Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Nov 24, 2005:

 

Dear Ramakanta prabhu,

PAMHO, AGTSP,

 

The subject of illogical arguments arose since you keep falsely accusing me

of making them.

 

With regards your logical fallacy of challenging others to prove a negative

in your first defence you write:

 

Quote:

You quoted me as follows:

“On the other hand, you cannot provide any evidence that Srila Prabhupada

gave no-one the authorization to be diksa-guru. But still you claim that.”

(Ramakanta: Oct 27, 2005 - 04:11 PM)

 

This quote is taken out of context. It was my response to Mark who on Oct. 1

claimed, "No one within ISKCON has been authorised by Srila Prabhupada to

give diksa". And it was not a logical fallacy to state that Mark cannot

prove his claim.

 

 

No matter what Mark had said you were still challenging him to prove a

negative. You wrote:

 

“you cannot provide any evidence that Srila Prabhupada gave no-one the

authorization to be diksa-guru”.

 

You challenge him to provide evidence that something did NOT occur. This is

a logical fallacy. Even if you thought Mark's statement was unsupportable,

you will not prove that by making an illogical challenge yourself. If you

did this deliberately it would infact be yet another seperate logical

fallacy called: Tu Quoque. The best way to prove Mark wrong would be to show

positive proof where Srila Prabhupada HAD explicitly authorised someone to

replace him as the diksa guru for ISKCON. Something you have yet to do. With

regards these illogical challenging arguments you previously conceded:

 

“The arguments that you presented as my arguments by quoting my statements

out of context are indeed fallacious.”

 

The context does not make your challenge logical, it is still asking someone

to prove a negative, which is ‘indeed fallacious’. When you said with

regards the above:

 

“But they are not my arguments. Don't worry, when I present a statement, I

will confirm it by a positive proof.”

 

It gives the impression of there being two Ramakanta’s, an impression I’m

sure you would wish to avoid. If they were not arguments you would stand by

and defend with your very life and soul then making them might be seen as

insincere and time wasting. That is why I suggested you only make arguments

which you agree with and will defend, in other words YOUR arguments (or ones

you have adopted as yours).

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu