--------------------------------------------------------------------------- **** http://www.GOANET.org **** --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5th Annual Konkan Fruit Fest Promenade, D B Bandodkar Road, Panaji, Goa
16-18, May 2008 http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2008-May/073789.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sachin wrote: > >I do not have the time or the inclination to do the >statistics. > Despite admitting that he does not have the time and inclination to do the statistics, Sachin believes he is right when he claims that nude images of Hindu gods and goddesses are exceptionally rare. His latest response to my post is a collection of fallacious assumptions and erroneous conclusions, some of which are framed as rhetorical questions. I summarize the fallacies embodied in them below: Fallacy 1. Something that is not a main attraction has to be a rare exception. It cannot be a general rule. The fallacy in this is evident from the fact that every old Goan house, as a general rule, used to have a dhukrancho cumao or sondass (pig-powered outhouse) in the backyard, which never was the main attraction of any house. Fallacy 2. Something for which one has to look carefully cannot be fairly common. The fallacy in this is evident from the fact that old Goan houses fairly commonly used to have a maallo or an attic, which one had to look carefully to find. Fallacy 3. One can draw definite generalized conclusions supporting one's preconceived beliefs from seeing just the first few pictures from a websearch output of 294 pictures. The above fallacy is self-evident. Fallacy 4. One has to by necessity advocate the ban of any harmless legal activity that one does not prefer his relatives to engage in, and/or its converse. The fallacy in this is evident from the selfish and self-righteous absurdity it is, when any Hindu who does not want his relatives to eat beef, campaigns for the ban of the sale of beef and bovine meat products. Fallacy 5. One has to make decisions about restricting other people's rights by exaggerating, distorting and painting hypothetical scenarios involving one's own relatives. This fallacy is illustrated by the following statement of Sachin: "I would also presume that he would have no objection if anyone paints him and his family in an orgy scene." .......Sachin Phadte Cheers, Santosh --- Sachin Phadte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Does this not mean that the friezes are not part of > the main attraction in the temples? If so, then > should not one conclude that they are the exceptions > (and it would seem rare exceptions) than the rule? > > When one says 'fairly common', then how is it that > Santosh says one has to look for the friezes > carefully? >