Using Bharat over India

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, zen said:

Constitutionally, 

 

Ind since 1947, and Bharat since 1950

 

Historically, both names are ancient, i.e. Bharat Varsha for e.g. 

Except Bharat/Bharatvarsha are very rarely used in Indian use and never by Jains, Buddhists or most Hindu texts.

 

[zen]

1 hour ago, BeautifulGame said:

I prefer being called an Indian not a Bharathi.

 

Lot more cooler.

 

Many like to play Cowboys and Indians (the red ones) game, where they gain points for shooting the Indians

 

[Muloghonto]

the whole 'get rid of India, make it Bharat' is a known Pakistani psy-ops against India. It is well known overseas,that Pakistanis want to appropriate the term 'India' for themselves only, on a distorted view that what Alexander called India, was actually Pakistan. Or that India is about Indus valley only. 
to attack India as a name for us, is to de-legitimize our History. Don't fall for it.

 

[surajmal]

8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

the whole 'get rid of India, make it Bharat' is a known Pakistani psy-ops against India. It is well known overseas,that Pakistanis want to appropriate the term 'India' for themselves only, on a distorted view that what Alexander called India, was actually Pakistan. Or that India is about Indus valley only. 
to attack India as a name for us, is to de-legitimize our History. Don't fall for it.

 

[zen]

1 hour ago, someone said:

"Bharat" the name was mentioned enough in our history that it should have been the official name after our independence.

The country should have been officially called Bharat only (Bharat and Ind are both official names at the moment. Ind was adapted in 1947, while Bharat was added in 1950)

 

The name is a great representation of our culture, which is 1000s of years old 

 

Sanskrit, which has influenced languages such as English through the Germanic languages, originated in this land 

 

In a way, the name India highlights the country's obsession with anything phoren being automatically superior

 

Ind has been corrupted in such a manner that it would rather accept phoren rule / concepts / imports over one of its own. For e.g. for many, it is easier to promote English than Hindi  because it is easier to accept the triumph of an imported language over all than see one of our native languages be accepted widely over others. By accepting English, everyone loses. With Hindi, a native language wins 

 

What great future would such a country have?

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2017 by zen

[Tibarn]

33 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Looks like your 2-bit degree didnt teach you the definition of plagiarism. One cannot plagiarize an encyclopedia, moron, no more than one can 'plagiarize' a dictionary or a thesaurus. 

Uncle ji is triggered 

Uncle why don't you give a source to back up the claim that one can't plagiarize an encyclopedia. Hint hint: you won't find one. 

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page342054

Quote

In academic writing, it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source in your paper. It doesn't matter whether the source is a published author, another student, a Web site without clear authorship, a Web site that sells academic papers, or any other person: Taking credit for anyone else's work is stealing, and it is unacceptable in all academic situations, whether you do it intentionally or by accident.

The ease with which you can find information of all kinds on the Internet means that when you use online sources, you need to be extra vigilant about keeping track of where you are getting information and ideas, and about giving proper credit to the authors of the sources you use. If you cut and paste from an electronic document into your notes and forget to clearly label the document in your notes, or if you draw information from a series of Web sites without taking careful notes, you may end up taking credit for ideas that aren't yours, whether you mean to or not.

Don't worry, you can always say, "Harvard University is a Hindutva conspiracy/ RSS shaka"

 

36 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

And given that Hinduvta is nothing more than Islamification of Hinduism on Missionary principles, calling out hinduva revisionists who have no data is valid. 

Source for the bold Uncle.

 

Lol Uncle thinks middle eastern fairy tales like humans being blank slates is "scientific" and accuses others of being influenced by missionaries. Uncle I'm still waiting for that evidence you promised everyone that states blank-slate has scientific backing. 

 

20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

the whole 'get rid of India, make it Bharat' is a known Pakistani psy-ops against India. It is well known overseas,that Pakistanis want to appropriate the term 'India' for themselves only, on a distorted view that what Alexander called India, was actually Pakistan. Or that India is about Indus valley only. 
to attack India as a name for us, is to de-legitimize our History. Don't fall for it.

Pakistani Conspiracy!!! 

[Muloghonto]

9 minutes ago, surajmal said:

Your ignorance of history circles is showing.

 

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10828

https://www.quora.com/Was-ancient-India-located-in-present-day-Pakistan

http://pakhub.info/2009/mistaken-definition-of-ancient-india/

Oh that feeling when Sanghis and Pakistanis have the same idea....

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Tibarn said:

Uncle ji is triggered 

Uncle why don't you give a source to back up the claim that one can't plagiarize an encyclopedia. Hint hint: you won't find one. 

 

Why don't YOU prove how one can plagiarize a repository of knowledge.

Quote

 

Lol Uncle thinks middle eastern fairy tales like humans being blank slates is "scientific" and accuses others of being influenced by missionaries. Uncle I'm still waiting for that evidence you promised everyone that states blank-slate has scientific backing.

there is nothing middle-eastern or fairy-tale about humans being blank slates at birth regarding what we were talking about. 

 

Quote

Pakistani Conspiracy!!! 

Don't worry. Your Pakistani masters won't win by convincing you to ditch India and let them reclaim India.

But you've been played, like most ignoramus Hinduvtas get played by their gora/islami masters.

 

[Muloghonto]

Now watch all the sanghis run away at being exposed as tools of Pakistani. 

[Tibarn]

10 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10828

https://www.quora.com/Was-ancient-India-located-in-present-day-Pakistan

http://pakhub.info/2009/mistaken-definition-of-ancient-india/

Uncle just quoted quora, allempires, and a .info site as a source of history. That madrasa education showing. 

 

9 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Why don't YOU prove how one can plagiarize a repository of knowledge.

Bold: whenever our sad little Uncle ji gets caught with his pants down, he decides to shift the burden of proof. Standard gliberal operating procedure.  

 

Uncle didn't read the reference from Harvard University.  #LowIQKaSideEffects

Quote

In academic writing, it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source in your paper. It doesn't matter whether the source is a published author, another student, a Web site without clear authorship, a Web site that sells academic papers, or any other person: Taking credit for anyone else's work is stealing, and it is unacceptable in all academic situations, whether you do it intentionally or by accident.

The ease with which you can find information of all kinds on the Internet means that when you use online sources, you need to be extra vigilant about keeping track of where you are getting information and ideas, and about giving proper credit to the authors of the sources you use. If you cut and paste from an electronic document into your notes and forget to clearly label the document in your notes, or if you draw information from a series of Web sites without taking careful notes, you may end up taking credit for ideas that aren't yours, whether you mean to or not.

It's important to remember that every Web site is a document with an author, and therefore every Web site must be cited properly in your paper. For example, while it may seem obvious to you that an idea drawn from Professor Steven Pinker's book The Language Instinct should only appear in your paper if you include a clear citation, it might be less clear that information you glean about language acquisition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Web site warrants a similar citation. Even though the authorship of this encyclopedia entry is  less obvious than it might be if it were a print article (you need to scroll down the page to see the author's name, and if you don't do so you might mistakenly think an author isn't listed), you are still responsible for citing this material correctly. Similarly, if you consult a Web site that has no clear authorship, you are still responsible for citing it as a source for your paper. The kind of source you use, or the absence of an author linked to that source, does not change the fact that you always need to cite your sources (see Evaluating Web Sources).

While it may seem obvious that copying someone else's words verbatim and submitting them in a paper with your name on it is plagiarism, other types of plagiarism may be less familiar to you. These more subtle forms of plagiarism are actually more common, and you should make sure you understand all of them, as well as how to avoid them by conducting your research and writing carefully and responsibly.

Apparently Uncle struggles with bolded text and is too lazy to visit the link provided, so I provided some bolded+red text for him this time. I realize you have poor reading comprehension skills, but read the red text referring to an encyclopedia. 

 

Uncle ji is a Wikipedia plagiarist  

 

21 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

there is nothing middle-eastern or fairy-tale about humans being blank slates at birth regarding what we were talking about. 

Let me walk you through this Uncle 

 

1) I never said it had anything to do with the topic of this thread. 

Reading comprehension failure by Uncle.

 

2) You claim Hindutva is derived from Missionaries and Islamists.

Therefore uncle is saying: (a) that Hindutva is foreign influenced and (b) the foreign influence is negative as it derives from right-wing Christianity and Islam.  

 

3)Uncle ji is a self proclaimed liberal and left winger  (he is actually a left-gliberal as he refuses to accept data from peer-reviewed research journals and probably thinks they are Hindutva conspiracies as well, but that's besides the point )

Uncle himself admits that he is influenced by foreign ideology as Leftism and Liberalism, the kind Uncle believes in (He's a self-admitted supporter of Democrats in the US and Liberal Party of Canada), is derived from the 18th century Enlightenment in Europe. Europe is foreign to India.  Therefore we see that Uncle's own beliefs fall under criteria (a).

 

4) The Enlightenment is also influenced by right-wing Christianity/Islam

Two big ideas of the Enlightenment were the idea that humans are: 1) Tabula Rasa (blank-slates) by English philosopher John Locke; 2) Free-will, the concept humans have control over their actions, promoted in the Enlightenment by Immanuel Kant. 

Both these ideas are core principles of Middle-Eastern religion:

The ideas that people are blank slates and have free will in Middle-Eastern religion is important as humans are designed by Yaweh/Jesus/Allah as unique from other animals who act in a pre-programmed way. Humans are free to make choices. The most important choice is whether to believe in the One True God or not. Those ungrateful humans who reject the One True God are damned to eternal torture in hell where they will be burnt alive for all of eternity.  Those noble humans who accept the One True God get eternal life in heaven where they enjoy the fruits of their free decision for eternity.  Why are these ideas from right wing Christianity/Islam? Because the sum of scientific evidence from Evolutionary Psychology, Genetics, and Neurobiology all show otherwise. Humans are neither "blank-slates", nor is there any evidence for "free-will." Therefore your beliefs are derived from right-wing Christianity/Islam, fulfilling criteria (b). 

 

You claim that Hindutva is = (a)+ (b) (never mind that you still didn't give any source for this).

Your belief in left-liberalism is also = (a)+(b)

 

If Hindutva = bad because it = (a)+ (b)

then logically

left-liberalism also = bad because it = (a) + (b)  

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Don't worry. Your Pakistani masters won't win by convincing you to ditch India and let them reclaim India.

But you've been played, like most ignoramus Hinduvtas get played by their gora/islami masters.

1) Guy claims Aurangzeb was Indian, when Aurangzeb referred to himself as a Turk and discriminated against Indians regardless of religion.

 

2) Guy says he was thankful for the British invading and conquering India over the Marathas. 

 

Uncle who falls in categories 1) and 2) thereafter accuses others of having foreign masters 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

27 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Uncle just quoted quora, allempires, and a .info site as a source of history. That madrasa education showing. 

 

Learn to read, kiddo. I said that 'India = ancient Pakistan' is a position of Pakistanis. Not history. Hence I posted Pakistani site/history discussion to show that. Idiot.

 

 

Quote

Apparently Uncle struggles with bolded text and is too lazy to visit the link provided, so I provided some bolded+red text for him this time. I realize you have poor reading comprehension skills, but read the red text referring to an encyclopedia. 

 

Uncle ji is a Wikipedia plagiarist

So are you. Everything you say in every post without reference is also plagiarism. the standard you specified is for academic writing. this is not a academic peer-reviewed site, its a message board. Hence your charge of plagiarism is unfounded nonsense.

 

Quote

 

1) I never said it had anything to do with the topic of this thread. 

Reading comprehension failure by Uncle.

 

"What we were talking about"  is in reference to the post you asked for 'proof' in the first place'. Not this topic. As usual, your phateechar sifarishi degree credentials are showing. I already asked you for proof and you ran away, where i said i will not provide any proof till what i asked for is provided by you. You tucked tail and ran like a half-baked Sanghi propagandist you are. 

Quote

 

2) You claim Hindutva is derived from Missionaries and Islamists.

Therefore uncle is saying: (a) that Hindutva is foreign influenced and (b) the foreign influence is negative as it derives from right-wing Christianity and Islam.  

Erroneous conclusion. I said Hinduvta are copy-cats of missionaries and islamists. 

 

Quote

Two big ideas of the Enlightenment were the idea that humans are: 1) Tabula Rasa (blank-slates) by English philosopher John Locke; 2) Free-will, the concept humans have control over their actions, promoted in the Enlightenment by Immanuel Kant. 

Both these ideas are core principles of Middle-Eastern religion:

False. Both those concepts are also found in Greek philosophy long before rise of middle-eastern doctrines and not opposed in many Indic philosophies either. 

 

Quote

The most important choice is whether to believe in the One True God or not. Those ungrateful humans who reject the One True God are damned to eternal torture in hell where they will be burnt alive for all of eternity.  Those noble humans who accept the One True God get eternal life in heaven where they enjoy the fruits of their free decision for eternity.

 

Nothing more than Sanghi nonsense with zero evidence. 

 

Quote

 Because the sum of scientific evidence from Evolutionary Psychology, Genetics, and Neurobiology all show otherwise.

No such evidence has ever been presented or accepted by peer reviewed journals.

Quote

1) Guy claims Aurangzeb was Indian, when Aurangzeb referred to himself as a Turk and discriminated against Indians regardless of religion.

Don't care what Aurangzeb thought. He is genetically a product of turkic and Indian parentage. Hence he is Indian. 

You or I or anyone else cant change those facts.

 

Quote

 

2) Guy says he was thankful for the British invading and conquering India over the Marathas. 

 

Because the Brits were better for India than Marathas, who were nothing more than feudalistic, ignorant idiots who couldn't even master basic succession rules and governance.

 

You have foreign masters because you are doing foreign (our enemy Pakistan's) bidding by trying to de-couple India from Republic of India. Evidence of Pakistani position on India = ancient Pakistan has already been provided.

 

Edited June 24, 2017 by Muloghonto

[BeautifulGame]

Many like to play Cowboys and Indians (the red ones) game, where they gain points for shooting the Indians

 

 

We don't care what Americans do

[Tendu_10]

 

in Bharat we should use Bharat

 

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[Tendu_10]

like Japanese use Nippon themselves but outside world uses Japan that is fine.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

 

[PBN]

"India" is a big name brand throughout history.  no need to rebrand yourself and start all over again.  the fact that india kept its name after 1947 helps in its continuum.

[AmreekanDesi]

On 24 June 2017 at 11:39 PM, Muloghonto said:

the whole 'get rid of India, make it Bharat' is a known Pakistani psy-ops against India. It is well known overseas,that Pakistanis want to appropriate the term 'India' for themselves only, on a distorted view that what Alexander called India, was actually Pakistan. Or that India is about Indus valley only. 
to attack India as a name for us, is to de-legitimize our History. Don't fall for it.

 

This is some next level stuff!

 

you really do live in your own world. Props on being creative and original though!

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, AmreekanDesi said:

This is some next level stuff!

 

you really do live in your own world. Props on being creative and original though!

trust me, it is a reality in history circles : since late 90s/early 2000s, there is a small but vocal community of Pakistani 'scholars' and journalists who promote the idea that 'India' of Greco-Roman/Persian reference is to Pakistan region and hence, India is a name for Pakistan, not whole subcontinent. It is a ridiculous position but it exists- see for yourself in google. Not just some random message board stuff but actual publications spread this. Reality is, 'get rid of India as a name for Rep. of India' plays into their hands. 

 

Never forget, the fundamental narrative of our enemies about us : they 'live' for the lie that there is no 'Indian civilization', that south asian regions were sufficiently differentiated to constitute different civilizations with common religion- sort of like how Egypt was never 'Europe' despite being christian for 300 years, etc. Fundamental to their narrative is to potray 'India' as a regional name for Indus valley, not all of sub-continent. 

[Tibarn]

23 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Learn to read, kiddo. I said that 'India = ancient Pakistan' is a position of Pakistanis. Not history. Hence I posted Pakistani site/history discussion to show that. Idiot.

Uncle going full-on weasel mode 

Your earlier post below

Quote

the whole 'get rid of India, make it Bharat' is a known Pakistani psy-ops against India. It is well known overseas,that Pakistanis want to appropriate the term 'India' for themselves only, on a distorted view that what Alexander called India, was actually Pakistan. Or that India is about Indus valley only. 
to attack India as a name for us, is to de-legitimize our History. Don't fall for it.

 

If you claim that "make it Bharat" is psy-ops of Pakistan( ) to de-legitimize Indian history, you directly make the issue one of history.

 

Then you quote allempires, a .info website, and quora. 

 

By the way princess, you do realize anything that happened in the past counts as history right? For a self-styled historian, you sure are pretty ignorant of the meaning of the word. If Pakistanis, in the past, used "get rid of India, make it Bharat" as a" known Pakistani psy-ops", you require an actual reference for that. 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/history

Quote

1.

the branch of knowledge dealing with past events.

2.

a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to aparticular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as achronological account; chronicle:

a history of France; a medical history of the patient.

3.

the aggregate of past events.

 

I also love the links you provide. Pakistani psy-ops are done through little read forums like allempires.com with 1000 unique visitors/day and is a forum in English.  The ISI must be a bunch of morons to do psy-ops in English on a website probably few Indians even visit. Uncle just proved the ISI was a bunch of morons. Kya vaat hai, itna deshbhakti from Uncle is going to make me cry 

 

23 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

So are you. Everything you say in every post without reference is also plagiarism. the standard you specified is for academic writing. this is not a academic peer-reviewed site, its a message board. Hence your charge of plagiarism is unfounded nonsense.

Uncle going into full crazy mode now. This is like your favorite statement pasted below

Quote

 i can quote you legions of research papers from universities

Too bad you have never provided a research paper from a university on this site.  It's also funny that you tried to pass of webMD as a research paper. 

 

So your madrasa back in Dhaka didn't teach you what a peer-reviewed journal is and it didn't teach the definition of plagiarism either . You should ask for your money back.  Only someone of low IQ thinks plagiarism only applies to academic papers or that the reference I provided only applies to academic writing. Not that you know anything about that either. 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/plagiarism

Quote

1.

an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and  the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not creditingthe original author:

It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written byMontaigne.

Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft, borrowing, cribbing, passing off.

2.

a piece of writing or other work reflecting such unauthorized use orimitation:

“These two manuscripts are clearly plagiarisms,” the editor said,tossing them angrily on the floor.

Go ahead clown, show me where I plagiarized. I can show you where you plagiarized. 

Your post from this thread:

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/forums/topic/100339-ram-navami-triggers-a-saffron-surge-in-bengal/?page=2#comment-3412399

Quote

Thats coz Jats are not a historical people. They are originally pastoral people (cow-goat-camel herders) from Sindh & western Rajasthan region that spread after big chunks of Punjab and Haryana region was depopulated by Timur.  This is why we literally don't hear about Jats in history till like 300-400 years ago.  And this is why Jats are so varied- they took the customs and religion of the lands they went to. Thats why the Jats in haryana are hindu, Jats in Indian Punjab are Sikh and Jats in Pakistani punjab are muslims. You don't find Hindu Jats from Pakistan or Muslim Jats from Haryana very easily for this reason.

 

On 4/13/2017 at 2:16 PM, Tibarn said:

The wikipedia article on Jat history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jat_people#History

Quote

The Jats are a paradigmatic example of community- and identity-formation in early modern Indian subcontinent.^[17] "Jat" is an elastic label applied to a wide-ranging, traditionally non-elite,^[a] community which had its origins in pastoralism in the lower Indus valley of Sindh.^[17] At the time of Muhammad bin Qasim's conquest of Sind in the 8th century, Arab writers described agglomerations of Jats in the arid, the wet, and the mountainous regions of the conquered land.^[19] The new Islamic rulers, though professing a theologically egalitarian religion, did not alter either the non-elite status of Jats or the discriminatory practices against them that had been put in place in the long period of Hindu rule in Sind.^[20] Between the eleventh and the sixteenth centuries, Jat herders migrated up along the river valleys,^[21] into the Punjab,^[17] which had not been cultivated in the first millennium.^[22] Many took up tilling in regions such as Western Punjab, where the sakia (water wheel) had been recently introduced.^[17][23] By early Mughal times, in the Punjab, the term "Jat" had become loosely synonymous with "peasant",^[24] and some Jats had come to own land and exert local influence.^[17]

According to historians Catherine Asher and Cynthia Talbot,^[25]

The Jats also provide an important insight into how religious identities evolved during the precolonial era. Before they settled in the Punjab and other northern regions, the pastoralist Jats had little exposure to any of the mainstream religions. Only after they became more integrated into the agrarian world did the Jats adopt the dominant religion of the people in whose midst they dwelt.^[25]

With passage of time, in the western Punjab, the Jats became primarily Muslim, in the eastern Punjab, Sikh, and in the areas between Delhi Territory and Agra, primarily Hindu, their divisions by faith reflecting the geographical strengths of these religions.^[25] During the decline of Mughal rule in the early 18th century, the Indian subcontinent's hinterland dwellers, many of whom were armed and nomadic, increasingly interacted with settled townspeople and agriculturists. Many new rulers of the 18th century came from such martial and nomadic backgrounds. The effect of this interaction on India's social organization lasted well into the colonial period. During much of this time, non-elite tillers and pastoralists, such as the Jats or Ahirs, were part of a social spectrum that blended only indistinctly into the elite landowning classes at one end, and the menial or ritually polluting classes at the other.^[26] During the heyday of Mughal rule, Jats had recognized rights.

That would be textbook plagiarism. Passing off others knowledge as your own, without providing a reference. I know how important it is for you to keep up the facade on ICF that you are well versed in history, but sadly you are only an insecure clown.  For someone who claims to have a Masters Degree in Engineering, and claims to have done a Masters Thesis, your ignorance of the very basics of research such as what counts as a peer-reviewed source and plagiarism betray that either you are a liar, or that you have poor memory. 

 

Perchance was your western university named Trump University? I'm only asking because your posts on this forum mirror Trump:

"Everything I say is true, I don't need to provide evidence" and

"anyone who asks for proof or doesn't agree with me is a/an (insert insult here)."

 

Quote

 I already asked you for proof and you ran away, where i said i will not provide any proof till what i asked for is provided by you. You tucked tail and ran like a half-baked Sanghi propagandist you are.

Uncle ji living up to exactly what I said earlier in this thread

Quote

Bold: whenever our sad little Uncle ji gets caught with his pants down, he decides to shift the burden of proof.

What's the matter, Uncle? Did they not teach you that the one that makes a claim holds the burden of proof back in your Dhaka madrasa? 

 

I'll humor you: start a thread or pick 1 question which you hallucinated that I ran away from, also provide a link to the post where that occurred, thanks. I'll slap you around there/here as well. 

23 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

False. Both those concepts are also found in Greek philosophy long before rise of middle-eastern doctrines and not opposed in many Indic philosophies either.

Source uncle. Oh wait you won't provide it. 

 

Apparently you're too senile to even read the post you quote. I never said that those cultures invented the concept. I said those two ideas were a central part of Enlightenment philosophy.  

Me: "The sky is blue"

Uncle( who has difficulty with reading comprehension): "No you're wrong Sanghi, Grass is green." 

Poor guy can't even follow a stream of thought.  

 

Quote

Erroneous conclusion. I said Hinduvta are copy-cats of missionaries and islamists. 

Poor English skills once again on display by Uncle ji. 

Copycat

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/copycat?s=t

Quote

1. a person or thing that copies, imitates, mimics, or follows the lead of another, as a child who says or does exactly the same as another child.

2. imitating or repeating a recent, well-known occurrence:

3. to imitate or mimic:

4. to copy slavishly; reproduce:

Derived

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/derive

Quote

1. 1a :  to take, receive, or obtain especially from a specified source is said to derive its name from a Native American word meaning “wild onion”b chemistry :  to obtain (a chemical substance) actually or theoretically from a parent substance Petroleum is derived from coal tar.

2. 2:  infer, deduce what was derived from their observations

Let's see what type of mental gymnastics Uncle does to try and say that a copy of something can't be a derivative of something.   

 

I'm still waiting for proof that Hindutva = Missionary Christianity/Islamist Islam. 

Quote

Nothing more than Sanghi nonsense with zero evidence. 

Brilliant rebuttal. If only everyone were as intelligent as Uncle, we would still be chucking spears at large prey. 

 

Also

Spoiler

Hindutva conspiracy 

 

Quote

No such evidence has ever been presented or accepted by peer reviewed journals.

Guy thinks webMD is a valid scientific source, so it's no wonder he thinks it has never been presented in a peer-reviewed journal. 

Anyway, on to proof:

 

First, the 3 Laws of Behavioral Genetics, a free copy of a paper that states them 

http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/three_laws.pdf

Quote

1. First Law. All human behavioral traits are heritable.
2. Second Law. The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of genes.
3. Third Law. A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families.

Scientific Laws = Hindutva conspiracy 

 

A table from 

Journal: CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Vol 13 #4. 

Author: Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr.

Abstract:

Quote

ABSTRACT—There is now a large body of evidence that supports the conclusion that individual differences in most, if not all, reliably measured psychological traits, normal and abnormal, are substantively influenced by genetic factors. This fact has important implications for research and theory building in psychology, as evidence of genetic influence unleashes a cascade of questions regarding the sources of variance in such traits. A brief list of those questions is provided, and representative findings regarding genetic and environmental influences are presented for the domains of personality, intelligence, psychological interests, psychiatric illnesses, and social attitudes. These findings are consistent with those reported for the traits of other species and for many human physical traits, suggesting that they may represent a general biological phenomenon.

Table:

 

Journal: Nature Genetics

Author: Poldernman, et al 2015

Abstract

Quote

Despite a century of research on complex traits in humans, the relative importance and specific nature of the influences of genes and environment on human traits remain controversial. We report a meta-analysis of twin correlations and reported variance components for 17,804 traits from 2,748 publications including 14,558,903 partly dependent twin pairs, virtually all published twin studies of complex traits. Estimates of heritability cluster strongly within functional domains, and across all traits the reported heritability is 49%. For a majority (69%) of traits, the observed twin correlations are consistent with a simple and parsimonious model where twin resemblance is solely due to additive genetic variation. The data are inconsistent with substantial influences from shared environment or non-additive genetic variation. This study provides the most comprehensive analysis of the causes of individual differences in human traits thus far and will guide future gene-mapping efforts. 

Excerpt

Quote

We have conducted a meta-analysis of virtually all twin studies published in the past 50 years, on a wide range of traits and reporting on more than 14 million twin pairs across 39 different countries. Our results provide compelling evidence that all human traits are heritable: not one trait had a weighted heritability estimate of zero.

Table:

The heritability estimate is given under “h²” . (The “c²” is shared environment).

That takes care of tabula rasa nonsense.

 

Now free-will:

Journal: Annual Review of Psychology

Author: Soon, et al

Abstract: 

Quote

Abstract

Abstract

Everyday intuitions suggest full conscious control of behavior, but evidence of unconscious causation and automaticity has sustained the contrary view that conscious thought has little or no impact on behavior. We review studies with random assignment to experimental manipulations of conscious thought and behavioral dependent measures. Topics include mental practice and simulation, anticipation, planning, reflection and rehearsal, reasoning, counterproductive effects, perspective taking, self-affirmation, framing, communication, and overriding automatic responses. The evidence for conscious causation of behavior is profound, extensive, adaptive, multifaceted, and empirically strong. However, conscious causation is often indirect and delayed, and it depends on interplay with unconscious processes. Consciousness seems especially useful for enabling behavior to be shaped by nonpresent factors and by social and cultural information, as well as for dealing with multiple competing options or impulses. It is plausible that almost every human behavior comes from a mixture of conscious and unconscious processing.

 

Quote

Because the Brits were better for India than Marathas, who were nothing more than feudalistic, ignorant idiots who couldn't even master basic succession rules and governance.

 

You have foreign masters because you are doing foreign (our enemy Pakistan's) bidding by trying to de-couple India from Republic of India. Evidence of Pakistani position on India = ancient Pakistan has already been provided.

Bold: source thanks. 

 

Red: As shameless as ever. Allempires.com. 

 

The sum of your posts are Hindutva conspiracy, Sanghi conspiracy, and now Pakistani Psy-ops. Literally everything is a conspiracy with you 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

Uncle going full-on weasel mode 

Your earlier post below

 

If you claim that "make it Bharat" is psy-ops of Pakistan( ) to de-legitimize Indian history, you directly make the issue one of history.

 

Then you quote allempires, a .info website, and quora. 

 

By the way princess, you do realize anything that happened in the past counts as history right? For a self-styled historian, you sure are pretty ignorant of the meaning of the word. If Pakistanis, in the past, used "get rid of India, make it Bharat" as a" known Pakistani psy-ops", you require an actual reference for that. 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/history

 

Again, moronic comment because of being caught with pants down. Admit it- you know * all about history that isn't wiki and have no idea how various groups of people start fringe ideas/theories/movements due to political/religious agenda. No shame in admitting you don't know anything about developments of a field you know nothing of.

 

I never said the Pakistani have a solid case- i said they are claiming such and i presented evidence of such. Fools like you now want to say Pakistani challenge is irrelevant because its wrong, totally ignoring the fact that to common man, history is about half-truths that proliferate just as much as facts, which is why you have crackpots like Ram Janmabhumi = 50,000 years ago kind from our end as well. 

You are playing into the hands of the same crackpots who deny India = all of subcontinent by arguing we should give up our most world-wide well known brand-name (India). Just because you are an inferiority-complex hindu who chafes at the fact that your hindu culture is not the global dominant one.

 

Quote

Uncle going into full crazy mode now. This is like your favorite statement pasted below

Likewise kiddo, you refuse to provide what is asked, post a flood of nonsense you cherry pick and then pretend you've given evidence- ignoring all the time you've supplied jack $hit for what was asked.

 

So i will demonstrate and ask you one more time and watch you run away:

demonstrate to us evidence that you can conclude about monogamy/polygamy on species homo sapiens on the basis of genetic/microbiology analysis. Show us which paper establishes emphatically that i can conclude based on genetic analysis how many sexual partners your mom and dad has had, by analyzing YOUR genes. 

 

this is what you've run away multiple times in the past and will run away from again.

 

Quote

Scientific Laws = Hindutva conspiracy 

Red Herring nonsense. NObody denied genetic determinism or difference. People have questioned your idiotic assessment that human choices about social norms is 'intrinsic'. Still zero evidence on your nonsense. 

 

Quote

 If only everyone were as intelligent as Uncle, we would still be chucking spears at large prey.

 the reason your ancestors and mine for a long time amounted to big fat zero in face of muslims is because they, like you, rejected anything non-Indian on racist basis instead of merit of idea. Hence you use 'this is western nonsense' as a response. 

 

Quote

 

I'm still waiting for proof that Hindutva = Missionary Christianity/Islamist Islam.

As soon as you provide scientific proof that there is a western conspiracy against Indian culture, i will use the same methods as your idiotic self to provide proof of what you ask.

 

Quote

 

The sum of your posts are Hindutva conspiracy, Sanghi conspiracy, and now Pakistani Psy-ops. Literally everything is a conspiracy with you

I believe in far less conspiracy nonsense than you do, which is why i don't see 'western conspiracy/islamist conspiracy' as knee-jerk justification for hindu idiocy like you do. Convinient how you ignored the actual Pakistani website i cited as evidence of trying to de-couple India from Rep. of India, which aligns well with idiotic sanghi ideas about India. 

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Tibarn]

All of the Ghanta''s posts are a Hindoo(Baniya variety)-Yahoodi conspiracy and part of CIA psy-ops to drive a wedge between India and Pakistan.

 

Evidence :

 

Star of David + Trishul + Saffron + English + Internet(Amreekan invention) = Hindoo-Yahoodi-Amreekan conspiracy.