> The Yogic practices originated in the Indian subcontinent, so yes the people who identify themselves with the same civilization and culture as the person(s) who originated these practices do have a larger claim as to how these practices are presented, taught and understood.
Why did Patanjali not mention that Indians have more claim over his techniques than humanity? Why do those who, on average, do not engage with his ideas think they have more claim on them? Are you going to claim there is an innate link between ideas, ancestry and where one is born? Ridiculous.
> I don't see you presenting any reasoning as to why you believe this is "ridiculous"
Because I assumed that relating the ownership of an idea to its geography when it is explicitly taught to be applied to any human, and moreover, that ownership to those who were born later on the same land but probably aren't using the idea, to be obviously ridiculous but I didn't take into account that you'd be a nationalist.
> See above.
You didn't answer above.
> No ad hominem, just an observation.
Ad hominem is a fallacy of relevance where the one committing the fallacy avoids addressing the substantial point with observations about their opponent in the debate.
> You keep insisting that it's not a problem and that I should just not care. It's again hard to attribute good intent here.
Again, ad hominem. What is the bad intent? What would be bad faith? You're yet to provide a reason why this plagiarism - that you didn't bring up but waded in to - is a problem other than someone taking offence over something that isn't theirs and that they probably don't do.
> > Why do they care more than Patanjali?
> Why not?
See above.
> > Poe's Law comes to mind.
> Randomly throwing the names of rhetorical devices or "laws" in a conversation does not make your argument any stronger FYI.
It wasn't part of my argument, it was an observation, though not ad hominem as I didn't avoid the point.
Why did Patanjali not mention that Indians have more claim over his techniques than humanity? Why do those who, on average, do not engage with his ideas think they have more claim on them? Are you going to claim there is an innate link between ideas, ancestry and where one is born? Ridiculous.
> I don't see you presenting any reasoning as to why you believe this is "ridiculous"
Because I assumed that relating the ownership of an idea to its geography when it is explicitly taught to be applied to any human, and moreover, that ownership to those who were born later on the same land but probably aren't using the idea, to be obviously ridiculous but I didn't take into account that you'd be a nationalist.
> See above.
You didn't answer above.
> No ad hominem, just an observation.
Ad hominem is a fallacy of relevance where the one committing the fallacy avoids addressing the substantial point with observations about their opponent in the debate.
> You keep insisting that it's not a problem and that I should just not care. It's again hard to attribute good intent here.
Again, ad hominem. What is the bad intent? What would be bad faith? You're yet to provide a reason why this plagiarism - that you didn't bring up but waded in to - is a problem other than someone taking offence over something that isn't theirs and that they probably don't do.
> > Why do they care more than Patanjali?
> Why not?
See above.
> > Poe's Law comes to mind.
> Randomly throwing the names of rhetorical devices or "laws" in a conversation does not make your argument any stronger FYI.
It wasn't part of my argument, it was an observation, though not ad hominem as I didn't avoid the point.