Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

Anyway, in view of many bounces, I request all to avoid TTTTs.

I am very well discussing with JayUtah[\b], with healthy exchanges of views, so please avoid derailing those discussions. Sorry and Thanks.

 

[MikeG]

Anyway, in view of many bounces, I request all to avoid TTTTs..........

What on earth is this?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Hitler was, of course, a leading proponent of animal welfare, probably informed by his vegetarianism (though shutting down kosher slaughterhouses was also a particularly effective means of persecuting the Jews). Animal welfare provisions formed a significant plank of Nazi party policy, to the extent that vivisection was a crime punishable by being sent to a concentration camp.

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

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.

What makes you think religion and philosophy don't involve proof? The religion section of a skeptics' forum will almost certainly revolve around attempts to prove or test religion claims. There is a lively discussion right now about proof that the Qu'ran is divine. We had a similar one over the summer about the Book of Mormon. There is another one regarding the historical and doctrinal validity of the Catholic church. A guy came back yesterday who has been trying for five years to prove mathematically that he has an immortal soul. The notion that just because you're speaking under the umbrella of religion and philosophy you have no burden of proof for allegations of fact is simply absurd.

You are making testable allegations of fact. The moral argument you wish to propound is based on the allegation that animals have the same cognitive ability and emotional depth as humans. That is a scientific claim, not a religious one. That is, it is exactly the sort of question science is meant to address. You don't get to tell science to wait outside just because you want to skip over the facts and land on the moral outrage.

 

[JayUtah]

Anyway, in view of many bounces, I request all to avoid TTTTs.

I am very well discussing with JayUtah[\b], with healthy exchanges of views, so please avoid derailing those discussions. Sorry and Thanks.

No, in an honest debate you don't get to pick and choose your opponents and you don't get to place limits on what parts of your argument your opponents may address. If you believe a post is off-topic, refer it to the moderators. Otherwise, you are responsible for addressing all arguments and all opponents. Don't blame your critics for your failure.

 

[Humots]

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.

"Partially cooked". Sounds a lot like what you'd get if you ran "half baked" through an English to whatever translator, and then ran the result through a whatever to English translator.

Didn't someone suggest that Kumar was writing his screeds and putting them through such a process to create his gibberish?

 

[Belz...]

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.

Fine then. You're wrong because the Zeus-Vishnu-YogSothoth pantheon is clearly the one true source of objective truth.

 

[JayUtah]

Ok then, I am skeptical on all partially cooked evidences of any system. Prove all, fully.

No, that's not how knowledge works. At some point, sooner or later, every fringe claimant tries this ploy, where he thinks that unless his opposition has all the answers, he need not respect the ones they do have. It's his mark of desperation.

 

[JayUtah]

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

And this is a contradiction. If you can't see the contradiction between admitting you're irrational and at the same time speaking the truth, then no one here can help you. You need professional help.

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.

You're the one who keeps defending PETA after having cited them both as a moral authority for your beliefs and as the academic authority for your allegations of fact. You're the one who is falling all over himself trying to find a way to defend them that doesn't sound silly. Every time you have the opportunity to denounce them, you find a way to do it that circles back around to you needing them for your argument.

At first you stonewalled, believing the accusations about PETA to be obscure, undocumented claims. In fact the most basic information anyone could have found out about them listed those and supplied the factual documentation. By demanding your critics produce the evidence, you revealed that you hadn't done even the slightest due diligence yourself on whether your source was a good one. Then you tried to say that the accusations were probably just one side of a story, when in fact PETA doesn't deny them. You tried to say PETA wasn't important to your argument, but then couldn't explain why you kept defending them. You told us you couldn't imagine how a viable organization could be so irrational, so they must somehow be okay. The claims PETA makes are not secret, and they are exactly that irrational. This is why other animal rights groups eschew them. Finally you concluded it would still be morally okay to selectively pick and choose from among their supporting statements and turn a blind eye to the moral abuses, contributions to criminals, etc.

This is not the behavior of someone who is indifferent to that group or who has evaluated them critically before relying upon them.

 

[sackett]

Yesterday, for fun if not much profit, I ran a Kumar paragraph through Google Translate, English to Urdu and then back to English. It made very little difference, suggesting that Kumar composes in his native tongue and then uses machine translation to English. IOW, incoherence in, incoherence out. Who's surprised?

 

[bruto]

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?

Are we imagining ourselves in an alternative universe or a furry convention? Me, I prefer my present residence in the land of milk and honey.

 

[Mojo]

Anyway, in view of many bounces, I request all to avoid TTTTs.

I am very well discussing with JayUtah[\b], with healthy exchanges of views, so please avoid derailing those discussions. Sorry and Thanks.

No, in an honest debate you don't get to pick and choose your opponents...

It must be quite a novelty for you to find that you have been designated as LCP, though.

 

[Dancing David]

No. We can atleast learn naturality from them who are living in & following nature.

Humans are animals, yes?

 

[Dancing David]

How water will be getting life from its evaporation? A plant moving towards sunlight or towards nutrient souce will be getting life--so having sense of life.

You still did not define 'sense of life'?

A plant transpiring water is very similar to water evaporating from a pan.
In fact you could mechanically create the whole process (at an exaggerated scale), from root cells, to stem cells to leaf cells and create a model of transpiration in plants that transpires.

So define the actual difference.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry, it is beyond my understanding.

the actions of plants do not involve thought or neural transmission.

 

[Mojo]

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

I have read the whole thread. You have provided no evidence for your accusation that other posters are opposing you because they have vested interests. If you can't provide the evidence, you need to withdraw the accusation and apologise.

 

[MRC_Hans]

MMm, Kumar, I just read some of the old threads you participated in. Please, as an old ... kind of ... friend, what has happened to you? Your English, while never very good, used to be far better. A few years ago, you generally seemed to be able to read other people's posts and reply in a somewhat comprehensible way.

What has happened? Is something wrong?

Hans

 

[Filippo Lippi]

MMm, Kumar, I just read some of the old threads you participated in. Please, as an old ... kind of ... friend, what has happened to you? Your English, while never very good, used to be far better. A few years ago, you generally seemed to be able to read other people's posts and reply in a somewhat comprehensible way.

What has happened? Is something wrong?

Hans

Too much homeopathy and not enough meat has produced odds

 

[BStrong]

OT, but I had an elderly lady neighbor that had an indoor/outdoor kitty named "Moses"

Mrs. B was hard of hearing and Moses had a soft meow - Moses learned pretty quick he could meow at my door, I'd answer and he could lead me home so I'd knock on his door to get him indoors.

That was a smart animal.

 

[Peregrinus]

If you can not show me any A&F evidence i.e with 100% positive results at all stages .........

You are pathetically and pathologically seeking that which does not exist. Any number of attempts to tell you that have been fruitless. Perpetually seeking that which does not exist is a fool's errand.