Even if Linux were not subject to a license, a person claiming to have invented an operating system who in reality simply forked Linux without giving appropriate credit would be considered a plagiarist.
And to expect a sagacious progenitor of a millennia-old practice like Pranayama to have considered modern-day legal protections is absurd.
Yes, reductio ad absurdum was the point.
> Even if Linux were not subject to a license, a person claiming to have invented an operating system who in reality simply forked Linux without giving appropriate credit would be considered a plagiarist.
To consider "modern-day legal protections is absurd" but forking an operating system is what? I'd go for special pleading.
But to the point. Plagiarism is important in academic circles, it is not for breathing techniques, whether given by yogis or not. *Please show me why Patanjali would care, if he would not then why should anyone else?*
If you copy your colleague's work at your FAANG job and claim it as your own, you will be in trouble.
If a contemporary politician claims he has come up with this novel idea where decisions can be made with "majority vote", he will be mocked out of the room.
And so on.
Please show me how it would be important to Patanjali, or even how it will reduce the good the techniques bring, how it will negatively impacted yoga teachers, or something other than FAANG jobs, politicians and academia that simply aren't relevant to this discussion.
> I'm not sure why you keep focusing on PatanjalI
He’s the one whose techniques are (allegedly) being plagiarised, it’s abundantly clear to anyone who’s not busy trying to avoid the central point and instead engaging in ad hominem.
> But the people from his culture and civilization who ARE alive today do not want to see his works (some who consider it sacred) associated with "beer" or "goats" or commercialized without proper credit and respect, and it is important to them
Why do they care more than Patanjali? Why does being Indian matter when yoga is implicitly non-national? Nationalism, a disease which India currently appears riddled with, is a specious line of reasoning. Does the average Indian get more claim over yogic techniques than those of other nationalities who actually practice them? Ridiculous. They’re an idea anyway, even if they were “invented” today they couldn’t be copyrighted.
This whole line of argument is absurd, and I might be in a better mood to entertain them if you cut out the ad hominem, but I doubt it.
I believe so yes. Not sure what you mean by “actually” practice but I assure you many many people in india practice it.
> He’s the one whose techniques are (allegedly) being plagiarised, it’s abundantly clear to anyone who’s not busy trying to avoid the central point and instead engaging in ad hominem.
I don’t think I ever mentioned plagiarism, you probably have me confused with someone else.
> Why do they care more than Patanjali? Why does being Indian matter when yoga is implicitly non-national? Nationalism, a disease which India currently appears riddled with, is a specious line of reasoning.
The fact that you’re even asking this question tells me more about your unchecked privilege than anything else. And re nationalism: no thanks we don’t need outsiders telling us what we should be thinking, we had 2 centuries of that, don’t care for it much.
> This whole line of argument is absurd, and I might be in a better mood to entertain them if you cut out the ad hominem, but I doubt it.
Sounds good, I wish you well.
> I believe so yes.
Should I wait for some reasoning to back that up or do I have to ask? If I ask will I get an answer?
> Not sure what you mean by “actually” practice
People who practice it versus people who don't, like the average Indian.
> but I assure you many many people in india practice it.
Many people who are not Indian practise yoga - why does the average Indian have more claim to it than these people? Would Patanjali think they do?
> I don’t think I ever mentioned plagiarism, you probably have me confused with someone else.
This is the thread you're on[1], do you have it confused with another?
> The fact that you’re even asking this question tells me more about your unchecked privilege than anything else.
Again, no answer, just ad hominem. Why do they care more than Patanjali?
> And re nationalism: no thanks we don’t need outsiders telling us what we should be thinking, we had 2 centuries of that, don’t care for it much.
Poe's Law comes to mind.
> Should I wait for some reasoning to back that up or do I have to ask? If I ask will I get an answer?
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. It would seem that your claim that such a notion is "ridiculous" is on much more shakier ground than mine. I don't see you presenting any reasoning as to why you believe this is "ridiculous". You certainly feel so, but there's nothing special or important about your feelings on the matter.
> People who practice it versus people who don't, like the average Indian.
Not sure what relevance this has to the matter, but ok thanks for the clarification.
> Many people who are not Indian practise yoga - why does the average Indian have more claim to it than these people? Would Patanjali think they do?
See above.
> Again, no answer, just ad hominem.
No ad hominem, just an observation. I keep saying that there are people who sometimes dislike the co-opting and whitewashing/rebranding of Yoga (see the linked article). 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. BTW on the topic of ad hominem, you're the one who seemed close to accusing me of rabid "nationalism", perhaps not those exact words but you and I both know exactly what you mean.
> Why do they care more than Patanjali?
Why not?
> 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.
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.
(Whatever appropriated means)
/s
If Jeff Bezos says he has invented a new operating system and upon a little digging it is discovered that he just tweaked and renamed Linux, then he should and will be called out, and it will hurt his reputation.
The problem is not with using knowledge to your benefit, that is why it is there. The problem is with plagiarism, misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty.