bollocks.

You do understand the word bollocks, don't you? In this instance, it means that what you have just written is wrong. Completely wrong. Every single thread in this sub-forum has people routinely asking for evidence. You have no foundation for suggesting otherwise.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is Religion and Philosophy forum. One should talk on these levels not on science forum level by asking proofs, evidences etc.Pls take care.

Wrong. This is the Religion and Philosophy sub-forum of the International Skeptics Forum, a forum dedicated to skeptical discussion of any topic of interest to the members within certain rules. A fundamental attribute of every part of the forum is that an unsupported claim may, and most probably will, be met with requests for evidence in support of the claim.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

I think, there is no autonomic mechanism in plants.

Amazing.

 

[Belz...]

Yes true. I often loose rationality for getting/interpreting the truth. My even or odd.

In preferring for a strong and heavy metal(truth) car one can be devoid of its latest features(rationality).

...what?

Sorry, it is beyond my understanding.

Yes.

 

[Kumar]

Wrong. This is the Religion and Philosophy sub-forum of the International Skeptics Forum, a forum dedicated to skeptical discussion of any topic of interest to the members within certain rules. A fundamental attribute of every part of the forum is that an unsupported claim may, and most probably will, be met with requests for evidence in support of the claim.

Dave

Ok then, I am skeptical on all partially cooked evidences of any system. Prove all, fully. Henceforth do not call for idiocy of any evidence unless it is A&F. Making base of partially cooked evidences but asking for fully cooked one is nothing but is one sidedness, wrong perception or vested interest.
If I like to take more and more milk products, then if i say to get it ANYWAY from animals, it is nothing other then my vested interest.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ok then, I am skeptical on all partially cooked evidences of any system. Prove all, fully. Henceforth do not call for idiocy of any evidence unless it is A&F. Making base of partially cooked evidences but asking for fully cooked one is nothing but is one sidedness, wrong perception or vested interest.

I suggest you research into the actual definition of skepticism rather than making up one of your own and pretending it's the same one everyone else uses. The concept of absolute and final knowledge is a foreign one to scientific skepticism; scientific understanding is always open to revision in the light of new evidence, but if current understanding is consistent with all the available evidence then it continues to be accepted. The demand "Prove all, fully" has nothing to do with scientific skepticism.

We can only guess at what you mean by "partially cooked" and "fully cooked" as it relates to evidence. I suspect it's as nonsensical as everything else you post here.

Dave

 

[Peregrinus]

Ok then, I am skeptical on all partially cooked evidences of any system. Prove all, fully. Henceforth do not call for idiocy of any evidence unless it is A&F. Making base of partially cooked evidences but asking for fully cooked one is nothing but is one sidedness, wrong perception or vested interest.
If I like to take more and more milk products, then if i say to get it ANYWAY from animals, it is nothing other then my vested interest.

Again falling back on a pathological need for "A&F," for which no rational explanation, either quantitative or philosophical, has ever been brought forth. Kumar is, if you'll pardon the expression, trying to milk a dead horse.

 

[MikeG]

You know there is no such thing as a happy milking animal, don't you Kumar? The only reason they are lactating artificially is because their off-spring were removed from them unnaturally early.

So given that milk isn't available under your previously criteria, I ask again: what human population is sustainable using your feeding methods, and what are you going to do about the billions who would starve to death?

 

[Kumar]

Again falling back on a pathological need for "A&F," for which no rational explanation, either quantitative or philosophical, has ever been brought forth. Kumar is, if you'll pardon the expression, trying to milk a dead horse.

If you can not show me any A&F evidence i.e with 100% positive results at all stages of any study including its clinical/practícal/field signíficance, do not ask for any idiocy of any such evidence. Later, I may check here many studies which you accept and is not skeptical on those even though they are not yet A&F.

 

[Kumar]

You know there is no such thing as a happy milking animal, don't you Kumar? The only reason they are lactating artificially is because their off-spring were removed from them unnaturally early.

So given that milk isn't available under your previously criteria, I ask again: what human population is sustainable using your feeding methods, and what are you going to do about the billions who would starve to death?

Are you talking on truth or on rationals? Truth can suggest bést to take milk from happy cows but rationals and vested interests may suggest to take milk anyway. It depend on you. Here we have many happy cows.

 

[MikeG]

Unsurprisingly, you have no idea what evidence is, Kumar. Further, you don't get to redefine it.

 

[Belz...]

Are you talking on truth or on rationals? Truth can suggest bést to take milk from happy cows but rationals and vested interests may suggest to take milk anyway. It depend on you. Here we have many happy cows.

What in the blue hell are you saying, anyway? Are you a random post generator?

 

[Kumar]

I suggest you research into the actual definition of skepticism rather than making up one of your own and pretending it's the same one everyone else uses. The concept of absolute and final knowledge is a foreign one to scientific skepticism; scientific understanding is always open to revision in the light of new evidence, but if current understanding is consistent with all the available evidence then it continues to be accepted. The demand "Prove all, fully" has nothing to do with scientific skepticism.

We can only guess at what you mean by "partially cooked" and "fully cooked" as it relates to evidence. I suspect it's as nonsensical as everything else you post here.

Dave

If all that have cooked as per own liking, it does not mean it can also be true in A&F. People also followed Hitler etc.

 

[MikeG]

Are you talking on truth or on rationals?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Truth can suggest bést to take milk from happy cows but rationals and vested interests may suggest to take milk anyway. It depend on you.

I have said that under your criteria there is no such thing as a happy cow giving milk.

Here we have many happy cows.

Great. I am sure you do. But it was your silly notion that cows giving milk have to be happy, and I simply pointed out that if it was giving milk it was because it had had a calf forcibly removed prematurely. In other words "happy" and "milk producing" are incompatible notions.

 

[MikeG]

If all that have cooked as per own liking, it does not mean it can also be true in A&F. People also followed Hitler etc.

Gibberish. Sheer, incomprehensible gibberish. Nice touch with the Godwin, though.