Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[JayUtah]

Yes making own assessments, excuses or rationals, may not be absolute in truthful sense. We can not be decider of life. Let the mother nature walk on its own foot. We should not initiate it to move on our foot. We can do just slightly to keep it balanced.

No, that doesn't address what I wrote. I, not you, will be the judge of whether my questions have been answered.

 

[Kumar]

No, no one is forcing you to defend PETA. Just renounce them and concede that the source has been discredited. The problem is that you can't back down on anything.

Ok I take back my article just for you. What are their rationals or irrationals, I am not interested. Ok, happy.

My conclusion, as I indicated previously, still hold sense for me. Idiocy and compulsion seems to be only valid for them not gratitude or nobility. Whether we should respect them, their life and their pain or not depend upon our seniority on them and on our natural need, greed or luxury.

Think so. OVER AND ALL.

 

[Kumar]

No, that doesn't address what I wrote. I, not you, will be the judge of whether my questions have been answered.

Ok then, I shall also keep it in mind for my questions. My judgement is, you have not yet addressed my questions in OP to my satisfaction. Address those to my satisfaction. Let the first settled first.

 

[JayUtah]

Ok then, I shall also keep it in mind for my questions. My judgement is, you have not yet addressed my questions in OP to my satisfaction. Address those to my satisfaction. Let the first settled first.

How childish, Kumar. See if you can figure out the meaning of the English phrase, "I know you are, but what am I? Since you're desperately trying every ploy to avoid having to answer my questions, I'll just assume the truthful answer you would have given is the one most damaging to your argument.

 

[JayUtah]

My conclusion, as I indicated previously, still hold sense for me.

But not because you were able to prove it. You came here with that assumption, and you refuse to provide any evidence for the attributes you wishfully assigned to animals. You have utterly refused to address any of the evidence against your claim, and you just excuse yourself by saying you don't understand it. Surprise, surprise, you're walking away from the debate with exactly the same belief as you had when you started it. This is because your critics are correct when they say you simply ignore whatever anyone else says to you. It would be okay to just let you go and enjoy your foolishness, but the problem remains that you're making moral judgments against your critics on the basis of the discredited, refuted moral basis you tried to foist. That won't stand.

Think so. OVER AND ALL.

You keep trying to declare victory and leave the debate, but you don't actually leave. And you didn't win.

 

[Kumar]

Euthanizing pets is a mercy killing only if you consider all the alternatives as worse. The official PETA position seems to consider the simple sense of being unwanted as such a fate, but I would suggest that such a feeling is more imposed by humans than felt by animals.

All this depends a great deal on what you read into things, and that is a human thing, not an animal thing. If you attribute higher feelings and ideas to animals, who is to say they would not rather be eaten than euthanized and buried whole? I contend that you cannot, within the moral framework of PETA, provide a good reason why they should not be humanely slaughtering pets and giving the meat to the poor.

Are we GOD of those animals, who can decide whether to kill them or not? Should we not see with equanimity from the POVs of those animals? I feel main culprits are people who keep animals for entertainments or other selfish need but later send to killer's places to kill, if not remain maintainable/useful to them. It appears to be biggest odd. Why they don't maintain them till their natural death alike they maintain their family members?

I

think it is true (a rare event indeed) when you say there is a difference between validity and choice. But it is a difference you seem to apply more to yourself than to others.

I am just reacting not acting on it. I told to myself that I am also not A&F, so other should also not behave in this manner.

 

[Kumar]

How childish, Kumar. See if you can figure out the meaning of the English phrase, "I know you are, but what am I? Since you're desperately trying every ploy to avoid having to answer my questions, I'll just assume the truthful answer you would have given is the one most damaging to your argument.

My that reply is quite logical and at par to your demand. Nothing is odd in that. Just address my questions in OP first to my satisfaction as per my judgement. First come first served.

 

[Kumar]

But not because you were able to prove it. You came here with that assumption, and you refuse to provide any evidence for the attributes you wishfully assigned to animals. You have utterly refused to address any of the evidence against your claim, and you just excuse yourself by saying you don't understand it. Surprise, surprise, you're walking away from the debate with exactly the same belief as you had when you started it. This is because your critics are correct when they say you simply ignore whatever anyone else says to you. It would be okay to just let you go and enjoy your foolishness, but the problem remains that you're making moral judgments against your critics on the basis of the discredited, refuted moral basis you tried to foist. That won't stand.



You keep trying to declare victory and leave the debate, but you don't actually leave. And you didn't win.

(As per you) Since I raised questions in OP, I can ONLY judge the replies on that. Hence given my judgement on that. If you want to respect your own words, just respect my judgement/conclusion.

 

[JayUtah]

My that reply is quite logical and at par to your demand.

That's the problem. You are trying to evade responsibility by turnabout.

I've thoroughly addressed the questions in your OP. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12022966#post12022966 Your argument is so abjectly silly that it requires only one statement to refute it: you are presuming properties of animals that they do not have.

Now answer my questions. You asked how people are supposed to navigate conflicting information. I said by critical thinking and gave you some questions designed to illustrate that. As I said, you refuse to answer those questions so it seems reasonable to conclude that the answers you would have given are the ones most damaging to your claims.

 

[JayUtah]

If you want to respect your own words, just respect my judgement/conclusion.

What nonsense is this? I have to accept your foisted assumptions in order to "respect my own words?"

No. Just no. Your argument stands on nothing but your own assumptions. Those have been refuted with evidence. You were asked to supply evidence to support your argument, but you told us you didn't have to because you were arguing in the religion forum. Very well, if you are preaching a religion then don't be surprised when the facts disagree.

 

[Kumar]

What nonsense is this? I have to accept your foisted assumptions in order to "respect my own words?"

No. Just no. Your argument stands on nothing but your own assumptions. Those have been refuted with evidence. You were asked to supply evidence to support your argument, but you told us you didn't have to because you were arguing in the religion forum. Very well, if you are preaching a religion then don't be surprised when the facts disagree.

Just one sidedness. I do not support it, so discontinuing. Bye & thanks.

 

[Kumar]

That's the problem. You are trying to evade responsibility by turnabout.

I've thoroughly addressed the questions in your OP. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12022966#post12022966 Your argument is so abjectly silly that it requires only one statement to refute it: you are presuming properties of animals that they do not have.

Now answer my questions. You asked how people are supposed to navigate conflicting information. I said by critical thinking and gave you some questions designed to illustrate that. As I said, you refuse to answer those questions so it seems reasonable to conclude that the answers you would have given are the ones most damaging to your claims.

Not to my satisfaction. Therefore discussions continued.

 

[JayUtah]

Not to my satisfaction. Therefore discussions continued.

They continued with you being asked to supply evidence for the propositions you had previously only assumed. You refused to do that, saying you didn't have to in a religious forum. Therefore it remains an assumption, and facts were presented that refuted that assumption. When confronted with the proposition that plants and animals don't have complex cognitive abilities, as your argument required, you responded simply that such a thing was "beyond your understanding."

The fact that you lack the understanding to see how your argument was refuted does not mean it wasn't. The fact that you refuse to provide evidence for your major premise doesn't mean you get to continue making moral judgments on the basis of it. Your argument was refuted on the first page. The rest of the discussion is you drawing out the process of refusing to fact facts.

 

[JayUtah]

Just one sidedness.

Yes, the argument is one-sided. You have no facts, only "religious" assumptions. The other side has facts, which have been presented by your critics and ignored by you.

I do not support it, so discontinuing. Bye & thanks.

Your refusal to consider facts that dispute your beliefs is legendary, as is the insincerity of your flounces.

 

[Kumar]

I feel, by these discussions, I am bit influenced by the indicated intentions of PETA. Their few actions can be odd but their intention is not. They should understand life is more precious than pains and they should try best to preserve it at first. If can't, leave it to nature to deal it in its own way. I shall try to directly indicate it to them. I gained it by these discussions and thanks all for it.

 

[Kumar]

Yes, the argument is one-sided. You have no facts, only "religious" assumptions. The other side has facts, which have been presented by your critics and ignored by you.



Your refusal to consider facts that dispute your beliefs is legendary, as is the insincerity of your flounces.

If you could not understood by my three questions or indications or logical evidences, I can not help more. One sided approach is not my choice. Equanimity is my choice, whether from my side or from other side. Since you preferred and accepted one sidededness, I can not play any more with you. But I shall accept, you made me attracted towards peta and thanks for it. Rest, as per my last post.

 

[JayUtah]

If you could not understood by my three questions or indications or logical evidences...

You provided none of that, and went to some lengths to tell us why you didn't have to. Don't pretend you did. Your argument is not convincing because it doesn't rise any higher than your assumptions, which were refuted with facts.

Since you preferred and accepted one sidededness...

I have accepted the side that has evidence. You keep talking about "equanimity," which doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. But in any case, why would you assume that some question under debate can't possibly have a right answer?

But I shall accept, you made me attracted towards peta and thanks for it.

"Attracted" means you favor them, which I doubt is what you meant to say. For heaven's sake, learn English.

Rest, as per my last post.

Are you telling me to go away? No, I don't think I will. I think I'll keep trying to hold you accountable.

 

[abaddon]

I feel, by these discussions, I am bit influenced by the indicated intentions of PETA. Their few actions can be odd but their intention is not. They should understand life is more precious than pains and they should try best to preserve it at first. If can't, leave it to nature to deal it in its own way. I shall try to directly indicate it to them. I gained it by these discussions and thanks all for it.

That seems a little half hearted. You cited PETA in the first place in support of your argument. When confronted with the horror that is PETA, you first tried to salvage your argument by trying to distance yourself from PETA once their actual behaviour was pointed out to you, now you are trying to pretend that it doesn't make a material difference to your argument and you never did it anyway.

Oh, and I should note that several times lately, you have dropped the persona and posted in coherent English. Why does that happen?

 

[Kumar]

You provided none of that, and went to some lengths to tell us why you didn't have to. Don't pretend you did. Your argument is not convincing because it doesn't rise any higher than your assumptions, which were refuted with facts.



I have accepted the side that has evidence. You keep talking about "equanimity," which doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. But in any case, why would you assume that some question under debate can't possibly have a right answer?



"Attracted" means you favor them, which I doubt is what you meant to say. For heaven's sake, learn English.



Are you telling me to go away? No, I don't think I will. I think I'll keep trying to hold you accountable.

I feel, whatever needed I provided directly or indirectly. Moreover I do not base on partially cooked food as it can cause food pensioning.So I feel fruits are good, mostly need no cooking. Since A&F evidence are not available and even not anticiated for, I feel these just as idiocy to base on these in A&F.

Whatever You opt is your one sided attempt and stubborness, I am not bound to deal with it. I feel I remained fully justified for OP and concluded with equanimity. If anyone want me to conclude & accept as per his/her vested interests, it is beyond my control.

 

[Kumar]

That seems a little half hearted. You cited PETA in the first place in support of your argument. When confronted with the horror that is PETA, you first tried to salvage your argument by trying to distance yourself from PETA once their actual behaviour was pointed out to you, now you are trying to pretend that it doesn't make a material difference to your argument and you never did it anyway.

Oh, and I should note that several times lately, you have dropped the persona and posted in coherent English. Why does that happen?

Simply my attitude was scientific i.e flexibility on new understandings as you all anticipate. No odd here.