Indian "Liberals" claiming to be Champions of Science

[Tibarn]

Gliberals will claim anything they want, hey think repeating nonsense until other people get tired of engaging them is scientific discourse. Our Indian ones are a special breed though, as surajmal said these people study topics like humanities or poetry and lecture other people on what is science. It's no wonder that teh INC still considers Socialism to be scientific and rational . 

 

 

 

 

The janitor appears to be spamming this thread with his usual BS(what's new? ), unfortunately clay tablets and links to obscure blogs don't count as science. Someone ask the clown to provide a reference to a scientific paper and he will run away faster than a speeding bullet.

 

Since he's too much of a coward to engage with me, someone else ask him for scientific evidence for any of the following:

 

A) Humans being blank slates at birth

 

B) Humans being polyandrous in terms of evolutionary history

 

C) Marriage is oppression of females and that females need to be sexually liberated

 

D) Divorce doesn't have negative consequences on children

 

E) Majority of criminals across the world are right wing religious goons 

 

Watch how he doesn't reference a single scientific journal or original research when asked for proof.

 

Warning: He may provide vague statements such as "the data is easily available", post to obscure blogs, or randomly start abusing you.   

 

___________ 

| Citation      | 

| Dikhao       |

| Gappu       |

| ＿＿＿＿＿|

(\__/) ||

(•ㅅ•) ||

/ 　 づ

 

 

[Muloghonto]

Kiddo runs away by putting me on his ignore list. Then contends I am too cowardly to address him. Typical illogic of chaddis. 

[jalebi_bhai]

17 hours ago, surajmal said:

Pretty pathetic of mods to not cleanup. What happened to swachch bharat pledges? 

Are you being deterred from bringing out your argumentative astras? 

 

Bhai, aapka thread hai, you want us to start policing here as well? Avoid out right abuse, that's all. Keep the toxicity below a certain threshold.

[Tibarn]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Kiddo runs away by putting me on his ignore list. Then contends I am too cowardly to address him. Typical illogic of chaddis. 

Bangladeshi thinks that I blocked his posts, I only ignored alerts when you mentioned me, you are way to needy for attention.  I've still seen your ridiculous posts   

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Tibarn said:

Bangladeshi thinks that I blocked his posts, I only ignored alerts when you mentioned me, you are way to needy for attention.  I've still seen your ridiculous posts   

Ok. Keep on running away then. Suffice to say, anyone who quotes a nobody like Sanjeev Sanyal, who spreads inaccuracies (such as Ashokan pillars were not in populated areas, despite them sitting literally on the same mound as ancient cities) over reputed historians because it suits their communal agenda, has no right to talk about history. 

[Tibarn]

Janitor saab is resorting to his typical diversionary tactics. He spends his entire day on ICF yet didn't know that putting someone on the ignore list doesn't mean that you don't see their posts, there are levels of what one can do on the ignore list: from blocking all a poster's content to simply ignoring when they mention you. 

 

As stated, he continues to avoid providing scientific evidence for anything. All he has to do is pick 1, I gave him 5 choices of claims he made.  

 

A) Humans being blank slates at birth

 

B) Humans being polyandrous in terms of evolutionary history

 

C) Marriage is oppression of females and that females need to be sexually liberated

 

D) Divorce doesn't have negative consequences on children

 

E) Majority of criminals across the world are right wing religious goons

 

, I'll be back in 7-10 hours.  Go ahead search google to your heart's content in that time, I'll be waiting. Time is ticking; get to work Janitor saab.  

[surajmal]

1 hour ago, jalebi_bhai said:

Are you being deterred from bringing out your argumentative astras? 

 

Bhai, aapka thread hai, you want us to start policing here as well? Avoid out right abuse, that's all. Keep the toxicity below a certain threshold.

So we are free to respond in kind using invectives against other posters? As a mod, you are actually advocating that? 

[jalebi_bhai]

1 hour ago, surajmal said:

So we are free to respond in kind using invectives against other posters? As a mod, you are actually advocating that? 

Invectives have been hurled from both sides in the thread. Except for your protests, no reports from anyone so far.

 

Besides, you started this thread with a gross generalization. If we were really in Swacch Bharat mode, it would've been instantly trashed. But we're fun loving people. 

 

As long as you're not abusive, personally or otherwise, you can give back in kind + interest.

[surajmal]

11 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

Invectives have been hurled from both sides in the thread. Except for your protests, no reports from anyone so far.

 

Besides, you started this thread with a gross generalization. If we were really in Swacch Bharat mode, it would've been instantly thrashed. But we're fun loving people. 

May be do your job and go through the thread. 

 

And here is your Mod bhai, who has trouble with banalities but you want me to engage with my "argumentative astras"?

 

 

And we never got to debate what is a gross generalization because Certain someone like always decided to turn the thread into Bongs' Waterloo. 

 

I don't have a problem with arguments but make sure to that your fellow Mods dont get their panties in a bunch.

 

Or don't. There is a reason, despite having such a large member base, this forum is found dead most of the time. 

Edited April 13, 2017 by surajmal

[BeautifulGame]

18 minutes ago, surajmal said:

May be do your job and go through the thread. 

 

And here is your Mod bhai, who has trouble with banalities but you want me to engage with my "argumentative astras"?

 

 

And we never got to debate what is a gross generalization because Certain someone like always decided to turn the thread into Bongs' Waterloo. 

 

I don't have a problem with arguments but make sure to that your fellow Mods dont get their panties in a bunch.

 

Or don't. There is a reason, despite having such a large member base, this forum is found dead most of the time. 

As I said if u have problem with moderation with the site you can take your rants to YouTube comments.

 

And your post was first edited because it was reported for racist comment by other users.

 

None of the mods have time to go through your pent up frustrated so called posts and edit or  delete them .This is a cricket forum first and foremost.

 

If u have a problem take a hike.And we know how much active this forum is.

Edited April 13, 2017 by BeautifulGame

[surajmal]

Its cute when someone gets drunk on "mod" power. 

 

[jalebi_bhai]

7 minutes ago, surajmal said:

May be do your job and go through the thread. 

Report what you've found objectionable. There are plenty of active threads on this site and we can't manually keep searching for stuff to delete

 

The website has a grievance redressal system, kindly use it. 

 

8 minutes ago, surajmal said:

And here is your Mod bhai, who has trouble with banalities but you want me to engage with my "argumentative astras"?

 

 

The reason being that the above mentioned grievance redressal system was used against you, about 4 times in that thread. 

 

25 minutes ago, surajmal said:

And we never got to debate what is a gross generalization because Certain someone like always decided to turn the thread into Bongs' Waterloo. 

That's because he loves you. 

 

25 minutes ago, surajmal said:

I don't have a problem with arguments but make sure to that your fellow Mods dont get their panties in a bunch.

 

Or don't. There is a reason, despite having such a large member base, this forum is found dead most of the time. 

Bhai, report karo. We'll take action. No one wants to police on this website out of choice.

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Janitor saab is resorting to his typical diversionary tactics. He spends his entire day on ICF yet didn't know that putting someone on the ignore list doesn't mean that you don't see their posts, there are levels of what one can do on the ignore list: from blocking all a poster's content to simply ignoring when they mention you. 

 

As stated, he continues to avoid providing scientific evidence for anything. All he has to do is pick 1, I gave him 5 choices of claims he made.  

 

A) Humans being blank slates at birth

 

B) Humans being polyandrous in terms of evolutionary history

 

C) Marriage is oppression of females and that females need to be sexually liberated

 

D) Divorce doesn't have negative consequences on children

 

E) Majority of criminals across the world are right wing religious goons

 

, I'll be back in 7-10 hours.  Go ahead search google to your heart's content in that time, I'll be waiting. Time is ticking; get to work Janitor saab.  

I've said it many times- unless you can present evidence to back up your claim, you won't get any from me. Show us evidence that divorce is bad for children if couples are still amicable after divorce. Show us evidence that proves humans were monogamous in evolutionary history. You cited an article that presented the sex ratio to be more or less the same. When i asked you what does sex ratio have to do with monogamy or polygamy, particularly when we have archeological evidence to suggest that polyandry was more prevalent 5000 years ago than now, you disappeared. 

 

Till you present evidence of such claims, you have no case. 

 

Also waiting for evidence from you that Jatts are historical people prior to near-modern history. Ie, show us any mention of Jatts by anyone prior to Timur. Just one example would do.

 

Also, i don't know how the ignore list works, because unlike thin-skinned Chaddis, i am not a hypocrite who picks and chooses convenient speech. I don't go clamouring to get people banned even when they base their entire perspective on stone-age men writing stuff my 13 year old daughter knows more about. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Tibarn]

 7 ghante ho gaya aur is darpook ko kuch nahi mila. Kya hua, phat gayi? Itna garmi thi vaat karta tha, ab poora nikal gaya?  Usne khud ko vaigyaanik socha tha aur itna bhi nahi kar sakta. Nautanki saala.  

 

Quote

Since he's too much of a coward to engage with me, someone else ask him for scientific evidence for any of the following:

 

 

Seriously, someone else ask him for evidence for one of those 5 claims, please he's too scared to engage me.

 

 

 

 

Anyway, on topic, I don't think "liberals" is as accurate as leftists. The two words have come to mean the same thing in both colloquial and professional English around the world, when the words are almost contradictory. To be left, one would have to accept a certain set of presumptions and stick to them regardless of counter-evidence. To be liberal one has to be willing to have their ideas and opinions change when evidence proves previous opinions/ideas wrong. That's why I like the word gliberal- meaning shallowly or superficially liberal. Most self-proclaimed liberals are actually left wing gliberals. They claim to be liberal because it's the cool thing to be wherever they live, ie voting for Obama because he was the cool Black dude, even though he was unqualified and there were a number of democrats who were far superior candidates when he was running. The darpook is a perfect example, he claims to be a liberal, yet clings to his unsubstantiated beliefs like an Islamist. He is scared of defending his beliefs when asked for evidence and tries to shift the burden of proof or shout down people with his ethnic bigotry. Gliberals and Islamists appear to be mirror images of each other in my opinion.      

 

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 7 ghante ho gaya aur is darpook ko kuch nahi mila. Kya hua, phat gayi? Itna garmi thi vaat karta tha, ab poora nikal gaya?  Usne khud ko vaigyaanik socha tha aur itna bhi nahi kar sakta. Nautanki saala.  

As someone who cannot tell the difference between qualified historian opinion vs no-name chaddi like Sanyal, has no business discussing authenticity. Go finish your education first and get some experience. 

 

Quote

The darpook is a perfect example, he claims to be a liberal, yet clings to his unsubstantiated beliefs like an Islamist. He is scared of defending his beliefs when asked for evidence and tries to shift the burden of proof or shout down people with his ethnic bigotry.

Substantiation has been provided. Too bad you are not educated enough to discern qualified opinion vs random crap. Which is why you listen to no-name Sanjeev Sanyal and his BS over that of qualified historians. Or how apparently archaeological proof is 'irrelevant' to history, despite the fact that the only empirical evidence for recordable history is from archaeology. 

Nobody has shifted burden of proof, what has been asked is reciprocity. You don't get to decide what is valid proof and what isn't without cogent substantiation. And when its your turn to present evidence asked, you go MIA.

Still waiting for proof that Jatts are a historical people going beyond 'near modern times'. Just one evidence of Jatts existing prior to 1000 AD will do- beyond of course, their make-believe folk tales.

 

PS: Also ironic that the strawman created by chaddis to trash liberals. The entire point of being liberal is to advocate change for the better. The entire point of being conservative is to maintain 'status quo antebellum'. 
This is why extreme liberals are 'change for sake of change' and extreme conservatives are 'what worked for stone-age men 2000 years ago is perfect and no need to change'. 

This is also why chaddis come up with disingenuous arguments such as 'liberalism is covert christianity to target the hindus/tribals'. Because it is designed to preserve their outdated value systems and books written by people who have < grade 7 education.

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Tibarn]

Uh-oh, someone's temperature is shooting up again.  Look at him avoid providing evidence. Now he is trying to change the topic of this thread to cover his behind. This guys seriously just conflated history with science.  

 

I still don't see the coward providing any scientific evidence.  I called it earlier in this thread. This clown is allergic to science. He hasn't provided one research journal article in a single thread I have seen, and he won't reproduce one now either.  His favorite scientific sources: WebMD and Sumerian clay tablets don't even qualify as Gray Literature. 

 

Come now, since you are an expert on everything, despite a lack of training in anything you vomit about across threads, please give some primary scientific literature to support your super intelligent claims. 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

59 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Uh-oh, someone's temperature is shooting up again.  Look at him avoid providing evidence. Now he is trying to change the topic of this thread to cover his behind. This guys seriously just conflated history with science.  

 

I still don't see the coward providing any scientific evidence.  I called it earlier in this thread. This clown is allergic to science. He hasn't provided one research journal article in a single thread I have seen, and he won't reproduce one now either.  His favorite scientific sources: WebMD and Sumerian clay tablets don't even qualify as Gray Literature. 

 

Come now, since you are an expert on everything, despite a lack of training in anything you vomit about across threads, please give some primary scientific literature to support your super intelligent claims. 

 

 

Ofcourse, clay tablets from 4000 years ago are not primary source of history. Someone who doesnt even understand what hierarchy of evidence is or that a nobody like Sanyal cannot contradict a historian, has no place to talk.

 

Not to mention, as i proved from YOUR OWN QUOTE, oral history is valid only when its first hand recollection. The only exceptions made are for liturgical texts like the Vedas or Vendidad because of the idea that religious texts have a strong reason to be unaltered. 

But what Jatt grannies tell the children about 'origin of the Jatts' is of no consequence. Just like how Pashtuns telling their kids that they all descend from one man who met Mohammed means nothing.

Still waiting for evidence that Jatts existed 2000 years ago. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Muloghonto

[The Outsider]

Haha! Hindutva psychopaths who vote for a guy saying plastic surgery and aviation was done in India 3000 years back are questioning liberals. 

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, The Outsider said:

Haha! Hindutva psychopaths who vote for a guy saying plastic surgery and aviation was done in India 3000 years back are questioning liberals. 

It is an affirmative about plastic surgery, as Rhinoplasty was invented in India and first mentioned in Charaka/Susruta samahita, both of which are originally dated to 300s-600s BC period.

 

[Silva]

On 4/12/2017 at 3:12 AM, Muloghonto said:

Suffice to say, i am yet to hear or read of a dumb person winning nobel prize in Academia. When the entire point of nobel in academia is to reward exceptional brilliance, the onus is on someone else claiming that the winner is a dumbass, to prove such a thing. 

Nobody asked you to agree with Sen's economic views. But nobel don't just get handed out as candy or on coin-toss in academia. 

 

technically Their is no such thing as a nobel prize in economics. The awards full name is the Swedish National Bank's Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. The nobel foundation doesn't have any thing to do with it.