Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[JayUtah]

Because this forum is religion and philosophy, here former can be applicable.

No. You clearly didn't read or understand my post. It explained why you can't just declare that you're in a religious forum and by that fact excuse yourself from any burden of proof. Now address what I actually said.

 

[Kumar]

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.

No, it is identical with equanimity. If peta is also practicing equanimity that it will be an accidental corelation due to similar mentality. You are somewhat impressing me, peta is following equanimity. Sorry but I feel, You have not yet understood real sense of that example.

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.



Then renounce them and concede that your source was discredited.

One two people sow same seed at distant places and get same plant, it does not mean, they are at one place.

I can discredit them after A&F study of them but not that post which I told you looked logical to me.

 

[Kumar]

No. You clearly didn't read or understand my post. It explained why you can't just declare that you're in a religious forum and by that fact excuse yourself from any burden of proof. Now address what I actually said.

What do you want? Tell me clearly by giving me promiss that no one will mind, if it is bit direct.

 

[JayUtah]

What do you want?

I want you to address what I said, not just repeat your plea not to have to give evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

...it will be an accidental corelation due to similar mentality.

Yes, the problem is that you have a similar mentality. That mentality leads you both to draw conclusions that have no basis in fact. That mentality leads PETA to kill people's housepets and support criminal activity. What are you going to do with that same mentality? Does it bother you that you have it?

Sorry but I feel, You have not yet understood real sense of that example.

I understand it thoroughly. You want to pretend there's nothing wrong with citing PETA as an example, when in fact you've been shown plenty that's wrong. You want the facts to be different than they are.

I can discredit them after A&F study of them...

You had no interest in studying them before you decided to use them as an authority. You had no interest in studying them after you learned there were objectionable things about them. You still display no interest in studying them. You're still trying to find some way in which they can be a source for you without you having to deal with their immorality and bad behavior.

...but not that post which I told you looked logical to me.

Asked and answered. You reproduced general knowledge about the history of the human diet, then simply explained that PETA had told you differently. You decided to believe them instead. It looked "logical" to you because it told you what you wanted to hear over the facts others where presenting to you. Then you spent considerable effort trying to defend them. Now you're trying to equivocate between the two positions.

If you don't want to defend PETA, then renounce them and concede that your source was discredited.

 

[bruto]

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.

I do rather wish you'd double check your English a bit. I really do not have any idea what you actually mean when you speak of "following odds."

I got milk from my mother in 1947, but oddly enough, if I want milk now the job goes to cows. Domesticated cows. I am not sure what honey drops are, as opposed to honey, but most of us get our honey from domesticated bees, which are raised by apiarists and rather well cared for in the process.

I do recall speaking with a biodynamic gardener who was convinced that carrots are offended if you simply yank them from the ground, and are placated if you lovingly cut the tops off and lay them back on the earth, but found the rationale rather less than convincing.

If you want a flower you must either cut it or pluck it. If you are a gardener, cultivating flowers, you are likely producing flowers that would not even exist if they were not cultivated, hybridized, selected, seeded, and cared for. What odd and convoluted upside-down morality would suggest that life would be better off without domesticated flowers that are, on occasion, picked?

I think you are confused about where nature begins and ends, and if not confused, at least overconfident, if not downright arrogant, in your certainty of what nature needs, wants, or for that matter is.

 

[Kumar]

I want you to address what I said, not just repeat your plea not to have to give evidence.

I do not know, what do you want me to address esp about evidence?

 

[Kumar]

Yes, the problem is that you have a similar mentality. That mentality leads you both to draw conclusions that have no basis in fact. That mentality leads PETA to kill people's housepets and support criminal activity. What are you going to do with that same mentality? Does it bother you that you have it?

No. Except killing, tell me. I have already clarified mu POV on it.

I understand it thoroughly. You want to pretend there's nothing wrong with citing PETA as an example, when in fact you've been shown plenty that's wrong. You want the facts to be different than they are.

Yes killing I do not support but on their other affairs, I have yet to conclude my view.

You had no interest in studying them before you decided to use them as an authority. You had no interest in studying them after you learned there were objectionable things about them. You still display no interest in studying them. You're still trying to find some way in which they can be a source for you without you having to deal with their immorality and bad behavior.

It is not necessary every one is odd on everything.

Asked and answered. You reproduced general knowledge about the history of the human diet, then simply explained that PETA had told you differently. You decided to believe them instead. It looked "logical" to you because it told you what you wanted to hear over the facts others where presenting to you. Then you spent considerable effort trying to defend them. Now you're trying to equivocate between the two positions.

If you don't want to defend PETA, then renounce them and concede that your source was discredited.

Except history on non veg, nothing yet look to me as dicardable. If I shall feel it anytime. I shall ask.

 

[Mojo]

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?

Kumar, if your conjectures contradict what is already known, they are wrong.

It is not a teaching class.

That doesn't mean you should refuse to learn anything.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Dairy farming must be very different where you live.

 

[Mojo]

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?

Because it avoids conversations like this:

Kumar: "If getting 2 pints of milk from cow and 2 pints of milk from mother, why it can not be 5 pints?"
MRC_Hans: "Because 2+2=4."
Kumar: "Pls avoid routines in this topic and think dynamically. Why it can not be 5?"

What really wastes time and energy here is your persistent refusal to accept reality.

 

[Dave Rogers]

New news for me.

So much is, it seems.

Dave

 

[Kumar]

I do rather wish you'd double check your English a bit. I really do not have any idea what you actually mean when you speak of "following odds."

I got milk from my mother in 1947, but oddly enough, if I want milk now the job goes to cows. Domesticated cows. I am not sure what honey drops are, as opposed to honey, but most of us get our honey from domesticated bees, which are raised by apiarists and rather well cared for in the process.

I do recall speaking with a biodynamic gardener who was convinced that carrots are offended if you simply yank them from the ground, and are placated if you lovingly cut the tops off and lay them back on the earth, but found the rationale rather less than convincing.

If you want a flower you must either cut it or pluck it. If you are a gardener, cultivating flowers, you are likely producing flowers that would not even exist if they were not cultivated, hybridized, selected, seeded, and cared for. What odd and convoluted upside-down morality would suggest that life would be better off without domesticated flowers that are, on occasion, picked?

I think you are confused about where nature begins and ends, and if not confused, at least overconfident, if not downright arrogant, in your certainty of what nature needs, wants, or for that matter is.

Simply ignore your consicious mind and then check things. Look things by God's eyes. For HIM, every cruely and life value.

 

[Mojo]

Simply ignore your consicious mind and then check things.

Great. Now we are supposed to figure out what is true by intuition.

 

[Pixel42]

Great. Now we are supposed to figure out what is true by intuition.

Intuition says the earth is flat. Intuition says the sun goes round the earth.

It's because intuition is so easily fooled that it was necessary to invent the scientific method.

It beggars belief that we still have to point this out to Kumar.

 

[Kumar]

Intuition says the earth is flat. Intuition says the sun goes round the earth.

It's because intuition is so easily fooled that it was necessary to invent the scientific method.

It beggars belief that we still have to point this out to Kumar.

It is not intitution. It is practicality. If common people will found that earth is like a football--surface like a football and moving like it, they can get unstable by knowing it. Therefore our ancient scholars, though was knowingthe reality, not liked to make common people very unstable like standing on fast moving football.

 

[Mojo]

Look things by God's eyes. For HIM, every cruely and life value.

God doesn't exist. It's a fairy story for the sort of people who are morally incompetent enough to need to outsource their ethics.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Great. Now we are supposed to figure out what is true by intuition.

No, I think we're supposed to figure out what Kumar means by intuition. I'm not sure that's a bad suggestion; it can't be any less successful than trying to parse some of his actual sentences.

Dave

 

[Pixel42]

It is not intitution. It is practicality. If common people will found that earth is like a football--surface like a football and moving like it, they can get unstable by knowing it. Therefore our ancient scholars, though was knowingthe reality, not liked to make common people very unstable like standing on fast moving football.

Nonsense. Those ancient scholars who correctly deduced that the earth was round did so by doing the exact opposite of what you suggested - they used their conscious reasoning ability, they did not switch it off and go by what instinct/intuition told them, which is what you advocated. So, as usual, you are simply wrong.

 

[Kumar]

Nonsense. Those ancient scholars who correctly deduced that the earth was round did so by doing the exact opposite of what you suggested - they used their conscious reasoning ability, they did not switch it off and go by what instinct/intuition told them, which is what you advocated. So, as usual, you are simply wrong.

No. Ancient astrological calculations are based on real shape of earth. They simply presented practical side of earth's shape and sun rise and set to common people.