Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Mojo]

No. Ancient astrological calculations are based on real shape of earth.

Astrology is nonsense.

 

[Kumar]

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

How much you cry and make issue of my language? Limit is there for everything. If you can understand, accept if you can't ignore. Bit odd me to mend it. Sorry.

 

[Peregrinus]

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.

We can add astrology to the ever-growing list of topics where your lack of knowledge and understanding are glaring impediments to any sort of useful discussion.

 

[Peregrinus]

How much you cry and make issue of my language? Limit is there for everything. If you can understand, accept if you can't ignore. Bit odd me to mend it. Sorry.

So, then . . . . you feel no obligation to express yourself in a manner others can understand?

 

[Pixel42]

No.

Yes. The only way to correctly deduce the shape of the Earth is to use conscious reasoning.

Relying instead on instinct and intuition is how people fool themselves into believing nonsense like astrology and homeopathy.

 

[JayUtah]

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

I gave you the reasons why you still needed evidence even though you were presenting your claim in a religious forum. You ignored that and simply repeated your claim that since you were arguing in a religion forum you didn't need scientific evidence. I'm asking you to do more than repeat your claim. I'm asking you to address my reasons.

 

[Kumar]

Yes. The only way to correctly deduce the shape of the Earth is to use conscious reasoning.

Relying instead on instinct and intuition is how people fool themselves into believing nonsense like astrology and homeopathy.

Are you claiming that, all our anicient scholars and understandings was nothing other than non sense and sense is ONLY achieved recently i.e during modern scíence era?

 

[Kumar]

I gave you the reasons why you still needed evidence even though you were presenting your claim in a religious forum. You ignored that and simply repeated your claim that since you were arguing in a religion forum you didn't need scientific evidence. I'm asking you to do more than repeat your claim. I'm asking you to address my reasons.

Sorry you need to tell me, what do you want? I am not able to recognize.

 

[sackett]

Now it's the wisdom of the ancients. All those turtles and stuff.

And astrology. Kumar, why don't you try numerology too?

 

[Kumar]

I don't maintain discussions with liars.

Okay, if you think so or found so, I shall also hesistate to maintain discussions with yoú because you desired it. Anyway, I had already concluded the topic from my side so need to discuss on otherwises. Good bye here.

 

[Kumar]

All,
Thís topic is closed from my side. I already concluded the topic subject, so no need repeation or discuss otherwises. Keep on enjoying, pain, life & body of poor juniors.
Thanks all. Good bye here.

 

[Pixel42]

Are you claiming that, all our anicient scholars and understandings was nothing other than non sense and sense is ONLY achieved recently i.e during modern scíence era?

No, I'm saying that when ancient scholars did get something right they did so for the most part by using their reason, not their instinct. The exact opposite of what you are advocating. When they got something wrong (believing that random star patterns were messages from the gods, for example ) it was usually because they were being fooled by cognitive biases that operate below the level of consciousness - the very thing you are telling us we should do.

 

[StackOverflow]

All,
Thís topic is closed from my side. I already concluded the topic subject, so no need repeation or discuss otherwises. Keep on enjoying, pain, life & body of poor juniors.
Thanks all. Good bye here.

See you tomorrow in a few hours.

 

[jond]

All,
Thís topic is closed from my side. I already concluded the topic subject, so no need repeation or discuss otherwises. Keep on enjoying, pain, life & body of poor juniors.
Thanks all. Good bye here.

As always, you already reached your conclusion before the start and refused to consider any new information brought to your attention. Return from flounce in 3-2-1...

 

[JayUtah]

Thís topic is closed from my side. I already concluded the topic subject...

You "concluded the topic subject" by choosing one of your own answers, all of which were based on the false premise that animals have equivalent cognition and emotional development to humans, a position you seem to have drawn from PETA. Since the false premise underlying your entire argument has been refuted, the conclusion you have reached is not logical and is still subject to discussion whether you're willing or able to defend it.

Keep on enjoying, pain, life & body of poor juniors.

You have established no basis from which to make such a scathing moral judgment.

 

[Mojo]

All,
Thís topic is closed from my side. I already concluded the topic subject, so no need repeation or discuss otherwises. Keep on enjoying, pain, life & body of poor juniors.
Thanks all. Good bye here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11954015#post11954015

ETA: 6. Kumar's new thread gets merged into this one.

 

[ferd burfle]

How much you cry and make issue of my language? Limit is there for everything. If you can understand, accept if you can't ignore. Bit odd me to mend it. Sorry.

My hilite

Because every once in a while you submit a post in which you don’t forcibly sodomize the English language. Suddenly, here’s a post that’s clear and concise. Why rhe dramatic shift, Kumar?

We know you’re capable of clarity. But you've admitted in the past to being unclear on purpose because it conveys some benefit to you. Continue to post in borked English if you must, but please don’t complain when you’re called on it.

 

[JayUtah]

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

If you're making a morality-based argument, you don't get to cherry-pick support. :Again, this is why PETA makes money. Ideologically entrenched and underinformed people like you are willing to overlook their immoral euthanasia practices and their support of criminal activity and say, "Well they must be doing a lot of good too." Morality is not a salad bar, Kumar. You do your critics a great disservice by insisting on your simplistic view as a means of castigating them.

Tu quoque not withstanding, a moral argument has a hard time surviving hypocrisy. PETA objects to the keeping of animals for the production of life-saving drugs, but they make an exception for the drugs they themselves need. PETA tries to tell people they have a certain responsibility toward animals. But then they demonstrate they aren't willing to meet that responsibility themselves.

That aside, a moral basis that results in killing tens of thousands of perfect good animals -- ironically in the name of animal welfare -- is immediately suspect. You tell us the keeping and killing of animals for food and other purposes is not good enough -- it's "greed" and "luxury." But you are unwilling to turn a spotlight even half as bright on PETA's euthanasia and the reasons for it. And that's because the reason is horrendous: it's the only way they can make their ethos appear to work to people who aren't privy to their secrets. It's a purely political reason.at the expense of animals.

If you "accidentally" came to the same or similar mentality, then you don't need to cite PETA in support of it. In fact, it's detrimental to do so, because that would bring all of PETA's radical baggage with it. If it was an accident, then it would make sense for you to distance yourself from them as quickly and completely as possible. But you don't do that. Your behavior is more consistent with someone who realized too late that his source has been compromised, but doesn't want to be seen as having failed to vet the source.

 

[Kumar]

You "concluded the topic subject" by choosing one of your own answers, all of which were based on the false premise that animals have equivalent cognition and emotional development to humans, a position you seem to have drawn from PETA. Since the false premise underlying your entire argument has been refuted, the conclusion you have reached is not logical and is still subject to discussion whether you're willing or able to defend it.



You have established no basis from which to make such a scathing moral judgment.

What do you and other want?

Should I try to ímpress that, if peta are killing animals, other who are also anyway involved in killing of animals for any vested interest, are also similar to peta?

Should I try to impress, those who are taking meat have vested interests in support to animals killing?

Should I try to impress, those who are directly or indirectly involved in farming of animals for ultimate killing have vested interests in supporting their killing?

If you can get awnsers of these questions with pure heart, you will get all evidences ínsisted by you and which I was willing to avoid. Anyway no point in continuing these discussions as became odd, as usual. Life is life and pain is pain,even of any being, which we may deny in our interests but fact will remain fact.
Good bye finally. No more reading and post in this topic by me.

 

[Kumar]

If you're making a morality-based argument, you don't get to cherry-pick support. :Again, this is why PETA makes money. Ideologically entrenched and underinformed people like you are willing to overlook their immoral euthanasia practices and their support of criminal activity and say, "Well they must be doing a lot of good too." Morality is not a salad bar, Kumar. You do your critics a great disservice by insisting on your simplistic view as a means of castigating them.

Tu quoque not withstanding, a moral argument has a hard time surviving hypocrisy. PETA objects to the keeping of animals for the production of life-saving drugs, but they make an exception for the drugs they themselves need. PETA tries to tell people they have a certain responsibility toward animals. But then they demonstrate they aren't willing to meet that responsibility themselves.

That aside, a moral basis that results in killing tens of thousands of perfect good animals -- ironically in the name of animal welfare -- is immediately suspect. You tell us the keeping and killing of animals for food and other purposes is not good enough -- it's "greed" and "luxury." But you are unwilling to turn a spotlight even half as bright on PETA's euthanasia and the reasons for it. And that's because the reason is horrendous: it's the only way they can make their ethos appear to work to people who aren't privy to their secrets. It's a purely political reason.at the expense of animals.

If you "accidentally" came to the same or similar mentality, then you don't need to cite PETA in support of it. In fact, it's detrimental to do so, because that would bring all of PETA's radical baggage with it. If it was an accident, then it would make sense for you to distance yourself from them as quickly and completely as possible. But you don't do that. Your behavior is more consistent with someone who realized too late that his source has been compromised, but doesn't want to be seen as having failed to vet the source.

As I said, I dó not endorse any killing which is not at par to humans? I just see life and pain esp other than of those which is beyond most basic natural need
and since I am mostly convinced that such killing existed in peta, may be for any justification to it they give, I can not digest it even if all those poor ànimals would had been brain dead.
I therefore do not want to go deep into them..so trying to avoid them.