The Inconstant Gardener

Originally posted by twhitehead
But it is your claim that the plants themselves whether real plants or us in the analogy SHOULD NOT care about being killed. I want to know why you come to that conclusion.

Originally posted by divegeester
No. What you jumped on me about was my post on page which does not say that.

Posted by divegester on page one:

So let's not get upset when he digs over a flowerbed, re-turfs the lawn or completely landscapes the entire project.

It quite clearly DOES say that.

Let me give another analogy. Suppose we were living in Biblical times and nobody cared if you beat your slave. Your statement is equivalent to saying: "Well if you are a slave, don't be upset when you get beaten".
You later tried to claim that the two are equivalent ie that noting the difference between:
a) Nobody cares if you beat your slave.
b) Slaves shouldn't be upset if they get beaten
is being a pedantic ass.

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, fair enough. It wasn't intended as an insult as such but rather pointing out your general behaviour is similar to Freakys and Sonships. You just cannot admit when you are wrong and will say the most ridiculous things to avoid doing so.

There you go again. My "general behaviour" is absolutely nothing like them at all, neither are my beliefs and it is an insult to say that to me. It is frankly a lie or at the very least a misrepresentation of my forum persona to say so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Posted by divegester on page one:

So let's not get upset when he digs over a flowerbed, re-turfs the lawn or completely landscapes the entire project.

It quite clearly DOES say that.

Let me give another analogy. Suppose we were living in Biblical times and nobody cared if you beat your slave. Your statement is equivalent to saying: " ...[text shortened]... you beat your slave.
b) Slaves shouldn't be upset if they get beaten
is being a pedantic ass.

I don't get it. I honestly do not get what you going on about.

What has a slave who is a human being got to do with an analogy about plants? The idea in the OP is that we are not animal we are vegetable. Slaves are animal.

Originally posted by divegeester
The idea in the OP is that we are not animal we are vegetable. Slaves are animal.

What do you believe the difference is between animal and vegetable. I strongly suspect that the whole misunderstanding in this thread is because you are making assumptions about plants that you think everyone else shares but they do not. The problem is you keep just repeating the claim rather than explaining it despite my repeatedly pointing out that it is not obvious as you assume.

If the analogy in the OP was that we were the cattle of some farmer would you similarly have said:
"Then we shouldn't get upset when the farmer decides to slaughter us for beef and leather".
or would there be a difference if the analogy was about animals?

Originally posted by divegeester
There you go again. My "general behaviour" is absolutely nothing like them at all, neither are my beliefs and it is an insult to say that to me. It is frankly a lie or at the very least a misrepresentation of my forum persona to say so.

We have been in several very lengthy threads where you refused to admit you were wrong even when it was patently obvious to everyone that you were, and you just got more and more ridiculous as it went on. (you are doing the same in this thread).
Both Freaky and sonship do the same sort of thing, the most laughable example was Freaky trying to defend being a flat earther.

Originally posted by divegeester
There you go again. My "general behaviour" is absolutely nothing like them at all,

I must note that you too have been making unfounded claims about my general behaviour:

I was expecting you to take this tact; you like to slip a little jab in, wait for a response in kind and then claim you have been insulted.

Your angry tub-thumping demands and cutting little jabs let down your facade of intellectual calmness twhitehead.

That second one is hilarious. You imagine I have a "facade of intellectual calmness" and then imagine it is being 'let down'. You have put me on a pedestal of your own making and are upset that I am not living up to it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We have been in several very lengthy threads where you refused to admit you were wrong even when it was patently obvious to everyone that you were, and you just got more and more ridiculous as it went on. (you are doing the same in this thread).
Both Freaky and sonship do the same sort of thing, the most laughable example was Freaky trying to defend being a flat earther.

When you same I'm "wrong", what exactly am I "wrong" about? When you say "everyone" do you mean you and googlefudge or are you speaking on behalf of the entire forum?

We have been in several [actually not] very lengthy threads where we end up bickering because you insist you are right, as you always do, yet fail to effectively explain why you are "right" and I am "wrong" ... and you become snide and insulting. I respond in kind and we get nowhere. Your continuing to lump me in with sonship and Freaky is just you being snide again, trying to - how did you put it - "wind me up".

So, while we on the subject of categorising each other: I find you to be snide, pedantic, humorless and introspective. Your conversation lacks dynamism and imagination and you don't even know when you are being funny; I have to point it out to you, as I did recently when you genuinely had me laughing out loud about something you posted. Talking to you is like having a conversation with a calculator. I bet you're fun at parties!

By the way we will get back to your imaginary sentient hydrangeas at some point...

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have put me on a pedestal of your own making and are upset that I am not living up to it.

Sure, I really look up to you 🙄

Originally posted by divegeester
When you same I'm "wrong", what exactly am I "wrong" about? When you say "everyone" do you mean you and googlefudge or are you speaking on behalf of the entire forum?

In the threads in question, not a single person spoke up in your support, and several other posters besides me said you were in the wrong.

Originally posted by divegeester
By the way we will get back to your imaginary sentient hydrangeas at some point...

I do hope so, as this is starting to look like you attempting to side track the thread.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In the threads in question, not a single person spoke up in your support, and several other posters besides me said you were in the wrong.

Yourself and googlefudge is hardly even "several" let alone "everyone".

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do hope so, as this is starting to look like you attempting to side track the thread.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not have hydrangeas, but if I did, and chose to kill them all, I imagine they could get upset. Very upset.

I think herein may lie one source of our disagreement. My initial comment, and subsequent comment about "carrot genocide" [keep_straight_face] are based on plants not being able to get "upset" so what we do with them doesn't matter, to most people. You seem to think they can, or are at least you are posting within a metaphorical model where they can.

Originally posted by divegeester
Yourself and googlefudge is hardly even "several" let alone "everyone".

In the thread I recall, there were more than just me and googlefudge. You are free to look it up and prove me wrong. You are also free to try and find an independent party for this thread that thinks you are making sense and not just question dodging. I would be more than happy to hear an explanation from someone else because it is becoming patently obvious that no explanation will be forthcoming from you.

Its obvious that you thought it was a clever comeback to the OP but realized your error when I questioned it, but you are incapable of admitting it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In the thread I recall, there were more than just me and googlefudge. You are free to look it up and prove me wrong. You are also free to try and find an independent party for this thread that thinks you are making sense and not just question dodging. I would be more than happy to hear an explanation from someone else because it is becoming patently obvio ...[text shortened]... k to the OP but realized your error when I questioned it, but you are incapable of admitting it.

Dive posted:

"So let's not get upset when he digs over a flowerbed, re-turfs the lawn or completely landscapes the entire project."

I thought at the time, and still do, that this was a pretty good comeback on a number of levels. (One of the 2 thumbs up was from me). Firstly, if God was simply a gardener and we his plants, it would indeed be nonsensical for us to object to being treated as such. (Uprooted with indifference to love or justice). - I also took Dive's meaning to be a 'Christian poke' at my reasoning, demonstrating the loving God of the Bible had to be more than an indifferent gardener and that humans meant more to him than a disposable tulip.

I hope, as thread creator and atheist, i am a sufficiently independent party?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Firstly, if God was simply a gardener and we his plants, it would indeed be nonsensical for us to object to being treated as such. (Uprooted with indifference to love or justice).

Why should we not be upset?
To give another analogy, when a farmer kills one of his livestock for meat, do you believe:
a) it is not upset.
b) it shouldn't be upset.
c) it could be upset but shouldn't be.

Are you possibly saying that although we might not like dying, we should be understanding of the gardeners desires? Or are you saying we are simply helpless to do anything about it?

I hope, as thread creator and atheist, i am a sufficiently independent party?
You most definitely qualify. I still don't understand why we should not be upset so I hope you are better at explaining than div, who just kept repeating it or using various question dodging tactics.