Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

What on earth is this?

It means, either you are new to me or not reading my interaction serioustly. This and that type of talks.

 

[Kumar]

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

New news for me. Probably he got support due to this.

 

[Kumar]

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.

We need to understand difference between truth & rational--somewhat basic & gross/current.

There are some fields where you can apply logic/inherited knowledge/philosophy/moral etc. eg religion and philosophy whereas other where you can not apply i.e. science & law. Because this forum is religion and philosophy, here former can be applicable.

 

[Kumar]

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.

Yes I tried to maintain it inspite of much overload on me i.e attending sometime even in 1:20 ratio and that too, no one supported me. Quite injustice, wrong perception and one sidedness. We can not call these as honest debate as you interpreted. Sorry.

 

[Kumar]

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

????

 

[Kumar]

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.

Yes but then it should be similar on both sides depending upon different nature of substance under study. I have very well posted a quote about change in human attitude by preception in other topic.

 

[sackett]

Kumar ole bhoy, if no one supports you, maybe that's because you're like a sofa, and completely full of sit.

 

[Kumar]

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.

Let me explain it by am made example by me not real:

Three people gone to purchase car for them. One was just truthful/basic, one was gross/currect and one rational by nature.

Ist just seen strength of metal & car but not latest features and purchased.

IInd just seen latest features but not the strength.

IIIrs seen both mid way but more strength than latest features.

They went for a same long drive. IInd reached first, IIIrs, second and Ist last. IInd ridiculed both and expanded on his choice.

IInd time they again go on same drive but unfortunately all met with a similar accident.

IInd died on spot, IIIrd had curable injuries by Ist saved unhurt.

Now you can very well understand difference between truth, irrational & rational. Today also, many things are preferred on just basic truth, other on gross truth still other are in between of these. All these are irrational or odd. Only whatever is based on mostly basic with some gross/current is only rational and valid as need of the time, nothing else. Like I say, more walking on own foot but also using some modern vehicles for traveling. Otherwise either one may either make you irractional or sick.
My personal view only.

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.

Pls do not get attracted and drag me towards peta. I have my own standards. Also be careful and honest to this forum. If you will support evidence based religion and philosophy, mostly whole religion or philosophy concept will crash.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes but then it should be similar on both sides depending upon different nature of substance under study. I have very well posted a quote about change in human attitude by preception in other topic.

Well, no. First, both sides in a debate don't have an equivalent burden of proof. Second, you're asking for "absolute and final" proof and suggesting nothing less suffices from your critics. That's irrational on its face.

 

[JayUtah]

Let me explain it by am made example...

Cool story. Doesn't fix your problem.

Pls do not get attracted and drag me towards peta.

I don't have to drag you towards them. You're falling all over yourself to try everything under the sun to defend them.

All you have to do is say, "I understand now it was a mistake to cite PETA as if they were an authority on the moral and historical treatment of animals. It's clear they are not."

Can you do that?

 

[Kumar]

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.

Dynamism. Yes but still many things would had definitely gifted by nature without following odds. You can get milk from mother as well as from cow. You can get honey drops as well as honey . You can get flowers and CUT flowers. Both with and without cruelty/odds/interfering the nature. Choice, need or greed is upto you.

 

[Kumar]

Well, no. First, both sides in a debate don't have an equivalent burden of proof. Second, you're asking for "absolute and final" proof and suggesting nothing less suffices from your critics. That's irrational on its face.

No I am not asking. I know absolutism is somewhat impossible. But when other demand it or discuss irrationally, I use it.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes I tried to maintain it inspite of much overload on me i.e attending sometime even in 1:20 ratio...

Quit whining.

You have been here long enough to know what kind of response your posts are likely to get. You chose the venue, so deal with the consequences. If you don't want to interact with lots of skeptics, don't go to where there are lots of skeptics and then say something you know they'll disagree with.

You are not a victim. You are not a martyr. You're just complaining about stuff that's your own fault.

...and that too, no one supported me.

No one supports you because you're wrong. Comically wrong. People are telling you why you're wrong, but you're not listening.

Quite injustice, wrong perception and one sidedness. We can not call these as honest debate as you interpreted. Sorry.

An honest debate doesn't presume equal representation or equal merit on both sides. Your problem is that you haven't seriously considered the possibility that you're very wrong, and that the nature of the debate bears this out.

You're trying to make the debate dishonest by telling your opponents what to do. You're trying to say you only have to pay attention to some certain few of your critics. No. If you walk into a forum filled with people and say things they're liable to disagree with, you're going to get lots of criticism. Because you chose the venue, you're responsible for all of it. You're trying to tell people certain sensitive parts of your argument are off-limits. That's cheating. The strength of your argument is not in how the strongest part of it stands up to scrutiny, but in how the weakest part of it fares. People are rightly attacking the weakest part of your argument because that's how ideas are properly tested.

 

[Kumar]

Cool story. Doesn't fix your problem.



I don't have to drag you towards them. You're falling all over yourself to try everything under the sun to defend them.

All you have to do is say, "I understand now it was a mistake to cite PETA as if they were an authority on the moral and historical treatment of animals. It's clear they are not."

Can you do that?

You should try to better understand that example in sense of this topic and also in sense of otherwises/universally.

As I told(obviously you will not believe me), I was limited to that post only which I quoted not to peta. But if you are saying, my views are matching(accidentally) with them I am getting attracted towards them not by these discussions only. However as I said, since personally can not endorse any killing which is not at par to us, I can not support them if they are preferring it which apparently look so..

 

[JayUtah]

No I am not asking.

Liar. You said

Prove all, fully. Henceforth do not call for idiocy of any evidence unless it is A&F.

I know absolutism is somewhat impossible. But when other demand it or discuss irrationally, I use it.

No one demanded it of you. They asked for any evidence. You told them that since this is the religion forum, you didn't need evidence. Then you suggested that because you were being asked for evidence, you had the right to ask for "absolute and final" proof to refute you.

You looked up what a straw-man argument is. Now it's time to prove you can understand what you read. And you need to apologize for lying. I will not debate with deliberate liars.

 

[Kumar]

Quit whining.

You have been here long enough to know what kind of response your posts are likely to get. You chose the venue, so deal with the consequences. If you don't want to interact with lots of skeptics, don't go to where there are lots of skeptics and then say something you know they'll disagree with.

You are not a victim. You are not a martyr. You're just complaining about stuff that's your own fault.



No one supports you because you're wrong. Comically wrong. People are telling you why you're wrong, but you're not listening.



An honest debate doesn't presume equal representation or equal merit on both sides. Your problem is that you haven't seriously considered the possibility that you're very wrong, and that the nature of the debate bears this out.

You're trying to make the debate dishonest by telling your opponents what to do. You're trying to say you only have to pay attention to some certain few of your critics. No. If you walk into a forum filled with people and say things they're liable to disagree with, you're going to get lots of criticism. Because you chose the venue, you're responsible for all of it. You're trying to tell people certain sensitive parts of your argument are off-limits. That's cheating. The strength of your argument is not in how the strongest part of it stands up to scrutiny, but in how the weakest part of it fares. People are rightly attacking the weakest part of your argument because that's how ideas are properly tested.

Whole basis of above is that I try to discuss bit dynamically/differently not just routines(easily available on media and published documents). What is the use of discussing routines here and wasting so much energy or time which we can also otherwise get easily? It is not a teaching class.

 

[JayUtah]

You should try to better understand that example in sense of this topic and also in sense of otherwises/universally.

I understand it entirely. You quoted a general reference source on the historical use of meat and then informed us that PETA had taught you differently. Your supposition that animals have the same level of cognition and emotional response as humans is identical to that pronounced by PETA. If you have to renounce PETA you have to contend first with the facts that establish humankind's historical approach to diet and second with the prospect that your moral framework is that espoused by crackpots.

As I told(obviously you will not believe me), I was limited to that post only which I quoted not to peta.

I don't believe you because I can read and I can see that the facts say different. The facts include all the subsequent posts you made trying everything under the sun to rehabilitate them as your prime factual and moral witness. I outlined your approach in great detail. You can try all you want to pretend those posts don't exist, but they do.

I can not support them if they are preferring it which apparently look so..

Then renounce them and concede that your source was discredited.

 

[Kumar]

Liar. You said

​

No one demanded it of you. They asked for any evidence. You told them that since this is the religion forum, you didn't need evidence. Then you suggested that because you were being asked for evidence, you had the right to ask for "absolute and final" proof to refute you.

You looked up what a straw-man argument is. Now it's time to prove you can understand what you read. And you need to apologize for lying. I will not debate with deliberate liars.

Sorry, I just want to maintain discussions with you, so can not tell directly. Just assess by yourself with equanimity. I do felt some equanimity and rationality in your posts therefore liked to discuss with you. Please maintain it.

 

[JayUtah]

Whole basis of above is that I try to discuss bit dynamically/differently...

No, you're basically employing all the standard stunts that fringe claimants use to try to limit criticism against them.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, I just want to maintain discussions with you...

I don't maintain discussions with liars.