Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[JayUtah]

Whatever You opt is your one sided attempt and stubborness,

No. Your critics are not stubborn or one-sided if they do not accept a poorly supported argument. Your critics asked for evidence of the things you had merely assumed. That's your critics being reasonable. You simply refused to provided it, and went on to say that if you're arguing in a religious forum, you don't need "scientific" evidence, even if your underlying premises are scientific in nature. That's you being unreasonable. You were told what your critics would require in order to be convinced. You refuse to provide it. Your critics are not the ones being unreasonable.

I am not bound to deal with it.

Yes you are. Your critics are not obliged to assume your argument has any merit, especially if you are unable to show it's based on anything besides your self-evidently false assumptions. You are not exempt from addressing rebuttals simply because you have run up against stiff opposition.

If anyone want me to conclude & accept as per his/her vested interests, it is beyond my control.

No. Dismissing as bias your critics' attempts to hold you accountable to your claims doesn't work. If your argument fails to convince after you rebuff requests for evidence, that's entirely your fault.

 

[JayUtah]

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

PETA is not new understanding. It's not even understanding at all -- it's simply the assumptions of a few people whose implications are taken to a horrifyingly absurd extreme. They are self-proclaimed radicals. They are self-proclaimed extremists. There is no science involved there, except maybe psychology.

 

[Dancing David]

This is Religion and Philosophy forum. One should talk on these levels not on science forum level by asking proofs, evidences etc.Pls take care.

Still the ISF, which does not stand for Imaginative Speculation Forum

 

[Kumar]

No. Your critics are not stubborn or one-sided if they do not accept a poorly supported argument. Your critics asked for evidence of the things you had merely assumed. That's your critics being reasonable. You simply refused to provided it, and went on to say that if you're arguing in a religious forum, you don't need "scientific" evidence, even if your underlying premises are scientific in nature. That's you being unreasonable. You were told what your critics would require in order to be convinced. You refuse to provide it. Your critics are not the ones being unreasonable.

Self assessment esp when self side usually lead to wrong conclusion and can also be due to ego or vested interests.

Yes you are. Your critics are not obliged to assume your argument has any merit, especially if you are unable to show it's based on anything besides your self-evidently false assumptions. You are not exempt from addressing rebuttals simply because you have run up against stiff opposition.

No. Dismissing as bias your critics' attempts to hold you accountable to your claims doesn't work. If your argument fails to convince after you rebuff requests for evidence, that's entirely your fault.

I do not feel like it. I feel, I was over justified.

 

[Kumar]

PETA is not new understanding. It's not even understanding at all -- it's simply the assumptions of a few people whose implications are taken to a horrifyingly absurd extreme. They are self-proclaimed radicals. They are self-proclaimed extremists. There is no science involved there, except maybe psychology.

Except for making their own rationals about euthanasia, other apparent efforts appear to be well in line with morality and humanity. One can not be a GOD on any other, who entitles himself like a God of other. Every being has natural and fundamental right to life and personal liberty. Death, either God/nature or self should decide. Life has more value over pain. One can not decide own rational for own convenience and self odd interests for killing. It simply is might is right.
I shall try to influence peta for it.

 

[Kumar]

PETA is not new understanding. It's not even understanding at all -- it's simply the assumptions of a few people whose implications are taken to a horrifyingly absurd extreme. They are self-proclaimed radicals. They are self-proclaimed extremists. There is no science involved there, except maybe psychology.

It is not peta but common people who are more responsible for compulsion to practice odd. One should either leave things on nature or should take full responsibility till natural death alike they do for their family members. How peta individually can take care of so much animals without pain. Whatever odd peta do, for which also those are responsible, who do not take care of their adopted of used animals till their natural death. If they will, peta will not need to unethically follow odds.

 

[Kumar]

Still the ISF, which does not stand for Imaginative Speculation Forum

It should only be International Science Forum.

 

[JayUtah]

I shall try to influence peta for it.

Why your obsession with PETA? There are plenty of animal rights organization, most of whom don't have PETA's horrible, twisted morality. They work against the inhumane treatment of animals, such as at unscrupulous factory farms, without stooping to PETA's misguided ethic. Support them instead of trying to reform an organization that is quite happy with being the horrible thing it is. You wrongly think PETA would want to change. They've had plenty of opportunity and endured plenty of criticism. Why would they listen to you?

 

[JayUtah]

Self assessment esp when self side usually lead to wrong conclusion and can also be due to ego or vested interests.

This describes you, not your critics. Don't project your own faults onto your critics. Your critics behaved reasonably. You did not.

I do not feel like it. I feel, I was over justified.

I'm describing the events that actually happened. Your feelings are irrelevant. You were asked for evidence of your claims. You refused to provide it. You don't get to insult your critics after that by calling them biased.

 

[Kumar]

Why your obsession with PETA? There are plenty of animal rights organization, most of whom don't have PETA's horrible, twisted morality. They work against the inhumane treatment of animals, such as at unscrupulous factory farms, without stooping to PETA's misguided ethic. Support them instead of trying to reform an organization that is quite happy with being the horrible thing it is. You wrongly think PETA would want to change. They've had plenty of opportunity and endured plenty of criticism. Why would they listen to you?

Because they only need this reform. Other who do not need it, nothing to think about that. My duty is not to follow but try to reform.

 

[JayUtah]

Because they only need this reform. Other who do not need it, nothing to think about that. My duty is not to follow but try to reform.

So you've gone from citing them as the moral authority and factual basis of your argument to launching upon a one-man crusade to reform them. You're entertaining.

 

[Kumar]

This describes you, not your critics. Don't project your own faults onto your critics. Your critics behaved reasonably. You did not.



I'm describing the events that actually happened. Your feelings are irrelevant. You were asked for evidence of your claims. You refused to provide it. You don't get to insult your critics after that by calling them biased.

First, I could not yet understood it what is the issue in it? 2nd, it is not necessary other's criticisms are applicable to me. They are critics not my supporters so they should be having simple interest in just criticizing me by using multiplicity in POVs/Non absolutism angle i.e sub absolute side. It is never ending discussions and will be just waste of time, energy,relations,comforts etc. If so, why I will fall into it? One who leave first such infinite odd will be more right.

 

[JayUtah]

2nd, it is not necessary other's criticisms are applicable to me.

Of course criticism of your claims is applicable to you.

They are critics not my supporters so they should be having simple interest in just criticizing me by using...

No, you don't get to pick and choose how your critics should evaluate your ideas.

It is never ending discussions and will be just waste of time, energy,relations,comforts etc.

Discussions with you never end, it seems, because you refuse to listen to anyone. People mistakenly think you are rational and engage you because they think you will take them seriously.

If so, why I will fall into it? One who leave first such infinite odd will be more right.

My theory is that you crave attention, even if it's negative attention.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

My theory is that you crave attention, even if it's negative attention.

It's almost as if Kumar deliberately chose PETA because he knew it would push buttons

 

[bruto]

It's almost as if Kumar deliberately chose PETA because he knew it would push buttons

I suspect your estimate of forethought to be overly generous.

 

[Kumar]

Of course criticism of your claims is applicable to you.



No, you don't get to pick and choose how your critics should evaluate your ideas.

From mne POV, I am also entitled to it.

Discussions with you never end, it seems, because you refuse to listen to anyone. People mistakenly think you are rational and engage you because they think you will take them seriously.



My theory is that you crave attention, even if it's negative attention.

When I am involving myself here, it is not unnecessary. I feel much obliged and thanked immediately to whatever convinced and added to me. Whichever not, I either continue till maximum or remain silent.

 

[Kumar]

So you've gone from citing them as the moral authority and factual basis of your argument to launching upon a one-man crusade to reform them. You're entertaining.

No, morality can better lie in revering immoral ones to moral one like I have feeling for cancer cells. What is the dynamism in wasting time on moral or normal ones? They need nothing.

 

[Mojo]

No, morality can better lie in revering immoral ones to moral one like I have feeling for cancer cells. What is the dynamism in wasting time on moral or normal ones? They need nothing.

Kumar, you were not attempting to reform PETA, you were trying to use them as an authority.

 

[Mojo]

No, morality can better lie in revering immoral ones to moral one like I have feeling for cancer cells.

What makes you think that revering the immoral will make them more moral?

 

[Kumar]

More moral Gibberish! Just moral.