Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[MRC_Hans]

You tend to talk, just one sided/your sided thing without looking other sided presentations. Be equanimious pls. More, proof you can find on following quote:

Kumar, this is idiotic. Do you really think such a thing is proof of anything? Or are you just trolling?

Hans

 

[fagin]

Why it can't be natural since beginning? Obviously, Idea of milk should have been definitely there due to mother milk taking.

Because a massive, wild buffalo, is not the easiest thing to milk.

 

[Kumar]

Because a massive, wild buffalo, is not the easiest thing to milk.

Now. But people that time and under that environment would had also be comparativély stronger.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar, this is idiotic. Do you really think such a thing is proof of anything? Or are you just trolling?

Hans

Sorry above is also one sided.

 

[fagin]

Now. But people that time and under that environment would had also be comparativély stronger.

Bollocks. You are making stuff up again with no basis in fact or reality.

Need a quick pint of milk, go out and hunt down a wild buffalo, wrestle it to the ground, get it to hold still for long enough to milk it, hope not to get fatal injuries from nasty horns.

Rince and repeat daily.

Good luck.

 

[Pixel42]

Why it can't be natural since beginning? Obviously, Idea of milk should have been definitely there due to mother milk taking.

I'm sure people started stealing other animals' milk as soon as it became practical to do so, but I suspect domestication started as a way of ensuring a regular meat supply.

There can be following logics:

1. Planets directly affect us due to their emitted rays.

2. Planets affect earth, which indirectly affect us.

3. Their motions since perfectly calculative, these have taken just for calculation purpose by matching such calculation with environmental natural variations.

That's not logic, it's nonsense. It's also well off topic. If you want to discuss the nonsense that is astrology start another thread.

 

[Kumar]

I'm sure people started stealing other animals' milk as soon as it became practical to do so, but I suspect domestication started as a way of ensuring a regular meat.

Oh. I feel from above, origionally anímal domestication was meant to get the milk but later otherwises opted. Big. Somewhat like story of golden egg.

 

[fagin]

Golden egg?

Rabbit holes galore....

 

[Pixel42]

Oh. I feel from above, origionally anímal domestication was meant to get the milk but later otherwises opted.

No it can't have happened that way, because hardly anyone originally had the gene mutation that enables lactose tolerance in adults, so hardly anyone would have been able to drink animal milk without getting sick. The animals would originally have been domesticated for their meat, which everyone could eat, and only the tiny percentage of the population which could tolerate it also drank their milk. Doing so conferred an advantage on the milk drinkers, so that gene was selected for and gradually the percentage of people with lactose tolerance grew, until dairy farming became worthwhile in its own right.

 

[Peregrinus]

No it can't have happened that way, because hardly anyone originally had the gene mutation that enables lactose tolerance in adults, so hardly anyone would have been able to drink animal milk without getting sick. The animals would originally have been domesticated for their meat, which everyone could eat, and only the tiny percentage of the population which could tolerate it also drank their milk. Doing so conferred an advantage on the milk drinkers, so that gene was selected for and gradually the percentage of people with lactose tolerance grew, until dairy farming became worthwhile in its own right.

You're trying to ruin a perfectly good pie fight by dragging facts into the matter.

 

[Kumar]

No it can't have happened that way, because hardly anyone originally had the gene mutation that enables lactose tolerance in adults, so hardly anyone would have been able to drink animal milk without getting sick. The animals would originally have been domesticated for their meat, which everyone could eat, and only the tiny percentage of the population which could tolerate it also drank their milk. Doing so conferred an advantage on the milk drinkers, so that gene was selected for and gradually the percentage of people with lactose tolerance grew, until dairy farming became worthwhile in its own right.

I think both happened same time on domestication simultaniously. Unorganized scattered hunting and using milk might had happened earlier to it. However since mother milk was since begining, milk may be considered more natural.

 

[sackett]

The whole of Indian learning

would not fill one European bookshelf.

Yes yes, I know I'm echoing Macauley, and he was not a nice guy. But he had the irritating quality of sometimes being right.

Kumar guru, one big reason why modern man ignores your lore is because it's so BORING. It's based on fruitcake, and it goes only in circles. Nothing can be learned from it. (Rather like homeopathy, nah?) Right now, you're trying to drag astrology into this junkyard of a thread. What next, numerology?

Among today's cults, Jainery is one of the few I can respect -- a little. Ahimsa is a decent principal to live by, and if a small subset of Hinduists genuinely practice it, then good for them. All the aggluinative Sanskrit they contrive to justify it is idle, and quite unecessary.

An exacting Jain doesn't consume dairy, btw, out of a realistic understanding of actual Indian dairying practices. Good for them too.

And Jupiter isn't making them do it.

 

[abaddon]

Why it can't be natural since beginning? Obviously, Idea of milk should have been definitely there due to mother milk taking.

Why can't computers have been use since the beginning? Why did Mahariva not have a gmail account?

 

[JayUtah]

Still, moon affect tides.

As does the sun. Gravity is well understood.

It can suggest planets can affect earth. Mutual attraction repulsion between planets can be other thought.

Not all effects you imagine are real. In English the words "astronomy" and "astrology" mean very different things. Astronomy is a science and includes the study of gravity. Astrology is fortune-telling with no scientific basis. I realize in India astrology is commonly taken seriously. That does not mean it has a scientific basis.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry above is also one sided.

You keep describing your critics' posts as "one-sided" without really saying what that means or what's so allegedly bad about it. You are posting literal nonsense. It would be dishonest to describe it any other way.

 

[JayUtah]

How can you claim it? Is it your religion or option? It will become same, as I overclaimed previously. Moreover, I had just quoted for logical discussions, neither claimed nor preached.
Say for Proof of Immorality math sake if I present following logic for sake of discussion, it will not be a claim or proof:
In many calculations 1 and zero are immortal eg 1X1=1 n 0 X 1= 0..so on. Where 1 is self body, 2nd 1 is clone or tissue cultured or veg. Propagated plant, and O is so thought as soul, how it will be illogícal?
Another; If I say soul is last movement emitted energy from live in day, ghost being of dead body died ín dark. To any photo, many if express angel like image, devil like, god like or ghost like, these are true expressions of anyone depending on prevailing conditions. How these will be illogical? Tell me.
Moreover as I had indicated few time, manipulatice, misguided or forced preaching is like violence/sin on jainism like many opt on farming. Many natural unique basis exist in it like, noñ supernaturality or paranormal miracles involvement in creation and maintainance of universe. It just go on by natural principles. Ref previous quote. Hence I base it for its logical, natural and somewhat scientific unique featúres not otherwise.

None of this nonsensical rant addresses anything I wrote.

 

[JayUtah]

I have not claimed that there can't be natural cause of cancer or of any other disease.

Not in so many words, but you're trying to connect behavior you find morally reprehensible to effects like cancer. The insinuated argument is that by avoiding those behaviors you avoid the effects and thereby have a net gain. What's being pointed out to you is that your proposed correlations are diluted with other causes, such that one is not guaranteed an improvement by ceasing the alleged immoral behavior.

Radon gas accumulates in confined spaces. The solution you're dancing around is that we shouldn't live in confined spaces. That's well and good for people who live in the very small regions of Earth where almost no shelter is required. But you neglect the evolutionary advantage of being able to spread out the species so that one cataclysmic event doesn't wipe it out. You neglect the advantage of being able to tame environments that are inhospitable to others competing for resources. Because you cannot perform the actual calculus of why people do what they do, you have a very narrow and very naive sense of morality. Therefore you're not a good candidate for teaching others what correct behavior is.

 

[Pixel42]

I think both happened same time on domestication simultaniously.

Reality doesn't care what you think.

Unorganized scattered hunting and using milk might had happened earlier to it.

The genetic evidence suggests otherwise.

However since mother milk was since begining, milk may be considered more natural.

More natural than what? It's certainly not more natural than meat, if that's what you're trying to imply. It's hard to argue that something only one species does is more natural than something many species do.

 

[Dancing David]

Still, moon affect tides. It can suggest planets can affect earth. Mutual attraction repulsion between planets can be other thought.

A person standing near you has a stronger gravitational attraction than a distant planet

 

[bruto]

These angles shold be justified for stamping anything natural: 1. Exactly as it exist in nature 2. Exactly, its natural exposure 3. Exactly in natural environment 4. Exactly natural people. I think, indoor and mine expisure and even we may not be exactly natural. I do not know about its its toxic exposure is exactly on its natural form.

Natural people are naturally naked and in places where it is possible to be thus, solar radiation has carcinogenic properties, as Jay Utah, I think, pointed out. If those natural people live in a colder climate they must be in some kind of shelter, where radon gas might naturally occur.

What is a "natural" person anyway, if, as has been suggested, people evolved into what they are gradually, and after having, before becoming the people they now are, developed some habits of artifice, including cooking and the seeking of shelter? If, as I thknk you yourself pointed out, humans evolved into humans in part because they cook, then reversion to a raw diet would be, in its own way, unnatural. The evolutionary state of a purely natural human being would be that of a person who cooks and uses tools and seeks shelter as its pre-human forebears did.

It seems as if your definition of what is natural excludes the possibility of being a human being at all.