5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo they are logically fallacious.
All correct arguments. Do you disagree with any of them? If so, explain why.
Do you have evidence that Ghost of duke did not consider the alternatives?
Do you have any evidence that I am interested in the original text?
Pointing out that others have considered no alternative perspective does not make one a rape apologist and its ludicrous to think that it does.
Ghost of a duke proffered no alternatives if you can cite any please do so now.
Whether you are interested or not in the original text is neither here not there because your non interest in the original text has no bearing on the points that I made.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut you are just ASSUMING the original text was quite different from the translations we saw here. What if the original was essentially identical to what we read now?
No they are logically fallacious.
Pointing out that others have considered no alternative perspective does not make one a rape apologist and its ludicrous to think that it does.
Ghost of a duke proffered no alternatives if you can cite any please do so now.
Whether you are interested or not in the original text is neither here not there because your non interest in the original text has no bearing on the points that I made.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot so long ago you spent dozens of forum pages, across more than one thread, refusing to accept that a man forcing his wife to have sex against her will is rape. You would not even come out and condemn men for doing it.
No they are logically fallacious.
Are you not a rape apologist? - pointing out that others have considered no alternative perspective does not make one a rape apologist and its ludicrous to think that it does.
ghost of a duke proffered no alternatives if you can cite any please do so now.
whether you are interested or not in the original text is ...[text shortened]... t there because your non interest in the original text has no bearing on the points that I made.
Originally posted by sonhouseNo I am not. What I have stated is that no one can know for sure because none of us can read Sanskrit so we have taken it upon trust. Also they may be interpolations. I have assumed nothing, they may be entirely original and accurately translated but again thats not my point, my point is that no one even considered it in their clamour to vilify Dasa.
But you are just ASSUMING the original text was quite different from the translations we saw here. What if the original was essentially identical to what we read now?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat do make of the text that Dasa himself chose to post on this thread? Did the translation that he chose to endorse describe rape?
No I am not. What I have stated is that no one can know for sure because none of us can read Sanskrit so we have taken it upon trust. Also they may be interpolations. I have assumed nothing, they may be entirely original and accurately translated but again thats not my point, my point is that no one even considered it in their clamour to vilify Dasa.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDid anyone claim that it did?
Pointing out that others have considered no alternative perspective does not make one a rape apologist and its ludicrous to think that it does.
Ghost of a duke proffered no alternatives if you can cite any please do so now.
Proffering alternatives is not a requirement for having considered alternatives.
Whether you are interested or not in the original text is neither here not there because your non interest in the original text has no bearing on the points that I made.
It has a bearing on your claim that I should have considered alternative translations.
So far you haven't shown anything logically fallacious.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow you are simply engaging in silly semantics. Oh well. No one considered any alternatives, as far as they were concerned the case was cut and dry. The Upanishad advocates rape and Dasa was scum (which may be the case but still its disappointing that not a single one took the time or made the effort so ardent were they in their clamour to simply condemn) Its as if its all they know. A very interesting phenomena indeed. I wonder why it occurs with such frequency?
Did anyone claim that it did?
[b]Ghost of a duke proffered no alternatives if you can cite any please do so now.
Proffering alternatives is not a requirement for having considered alternatives.
Whether you are interested or not in the original text is neither here not there because your non interest in the original text has no bearing on th ...[text shortened]... considered alternative translations.
So far you haven't shown anything logically fallacious.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRecently Dasa made one of his hate filled rants and all you were inspired to respond to was his 'hilarious' use of the word 'boof-head.'
Now you are simply engaging in silly semantics. Oh well. No one considered any alternatives, as far as they were concerned the case was cut and dry. The Upanishad advocates rape and Dasa was scum (which may be the case but still its disappointing that not a single one took the time or made the effort so ardent were they in their clamour to simply ...[text shortened]... ll they know. A very interesting phenomena indeed. I wonder why it occurs with such frequency?
And now here we are with Dasa's 'own version' of the Brhadārankyaka Upanishad giving the green light to rape and your only response is that we should seek context and allegory. (Which you apparently can not provide yourself).
I advised you previously not to hang yourself, but you seem strangely intent on fashioning enough rope to circumnavigate Freaky's flat Earth.
5 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf pitch fork and torches is your thing then so be it, but personally I prefer simply to understand. Condemning Dasa for his hatred has accomplished what may I enquire? Has it changed his perspective, made him more civil and understanding, more tolerant of others?
Recently Dasa made one of his hate filled rants and all you were inspired to respond to was his 'hilarious' use of the word 'boof-head.'
And now here we are with Dasa's 'own version' of the Brhadārankyaka Upanishad giving the green light to rape and your only response is that we should seek context and allegory. (Which you apparently can not provi ...[text shortened]... , but you seem strangely intent on fashioning enough rope to circumnavigate Freaky's flat Earth.
You appear to me to be like the wind and the rain competing to get a man to take off his jacket. I'll do it claims the wind, the cold wind blows and the man clinches his jacket even tighter! I'll do it say the rain, a torrent ensues and up go the man collars as he huddles deep beneath the jacket! Let me try says the sun and gentle rays of warmth eventually penetrate and induce the man to relieve himself of his outer apparel.
Your concern for my neck is admirable but I have no plans on ascending the gallows. What are you going to condemn me for? failure to wield my pitchfork and torch, how ironic dont you think 😀
Originally posted by Ghost of a Dukerobbie's stand-up "comedy"/"intellectual" routine is forever stuck in a pompous~ poisonous~ pretentious~ puerile vortex.
Recently Dasa made one of his hate filled rants and all you were inspired to respond to was his 'hilarious' use of the word 'boof-head.'
And now here we are with Dasa's 'own version' of the Brhadārankyaka Upanishad giving the green light to rape and your only response is that we should seek context and allegory. (Which you apparently can not provi ...[text shortened]... , but you seem strangely intent on fashioning enough rope to circumnavigate Freaky's flat Earth.