Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja Feb 07, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

you wrote:

 

> Pointing out contradictions that you saw in my words is definitely not a

> proof of your point a). So if you do that, then you change the subject.

 

Your objection to our conclusion is self-contradictory, as explained.

 

If we are discussing a proposition and you claim it is false, or not proven,

yet in doing so agree with it in the English language, albeit accidentally,

then it is directly relevant to the debate to point this out.

 

You cannot keep telling me that pointing out your self-contradictions is a

waste of time since in the past this activity has forced you to re-word your

position. If I did not keep on doing this you would have stated positions in

this debate that are not what you really, really, really, meant. Therefore

you should be exceedingly grateful that I can be even bothered to keep

assisting you, who is after all an opponent, to make your position

consistent with what you really, really, really mean. But you are not

grateful at all are you:

 

> Anything else is a waste of time.

 

It’s one thing to have problems with English and keep contradicting

yourself. I can understand and forgive that. Though I have suggested you

brush up on your English as a remedy; advice you appear to have ignored. But

it is quite another thing to have the audacity, cheek and downright

ingratitude to keep on claiming that I am changing the subject and wasting

time when I point out your huge gaffes. Gaffes that are DIRECTLY relevant to

the subject of the debate.

 

It is not ‘changing the subject’ to point out that you have effectively

agreed with the proposition we are proposing. It’s very easy to keep saying

something is not proven, anyone can do that. A parrot could keep saying

that. But in saying that you are making a counter claim. You are claiming

our position is not proven. Therefore YOU are making a claim, like it or

not. Any claim requires the claimant to support his claim. I am not shifting

the burden by merely asking you to support your claim.

 

Just fact 1) supports a) and you agreed with it. I have shown how it

contained all the elements of a). If you cannot prove 1) wrong then you must

accept it as proven, or admit you just don't know.

 

In the end you can keep saying something is not proven, like a parrot, but

that is a statement that itself is a claim that must be proven.

 

If you cannot disprove point a) then as far as YOU are concerned it is

proven. Or you just don't know. That's fine, then bring on someone who does

know and can disprove point a). Why are you wasting our time claiming our

point is not proven if you cannot prove your position: that our position is

not proven?

 

If you are not claiming our position is false then just say so and we can

move back to point b). If you are claiming our position is false, then that

is a claim, and in that case you need to show how my 11 arguments do NOT

support the conclusion. If you are claiming it is not proven, then again

that is a claim, and you need to explain how 1-11 do NOT prove point a) to

be true. If you are totally neutral, like Switzerland, then you are not

really involved in a debate at all. But you cannot be neutral since you have

claimed Harikesha is your guru, and therefore you must accept all the GBC's

contradictory postions as YOUR position, which would certainly explain alot;

especially taken together with your problems with English.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu