Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[JayUtah]

What do you and other want?

For you to debate honestly, and actually pay attention to what your critics are telling you.

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?

You are citing PETA as support for the moral foundation upon which your argument is based. You have failed to address their immorality except to try to sweep it under the carpet and say it doesn't affect you. In fact you portray the same moral argument as PETA, with all its inherent faults and irrationality.

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

You're trying to argue that your critics are biased by way of an excuse not to have to deal with their arguments or satisfy their requests for evidence. You arrived here with the preconception that those who eat meat are evil and irrational. You have maintained that preconception on the basis of a moral framework that has no root either in logic or fact.

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?

You arrived here with the preconception that those who raise animals for food are evil and irrational because they didn't render the same deference to animals as you wrongly believe they should -- again on the unsatisfied premise that animals have the same cognitive and emotional abilities as humans.

Though you say you came to this view "accidentally," it is no small coincidence that you happen to be touting PETA's philosophy, and have expressly cited them as a source. The "vested interest" you imagine is not bias, but is a properly deduced and rationally arrived-at objection to your unevidenced claims. You imagine that those who raise and eat meat are morally depraved, but you are unwilling and unable to establish a reason for the moral basis that results in that judgment. You simply made up a bunch of crap and you want others to accept it as the proper basis for your moral indignation against them.

If you can get awnsers of these questions with pure heart...

You have been given forthright answers by your critics, as well as the factual basis for them. You are simply not interested. You maintain that your critics are somehow impure of heart and are behaving in a way that excuses you from having to give facts that supports your judgment of them. Again, you are simply making up crap and using that as a basis from which to apply an inappropriate moral judgment.

Good bye finally. No more reading and post in this topic by me.

Declaring victory and running away will not stop other people from holding you accountable for your egregious behavior.

 

[JayUtah]

As I said, I dó not endorse...

As I said, you are making a moral argument citing them as a source. But in fact you're just picking and choosing which parts of their moral behavior you want to pay attention to. That is not a viable moral argument.

I can not digest it even if all those poor ànimals would had been brain dead.

Most people who thoroughly investigate PETA find what they do morally abhorrent. On the one hand you say you don't like them killing innocent animals. But on the other hand you have the same mentality that gives rise to their behavior. You wrongly believe that animals and plants have the same mental faculties as humans. The alleged equivalence between animals and humans is at the heart of their argument. It is also at the heart of yours, and you say you find their exposition of it "logical." They make errors on the basis of this broken belief that leads tens of thousands of innocent animals to die. You make errors on the basis of this broken belief that leads to you level inappropriate moral judgments at people and then call them biased and irrational simply for defending themselves appropriately with facts against your moralistic decrees.

I therefore do not want to go deep into them..so trying to avoid them.

Then renounce them and concede that your source was discredited. Why is that so hard for you to do?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Your latest final goodbye lasted four minutes. Close to your record.

Dave

 

[Peregrinus]

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?

Trying for the sweeping generality, eh? Aristarchus had calculated the circumference of the Earth to a high degree of accuracy in the 3rd Century BCE. He used empirical observation and precise mathematics. Euclidean geometry still serves as a valuable method of observation and measurement; Euclid flourished roughly 300 BCE and based his works on the mathematics of earlier persons. Simple searches will find other examples where empirical data and rational inquiry brought about valuable concepts which still hold. No number of searches will find examples where astrology or homeopathy enjoy similar success and practical application in the real world. Some nonsense is quite ancient, some is rather more recent. Regardless of relative dates, nonsense remains such. Several times (innumerable times) we've tried to tell you that.

P.s.: The phrase "modern science era" is meaningless.

 

[Peregrinus]

As I said, I dó not endorse any killing which is not at par to humans?

What - if anything - does that mean?

 

[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, you are making a moral argument citing them as a source. But in fact you're just picking and choosing which parts of their moral behavior you want to pay attention to. That is not a viable moral argument.



Most people who thoroughly investigate PETA find what they do morally abhorrent. On the one hand you say you don't like them killing innocent animals. But on the other hand you have the same mentality that gives rise to their behavior. You wrongly believe that animals and plants have the same mental faculties as humans. The alleged equivalence between animals and humans is at the heart of their argument. It is also at the heart of yours, and you say you find their exposition of it "logical." They make errors on the basis of this broken belief that leads tens of thousands of innocent animals to die. You make errors on the basis of this broken belief that leads to you level inappropriate moral judgments at people and then call them biased and irrational simply for defending themselves appropriately with facts against your moralistic decrees.



Then renounce them and concede that your source was discredited. Why is that so hard for you to do?

Simply, ínvalidate that article point to point as you invalídated history of non veg. of humans. If I could be able to accept that, I shall discredit that article. To me, life and live and let live value, may it bé of any being. Yes, to maintain nature balance and harmony, some natural prúning and thining happen.

 

[Kumar]

Trying for the sweeping generality, eh? Aristarchus had calculated the circumference of the Earth to a high degree of accuracy in the 3rd Century BCE. He used empirical observation and precise mathematics. Euclidean geometry still serves as a valuable method of observation and measurement; Euclid flourished roughly 300 BCE and based his works on the mathematics of earlier persons. Simple searches will find other examples where empirical data and rational inquiry brought about valuable concepts which still hold. No number of searches will find examples where astrology or homeopathy enjoy similar success and practical application in the real world. Some nonsense is quite ancient, some is rather more recent. Regardless of relative dates, nonsense remains such. Several times (innumerable times) we've tried to tell you that.

P.s.: The phrase "modern science era" is meaningless.

I do not understand, how we were able to sustain for millions of years less modern science era?

 

[Kumar]

For you to debate honestly, and actually pay attention to what your critics are telling you.



You are citing PETA as support for the moral foundation upon which your argument is based. You have failed to address their immorality except to try to sweep it under the carpet and say it doesn't affect you. In fact you portray the same moral argument as PETA, with all its inherent faults and irrationality.



You're trying to argue that your critics are biased by way of an excuse not to have to deal with their arguments or satisfy their requests for evidence. You arrived here with the preconception that those who eat meat are evil and irrational. You have maintained that preconception on the basis of a moral framework that has no root either in logic or fact.



You arrived here with the preconception that those who raise animals for food are evil and irrational because they didn't render the same deference to animals as you wrongly believe they should -- again on the unsatisfied premise that animals have the same cognitive and emotional abilities as humans.

Though you say you came to this view "accidentally," it is no small coincidence that you happen to be touting PETA's philosophy, and have expressly cited them as a source. The "vested interest" you imagine is not bias, but is a properly deduced and rationally arrived-at objection to your unevidenced claims. You imagine that those who raise and eat meat are morally depraved, but you are unwilling and unable to establish a reason for the moral basis that results in that judgment. You simply made up a bunch of crap and you want others to accept it as the proper basis for your moral indignation against them.



You have been given forthright answers by your critics, as well as the factual basis for them. You are simply not interested. You maintain that your critics are somehow impure of heart and are behaving in a way that excuses you from having to give facts that supports your judgment of them. Again, you are simply making up crap and using that as a basis from which to apply an inappropriate moral judgment.



Declaring victory and running away will not stop other people from holding you accountable for your egregious behavior.

Simply, in view of non absolutism multiplicity of POV concept, which I had very well explained to you, anyone can present anything, sub-absolute as per his liking, need or perception. But absolute fact will only hold right value. It can only express whole in minimum worlds. Absolue fact is live & let live í.e Let live also with Live. Rest all, also might is right, prefered in nature due to insufficiency, greed and luxury. But these will ultimately lead to survival of fittest and so sufficiency bringing live and let live again.
I think, every thing is well discussed and cared, so right time to leave. Since, you contributed the most in this thread, I need to esp ask you, do you want to end these discussions or want to still go on infinately? No end to arguments and criticisms.

 

[Kumar]

Your latest final goodbye lasted four minutes. Close to your record.

Dave

You should respect it in truth sense.

 

[JayUtah]

If I could be able to accept that, I shall discredit that article.

You were shown the facts that disputed the claims made in the article. You just referred again to the article and said you were not prepared to accept those facts because PETA disagreed. You are still presuming that PETA is an authority. You were shown why they are not. You still want to claim PETA as an authority, but you're uncomfortable defending them. You're simply being irrational.

 

[JayUtah]

Absolue fact is live & let live.

No, your desired belief is not some a priori absolute fact.

also might is right, prefered in nature due to insufficiency, greed and luxury.

No. People who raise food and eat it are not brutish gluttons.

I think, every thing is well discussed and cared, so right time to leave.

No. You simply declared victory based on nothing and continue to level moral accusations against your critics. If you want to leave, leave. But as long as you decide to stay, you need to get beyond pontificating.

do you want to end these discussions or want to still go on infinately? No end to arguments and criticisms.

We're not going to end this discussion on your empty declaration of victory, your dishonesty, and your continued moralizations. As long as you keep posting, I will keep attempting to hold you accountable.

 

[Kumar]

As I said, you are making a moral argument citing them as a source. But in fact you're just picking and choosing which parts of their moral behavior you want to pay attention to. That is not a viable moral argument.



Most people who thoroughly investigate PETA find what they do morally abhorrent. On the one hand you say you don't like them killing innocent animals. But on the other hand you have the same mentality that gives rise to their behavior. You wrongly believe that animals and plants have the same mental faculties as humans. The alleged equivalence between animals and humans is at the heart of their argument. It is also at the heart of yours, and you say you find their exposition of it "logical." They make errors on the basis of this broken belief that leads tens of thousands of innocent animals to die. You make errors on the basis of this broken belief that leads to you level inappropriate moral judgments at people and then call them biased and irrational simply for defending themselves appropriately with facts against your moralistic decrees.



Then renounce them and concede that your source was discredited. Why is that so hard for you to do?

No, not valid. It is not necessary, one if contradict on one matter with anyone entitle him to reject him absolutely. We do not reject modern medicines on the basis of side effects from those. We do not reject our near & dear ones on just one or few issues. For rejection, absolute and final stamp is needed. You are also telling me their double standards. On one hand their moral principles--taking animals somewhat at par to humans whereas on other hand their immoral attitude by killing or made killing those poor, needy and innocent poor animals in excuse of rationality. Dying is just personal.

So as asked, do not force me to renounce just by your's or someone's insistance but satisfy me by giving valid or logical absolute justifications for that they are odd in absolute.

 

[JayUtah]

No, not valid. It is not necessary, one if contradict on one matter with anyone entitle him to reject him absolutely

Morality is not a salad bar.

For rejection, absolute and final stamp is needed.

No. You don't get to demand that only an impossible and irrational standard of proof is what's required to refute your source.

So as asked, do not force me to renounce

But you want to have your cake and eat it too. You are unable and unwilling to defend your source against even facts PETA doesn't dispute. But you want everyone to accept it as a suitable moral authority for your claim. No. As long as you continue to use PETA as a source I will hold you accountable.

 

[Kumar]

You were shown the facts that disputed the claims made in the article. You just referred again to the article and said you were not prepared to accept those facts because PETA disagreed. You are still presuming that PETA is an authority. You were shown why they are not. You still want to claim PETA as an authority, but you're uncomfortable defending them. You're simply being irrational.

No that was only one disputed fact not whole. I have already accepted that dispue. I shall also dispute whole article, if you or any other can convince me on point to point basis. One dispute is not the true justification to whole. So pls convince me, if you can or want that I should dispute whole article.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You should respect it in truth sense.

Should I ever sense truth in anything you post, I will duly respect it.

Dave

 

[Kumar]

Should I ever sense truth in anything you post, I will duly respect it.

Dave

So will be I. Flexibility on new findings is a modern science option and you respect and support modern science. If I also show such flexibility then you should also respect me similarity. Quite logical.

 

[fagin]

Sarcasm is wasted on this one.

 

[Mojo]

So will be I. Flexibility on new findings is a modern science option and you respect and support modern science. If I also show such flexibility then you should also respect me similarity. Quite logical.

Ignoring evidence that contradicts your claims is a sign of inflexibility, not flexibility

 

[Kumar]

Morality is not a salad bar.



No. You don't get to demand that only an impossible and irrational standard of proof is what's required to refute your source.



But you want to have your cake and eat it too. You are unable and unwilling to defend your source against even facts PETA doesn't dispute. But you want everyone to accept it as a suitable moral authority for your claim. No. As long as you continue to use PETA as a source I will hold you accountable.

What morality is then?

I am also asking to stratify me point to point about impossible and irrational standards in that article?

I think, you are fully biased against PETA. But as I mentioned in my signature, I prefer it; "To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd." PETA is still existing is mass people.

 

[Mojo]

PETA is still existing is mass people.

Table courtesy of Zep.