Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[MikeG]

Have you seen Jurrasic Park movie? There were two types of dinosaurs.........

Rubbish.

First of all, Jurassic Park is a makie-uppie Holywood film, and not a documentary. Secondly, there were dozens of different dinosaurs in it, not two. There were no "goodie" and "baddie" dinosaurs, and if that is the level you are going to argue at, you should go and find some kindergarten kids prepared to waste their time discussing it with you.

 

[fagin]

....
There were no "goodie" and "baddie" dinosaurs, and if that is the level you are going to argue at, you should go and find some kindergarten kids prepared to waste their time discussing it with you.

Maybe Kumar was thinking about:

 

[Pixel42]

Maybe Kumar was thinking about:

[qimg]http://horrorhouseparty.com/kidsnews/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/11/the-good-dinosaur-thumbnail.jpg[/qimg]

In Jurassic Park the children divide the dinosaurs into two categories: those that want to eat them (the carnivores) and those that don't (the herbivores). That seems to be the same childish level that Kumar's thinking is at.

 

[abaddon]

In Jurassic Park the children divide the dinosaurs into two categories: those that want to eat them (the carnivores) and those that don't (the herbivores). That seems to be the same childish level that Kumar's thinking is at.

Oh yeah Meatosaurs and veggiesaurs. LOL

 

[Mojo]

Have you seen Jurrasic Park movie? There were two types of dinosaurs but both were shown living naturally. So I mentioned two type of laws.

That's item 23 for 20 points.

 

[Dancing David]

Then we have to first decide who is the supreme authority whose telling can be universally accepted in a&f. If we can't then all or anyone can be possible.

Language only works if people agree upon a consistent use of the symbols in the exchange set, if an individual continually uses a symbol in an inconsistent way then that does not further communication.

As I said Kumar it is easy to resolve instead of 'true religion' or 'religion', you can use one of the phrases you have explained as being your meaning

 

[sackett]

Westerners talking to Indians about jungles or jungle law face an immediate hurdle. The hindi word "jungli" implies things like backwardness, provincialism, and non-Hindu beliefs; it's a term of socio/cultural signifigance, not at all a word for a wild, usually tropical forest.

So as always, Kumar is talking about something alien -- and not usefully.

 

[Dancing David]

Can be to you but IS to me.

Kumar,
there are constants in the universe, they control the interaction of particles and light waves.
If these constants were to vary then it would show in the spectral lines of distant stars.

Guess what?

As far back as we can see the constants of nature are invariant, in all directions

 

[Dancing David]

But we are discussing something else in this topic not Laws of Science or Physical Laws. Better, you could have given links on Nature's law or Law of Jungle.

Those are made up undefined vague phrases, nature's law are the constants of the universe.

The second one is poetry

 

[Dancing David]

What i posted in one of his other random threads.

Yes true. I read these today only. To get nature's rules, we need to check it by better understanding of "as if we are living in nature or natural environment to us since long back.

Kumar,
We all live in nature all the time...

 

[Dancing David]

We have to combine nature's law and law of jungle for it.

"true or instinct nature of all substances is its true religion"

Also few other quotes. Can also be much more. But it can be discussed in another topic.

Indicated earlier also.

There is 'no true nature' when it comes to organisms that have anything other than instinctual behavior.

 

[Dancing David]

I feel, answered.

A vague hand wave without definition and explanation is not an answer

 

[Dancing David]

Have you seen Jurrasic Park movie? There were two types of dinosaurs but both were shown living naturally. So I mentioned two type of laws. Good and bad part, veg or non veg, voilent or peaceful, live & let live, survival, might is right, survival of fittest etc.are basic nature to maintain balance of nature. Nature and its rules are not one sided.

Even less of an answer much less an explanation

 

[Dancing David]

ETA: But OK, let's discuss the Law of the Jungle. Can you give an example of a religion which is based on it?

Yes lets

 

[MikeG]

Westerners talking to Indians about jungles or jungle law face an immediate hurdle. The hindi word "jungli" implies things like backwardness, provincialism, and non-Hindu beliefs; it's a term of socio/cultural signifigance, not at all a word for a wild, usually tropical forest.

So as always, Kumar is talking about something alien -- and not usefully.

You are assuming Kumar is Indian, and speaks Hindi. Even if he is Indian, there are dozens of other languages in the country.

 

[sackett]

You are assuming Kumar is Indian, and speaks Hindi. Even if he is Indian, there are dozens of other languages in the country.

Well, we know that K is from Pakistan, IOW he's a kind of poor man's Indian. His native tongue is Hindi/Urdu. And jungli is a word of pretty wide provenance in the subcontinent.

("Subcontinent" is an intriguing word. It could mean "still in diapers," or perhaps "in diapers once more." Say if you watched Jurassic Park thinking it was real, it might make you
sit
on your pants with fear! Cosmic fear, of course, because this is the R&P subforum. But now I'm just being silly, aren't I?)

 

[Peregrinus]

Have you seen Jurrasic Park movie? There were two types of dinosaurs but both were shown living naturally. So I mentioned two type of laws. Good and bad part, veg or non veg, voilent or peaceful, live & let live, survival, might is right, survival of fittest etc.are basic nature to maintain balance of nature. Nature and its rules are not one sided.

You left out the omnivores. That's three types of laws needed for your kaleidoscopic rabbit hole.

And the phrases "might is right" and "survival of the fittest" have no necessary correlation between them.

 

[JayUtah]

And the phrases "might is right" and "survival of the fittest" have no necessary correlation between them.

Even worse, they're straw men. "Survival of the fittest" is merely an observation on how things tend to work out. The organism or species most likely to survive some set of circumstances is the one best equipped to endure those circumstances. What constitutes best equipment depends on the circumstances.

But phrases like "might makes right" and "live and let live" imply moralizations or moral obligations that simply don't have meaning when evaluating the laws of nature. "Might makes right" tries to say that because I'm bigger and stronger than you, whatever I might choose to do to you must be morally just. In fact my ability to enforce my will upon you has nothing to do with whether that will is just. The moral justification for keeping animals for food doesn't derive exclusively from our mere ability to do it.

Conversely "live and let live" suggests a moral framework where each species can and ought to live completely independent of one another. We agree it's morally desirable to invoke this policy where possible. But that doesn't imply it's always possible or always a moral absolute. If my living requires the use of other organisms -- which it does -- then I cannot simply let live. My living and its living are now practical opposites and therefore the maxim can't possibly be a moral absolute.

 

[Kumar]

Then where did all those dinosaurs go?

To hell or heaven.

 

[Kumar]

In Jurassic Park the children divide the dinosaurs into two categories: those that want to eat them (the carnivores) and those that don't (the herbivores). .

Yes.