Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

Currently we are not discussing whether Srila Prabhupada was the sole diksa

guru for ISKCON or not (the status quo). We are discussing your point a) (an

activity):

 

"Srila Prabhupada set himself up, deliberately, in the position of the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966."

 

There is no use of discussing this unless you confirm that I correctly

understood it, or you correct my understanding. So please tell me if

following is correct:

 

This describes an activity done by Srila Prabhupada that started earliest on

Jan 1, 1966 and ended latest on Dec 31, 1966. Before this activity started,

Srila Prabhupada was not the sole diksa guru for ISKCON. And after it ended,

he was.

 

As you confirmed, Srila Prabhupada did everything deliberately. Therefore it

was not required to say that he set himself up deliberately. Still you wrote

"deliberately" and even emphasized it by inserting commas. Therefore

"deliberately" can only refer to "in the position of the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON".

 

 

> You have already agreed with the facts given in 1-11.

>

> > I agree with the facts you listed.

 

Please quote my whole statement: "I agree with the facts you listed except

'of his own volition'. But your conclusion from these facts is unproven."

 

 

> Therefore you have simply:

> ...

> Provided no evidence that disproves my conclusion drawn from those very

> facts.

 

This is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Like for

example: "The streets are wet. Therefore I concluded that it rained. You

have provided no evidence that disproves my conclusion drawn from this very

fact."

 

 

> I have never said that showing you contradict yourself, or showing you

> agreeing with us, proves we are right.

 

What about the third logical fallacy that I have listed:

"If A, then B. B. Therefore, A."

 

Just replace A with your point a) and B with your 11 points, and see what

you get.

 

 

> Is there not somebody you trust who can explain the rudiments of debate to

> you?

 

I would be careful posting such statements because if I win the debate, you

will be known as the person who has been defeated by a fool.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa