Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Texan

West Bengal Government banned Durga Puja immersion on Muharram Day

Recommended Posts

Look how the High Court censured them:

 

http://www.ndtv.com/kolkata-news/dont-create-line-between-hindus-and-muslims-high-court-tells-bengal-government-1752978?pfrom=home-lateststories

 

Must be a very secular Government that bans its Hindu citizens from practicing their religion in order to facilitate Muslims to practice their religion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame Bengali Hindus. TMC swept the civic polls here last month by an overwhelming margin(241 out of 248 I guess). In the Asansol belt they won all seats and that belt has 90% Hindu pop. May be Bengali Hindus like Mamata and don't mind being treated as 2nd class citizens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gollum said:

Blame Bengali Hindus. TMC swept the civic polls here last month by an overwhelming margin(241 out of 248 I guess). In the Asansol belt they won all seats and that belt has 90% Hindu pop. May be Bengali Hindus like Mamata and don't mind being treated as 2nd class citizens. 

May be we are missing something that Bengali hindus are not. Its always better to look at root cause...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will not succumb to conspiracy: Mamata on Calcutta HC setting aside govt order on Durga idol immersion

 

http://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/durga-idol-immersion-row-will-not-succumb-to-conspiracy-mamata-on-calcutta-hc-order/story-VXySyKuWt3Z80vEW16vQgO.html

 

If there is violence I will not be responsible: Mamata Didi :facepalm:

One messed up state I will give you that. Brace for riots in Bengal next month folks !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, veer said:

May be we are missing something that Bengali hindus are not. Its always better to look at root cause...

I am from Bengal. And no we are missing nothing. The place is celebration of poverty. But hey, if its secular,poverty can be dealt with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, ravishingravi said:

I am from Bengal. And no we are missing nothing. The place is celebration of poverty. But hey, if its secular,poverty can be dealt with. 

I have a general understanding that Bengolis are most literate ppl of India... What happened to that? May be they just became too liberals...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, veer said:

I have a general understanding that Bengolis are most literate ppl of India... What happened to that? May be they just became too liberals...

We confuse literate with critical and clear thinker. As we have seen before, even on this forum, literacy doesn't mean a thing. In fact, too much literacy makes people more fundamentalist at times.

 

In WB, they are stuck in post independence era where a city is still living in some past glory while state is struggling in poverty. People love the stagnancy. Without the growth, cost of living has also not increased. All their aggression is in beating the indefensible. Good luck RSS, if they are trying to polarize. Mamta is not going anywhere for next 25 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those who criticize BJP for every damn thing under the sun would they prefer living in a state like Gujarat which BJP has ruled for over 2 decades or Bengal where CPM-TMC have ruled for almost half a century? I mean isn't it freaking obvious who should rule the country? For all its faults and shortcomings (and there are quite a few) BJP is still the best bet to somewhat put this country in the right path. Congress has been given enough chances, they were good in the initial stages and had spurts of brilliance in the middle(eg PVNR) but absolutely dreadful since the Italian took charge. Regional parties, the less said about them the better. Apart from Naveen Patnaik, Naidu, late Jayalalitha and Manik Sarkar(even though he is a communist) other regional bosses don't have the nationalistic spirit we require in our leaders. BJP should be given 25 years to rule by the public, if they succeed well and good, if not we are doomed...there is no viable alternative in Indian politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to save Bengal is to somehow get rid of Mamata. CPM is too weak, Congress has influence only in Malda and Murshidabad  but BJP is emerging fast. Many CPM and Congress Hindu members have seen the light and are shifting to BJP. BJP will get stronger but can never dislodge TMC as long as Mamata is there because of the sagacity of the Bengalis (plus booth capturing skills, gundagiri, bombs etc by certain sections during elections in that state). The only way to save that state from utter ruin and destruction is for IB to get involved and do the necessary thing if you know what I mean. I don't want to spell out the drastic plan of action because that may land me in trouble but I honestly feel many people from politics, bureaucracy, judiciary, police, media, human rights organizations, NGOs etc don't deserve to stay alive. Modi needs to be like Putin and we need a KGB style agency to do the needful to make our country a more secure place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Gollum said:

To those who criticize BJP for every damn thing under the sun would they prefer living in a state like Gujarat which BJP has ruled for over 2 decades or Bengal where CPM-TMC have ruled for almost half a century? I mean isn't it freaking obvious who should rule the country? For all its faults and shortcomings (and there are quite a few) BJP is still the best bet to somewhat put this country in the right path. Congress has been given enough chances, they were good in the initial stages and had spurts of brilliance in the middle(eg PVNR) but absolutely dreadful since the Italian took charge. Regional parties, the less said about them the better. Apart from Naveen Patnaik, Naidu, late Jayalalitha and Manik Sarkar(even though he is a communist) other regional bosses don't have the nationalistic spirit we require in our leaders. BJP should be given 25 years to rule by the public, if they succeed well and good, if not we are doomed...there is no viable alternative in Indian politics. 

Believe it or not, its a tough call. Gujarat is safer. Its richer & more prosperous than Bengal. 

Gujrat also infringes on personal freedom a lot more. Forget beef, i still remember my dad telling me his horrible experience in Baroda, being evicted from his apartment because Gujju-bhai had a problem with my dad cooking fish for himself.


So what would i prefer - the slightly more unsafe & poorer place, where my individual freedoms are greater or a slightly more developed & safer state, where what i eat behind my closed doors gets me kicked out ?

tough choice, honestly: neither the pros or cons of either state are wide enough from each other to win the argument for me.

 

 

And no, BJP doesn't get 25 years to do what it pleases, just because we made the same mistake with congress. What India needs, are Indians who vote based on accountability, not based on loyalty. If BJP drops the ball, kick them out. If they do a good job this term, it should buy them just one more term, with same evaluation process for every single election.

 

In this regard, i wish more of India was like Punjab- Punjabis are the least 'politically loyal/vendetta' oriented people in India, where they have no problems kicking out a party for failing to do its job and bringing in someone else. 

Rest of India is one large cess-pit of political loyalty. 

Most Sanghis here will vote for BJP no-matter what and people like Outsider will vote for Congress no-matter what. What India needs, is more accountability orienetd voting and less loyalty-of-ideology based voting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Gollum said:

The only way to save Bengal is to somehow get rid of Mamata. CPM is too weak, Congress has influence only in Malda and Murshidabad  but BJP is emerging fast. Many CPM and Congress Hindu members have seen the light and are shifting to BJP. BJP will get stronger but can never dislodge TMC as long as Mamata is there because of the sagacity of the Bengalis (plus booth capturing skills, gundagiri, bombs etc by certain sections during elections in that state). The only way to save that state from utter ruin and destruction is for IB to get involved and do the necessary thing if you know what I mean. I don't want to spell out the drastic plan of action because that may land me in trouble but I honestly feel many people from politics, bureaucracy, judiciary, police, media, human rights organizations, NGOs etc don't deserve to stay alive. Modi needs to be like Putin and we need a KGB style agency to do the needful to make our country a more secure place. 

It will be more of the same, even if BJP come to power. Because BJP will come to power exactly the same way Mamata came into power: a 'handshake' between the 'unionist & beurocrat' lobby, who will mobilize their powerful vote-bank and their exceptional booth-capture tacicts, once they realize that Mamata's days are numbered and the BJP is offering this 'tacit handshake'.

 

Same way how trinamool came to power and Jyoti Basu lost power. BJP will find out its impossible to break into Bengal politics, without satisfying the Bengali Babu-dom & union-mafia. As Congress found out for 30+ years. 


Only thing that can save Bengal, is 2-3 years of President's rule under a strong central government that will uproot the Babu-union mafia cabal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comrade Radish is essentially saying that:

 

a state where Hindus aren't allowed to celebrate festivals, people are arrested for facebook posts against the Chief Minister or "insulting" a so-called prophet, people stone-pelt police stations, entire villages are razed in riots, and people rampage on the streets advocating massacring non-believers

 

has more personal freedom than

 

a state where women are able to travel freely even at the later hours of night without "male chaperons", low-levels of crime and violence, etc because one of his brainless acquaintances didn't check the rules of the housing society he bought/rented a house in. :rotfl:        

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Comrade Radish is essentially saying that:

 

a state where Hindus aren't allowed to celebrate festivals, people are arrested for facebook posts against the Chief Minister or "insulting" a so-called prophet, people stone-pelt police stations, entire villages are razed in riots, and people rampage on the streets advocating massacring non-believers

 

has more personal freedom than

 

a state where women are able to travel freely even at the later hours of night without "male chaperons", low-levels of crime and violence, etc because one of his brainless acquaintances didn't check the rules of the housing society he bought/rented a house in. :rotfl:        

Yea. It is better than the state actually practicing mass murder on ethnic lines. Godhra, anyone ? Compared to you genocidal Gujjus (both Muslims who torched the train and the hindus who went on a rampage), we Bongs are just talk. 

 

PS: Brainless acquaintances ? there was no housing society. Its good old 1970s/80s style ' we live downstairs, you rent upstairs' rentals. But i don't expect gujju-bhai with such familiarity with policing other people's private kitchens, to see what the problem is. Rest of us Indians are not accustomed to our landlords peeking in our kitchens and getting pissed off at what we are doing in it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yea. It is better than the state actually practicing mass murder on ethnic lines. Godhra, anyone ? Compared to you genocidal Gujjus (both Muslims who torched the train and the hindus who went on a rampage), we Bongs are just talk. 

 

PS: Brainless acquaintances ? there was no housing society. Its good old 1970s/80s style ' we live downstairs, you rent upstairs' rentals. But i don't expect gujju-bhai with such familiarity with policing other people's private kitchens, to see what the problem is. Rest of us Indians are not accustomed to our landlords peeking in our kitchens and getting pissed off at what we are doing in it. 

 

I don't care about the Gujju-Bong issue that you want to make it into (feel free to make whatever claims you want to make about Gujarat/Gujaratis). I don't have any problem with actual Bengalis, however:

 

1) you seem to turn everything into Bengali vs Gujju, Bengali vs, Marathi, Bengali vs Hindi speakers, Bengali vs Punjabi etc. That's your prerogative comrade. I just find it funny that you always try to masquerade yourself as a liberal, yet you consistently display the tendencies of a regionalist, ethnic chauvinist bigot. Embrace your true nature comrade.  :rofl:

 

2) It's objective data that Bengal is more violent than Gujarat. That's something you always avoid giving and answering, since you apparently can't find it, copy it, and paste it from Wikipedia.  Since independence, Bengal is among the leaders in the country in riots, political murders, violent crime, et al. There is more than enough data on violence to confirm this. Naturally, someone of your "intellect" can't take objective criticism of a state, and instead automatically turns it into state vs state ethnic issue. It's not a surprise coming from someone masquerading as a liberal who promotes fundamentalism/hatred unsupported by data. (If you want the data, just ask, I'll even provide criticism of Gujarati crime issues for free :phehe:).     

 

3) You're Canadian, not Indian. You revoked your citizenship to get Canadian citizenship, and you aren't Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/Sikh that you have a religious ties to India as a civilizational state. It's time to let go Radish.  

 

 

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

I don't care about the Gujju-Bong issue that you want to make it into (feel free to make whatever claims you want to make about Gujarat/Gujaratis). I don't have any problem with actual Bengalis, however:

 

1) you seem to turn everything into Bengali vs Gujju, Bengali vs, Marathi, Bengali vs Hindi speakers, Bengali vs Punjabi etc. That's your prerogative comrade. I just find it funny that you always try to masquerade yourself as a liberal, yet you consistently display the tendencies of a regionalist, ethnic chauvinist bigot. Embrace your true nature comrade.  :rofl:

A liberal can be a regionalist, since liberalism is not contradictory to nationalism (and regionalism is just a sub-set of nationalism). 

However, chauvinist ? thats rich, coming from a guy who thinks women are 'corrupting themselves' by sleeping with multiple partners (but not men) and such anti-women traditional male-chauvinist views. 

 

Quote

2) It's objective data that Bengal is more violent than Gujarat. That's something you always avoid giving and answering, since you apparently can't find it, copy it, and paste it from Wikipedia.  Since independence, Bengal is among the leaders in the country in riots, political murders, violent crime, et al. There is more than enough data on violence to confirm this. Naturally, someone of your "intellect" can't take objective criticism of a state, and instead automatically turns it into state vs state ethnic issue. It's not a surprise coming from someone masquerading as a liberal who promotes fundamentalism/hatred unsupported by data. (If you want the data, just ask, I'll even provide criticism of Gujarati crime issues for free :phehe:).     

I already said that Bengal is less safe than Gujarat. I also said that the data between two states is not wide. Its not like we are comparing Helsinki and Los Angeles. thats the whole point. Bengal isn't violent/unsafe enough for me to consider trading away my personal freedoms ala Gujarat, Gujarat isn't advanced enough or peaceful enough to make me consider it either. 

 

Quote

3) You're Canadian, not Indian. You revoked your citizenship to get Canadian citizenship, and you aren't Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/Sikh that you have a religious ties to India as a civilizational state. It's time to let go Radish.  

I have ethnic ties with India and Indian government allows me to become an Indian anytime i wish to. Until Indian government changes that and invalidates my PIO claims, I can chose to operate as i do. 
Being Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/Sikh is also irrelevant to the issue of foreign ci
tizens interested in Indian affairs. I have cultural ties to India, which override and supersede your laughable 'religious ties' of make-believe sky-Gods and supermen. 

 

PS: If your newly minted degree had conferred some reading skills, you'd have found, I didn't invent or start the Gujarat vs Bengal comment i highlighted, i responded to the guy who did. And its YOUR Gujju pride that made you barge in. 

 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

A liberal can be a regionalist, since liberalism is not contradictory to nationalism (and regionalism is just a sub-set of nationalism). 

However, chauvinist ? thats rich, coming from a guy who thinks women are 'corrupting themselves' by sleeping with multiple partners (but not men) and such anti-women traditional male-chauvinist views

Your "liberalism" is indeed contradictory to nationalism, since the kind of liberalism you advocate is universalist ie universal human rights. That directly takes away the rights of a nation/people to have different values and views of human rights relative to their different cultures.  If the Chinese have a different view on what human rights entail, that is their right. You are the same as Islamists/Christians who want to impose Islam and Christianity on the entire world. The fact that you masquerade as a "liberal" doesn't change that you want to impose your view of the world on the entire world. That is no different than Osama, Aurangzeb, Stalin, and all the other people who feel like they have some universal knowledge that they need to forcefully spread to everyone in the world, even when those people themselves don't ask for it.  

 

Chauvinism

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

Quote

undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged

  • regional chauvinism

To be a male chauvinist

Quote

an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex

 Nowhere have I said one sex is superior to the other. Please prove it.        

 

Regionalism and nationalism are compatible: I can't even... I bet you think up also equals down.  :rofl: 

 

Please show me where I said women corrupted themselves and said men didn't. You made that up, because either you have poor reading comprehension skills derived from inbreeding or are just a liar.  The study I posted said both are negatively affected. I never disagreed with the study I posted and never claimed only women.  You were too busy virtue-signalling, soiling yourself, running away to even read/look up the study. It was you who limited the debate only toward women, saying that "Women need sexual liberation" so I provided the relevant chart, and you were too shameless to read the whole thing. :facepalm:Don't blame me that you thought you were crusading for "women's liberation" and framed the debate only toward women. It was only you who felt like you have some universal knowledge and felt the need to say that women need to learn from you and your unsupported opinions. Again, I dare you to show me where I advocate men having multiple sexual relationships and not women.  :bumsmack: 

 

 

That reminds me, why did you run away? Everyone is still waiting for a response in this thread. You didn't provide evidence for any of your claims, and at least two other posters are waiting for an explanation as to how exactly a lack of oxygen affects lift. :phehe:

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I already said that Bengal is less safe than Gujarat. I also said that the data between two states is not wide. Its not like we are comparing Helsinki and Los Angeles. thats the whole point. Bengal isn't violent/unsafe enough for me to consider trading away my personal freedoms ala Gujarat, Gujarat isn't advanced enough or peaceful enough to make me consider it either.

As of 2015, the rate of violent crime in Gujarat is 12.9 and in West Bengal its 31.7 per 100,000 people. Of all the big states, Gujarat has the lowest violent crime rate.   

 

The fact is, based on relatively recent events, that in West Bengal one can't criticize either Mohammed or Mamata Banerjee without getting jailed or having a threat on their life. There is also greater political murders historically.  What freedom is there exactly if one gets murdered for a different political opinion, one can't criticize certain religions for fear of their life, and one can't criticize the government in power?       

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I have ethnic ties with India and Indian government allows me to become an Indian anytime i wish to. Until Indian government changes that and invalidates my PIO claims, I can chose to operate as i do. 
Being Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/Sikh is also irrelevant to the issue of foreign ci
tizens interested in Indian affairs. I have cultural ties to India, which override and supersede your laughable 'religious ties' of make-believe sky-Gods and supermen. 

Nope, squirm as much as you want worm, you fail both the secular and the nationalist criteria for being Indian. 

 

Secular: Nope, you don't have citizenship, therefore you aren't a citizen.  Indian origin and Indian aren't the same thing. Laws matter to humans, although goons like you don't understand that. You don't contribute to our society, you interfere in our internal matters (even causing ethnic conflicts even on this forum), and you certainly don't feel any of the effects of anything that happens here. Pro-tip: if you can't vote in an Indian election, you aren't an Indian citizen.    

 

Nationalist:   Those who consider themselves "nationalist" in India consider India to be a civilizational state based on the Dharmic religions as part of Indian civilization. You are an atheist, at least on some days, who has no cultural ties to India. You are as much a Bangladeshi as you are an Indian. After all, those people in Bangladesh have the same culture as West Bengal. Hell, you're not even a believer in an Indian brand of Christianity or Islam.      

 

Carry on with your mental gymnastics while giving gyaan from Canada. The fact is you're not Indian.  

Quote

PS: If your newly minted degree had conferred some reading skills, you'd have found, I didn't invent or start the Gujarat vs Bengal comment i highlighted, i responded to the guy who did. And its YOUR Gujju pride that made you barge in. 

Your low IQ is getting the best of you. You made it an ethnic issue, not Gollum. Gollum was speaking purely as a matter of government. Similarly I posted a post outlining all the horrible things that happen in West Bengal, whether on the violence front, or the personal freedom front.  

 

It was you that brought ethnicity into this by directly going into slurring the Gujarati people after I made a criticism of the state of Bengal. When your first response to any criticism of a state by a poster is to suddenly attack people as a whole, it is you making it an ethnic issue. I originally responded with facts of things that have historically happened in post-independence West Bengal, not by saying Bengalis are violent or prone to murder.  You went to the extent of essentially calling Gujaratis mass murderers. I criticize a state on objective parameters and you go straight into ethnicity.

 

Mind read however much you want: I have also made similar posts when you vomited nonsense about Jatts, Baniyas, Maharashtra, and the Hindi belt as well, so I guess you think I'm a Jatt + Marathi + Baniya + Bihari + Gujarati combo as well. :laugh:

 

Only a thug like you could claim a place where even minors are jailed for expressing opinions online and common people with different political opinions are murdered has more personal freedom (notice how none of that is a criticism of Bengalis themselves but of the state, a distinction you were too dumb to understand).  That claim was without any data. Anyway, data is after all a conspiracy or psy-ops to a clown like you. Unsubstantiated propaganda and wikipedia-chori is more your forte. :rotfl:

 

Pro-tip: if you're going to comment on reading skills, you should at least know the rules of basic English grammar such as: "i" is capitalized or that one doesn't start a sentence with "And".  Nobody will be able to understand your semi-illiterate rambling with such poor grammar. :(( 

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Your "liberalism" is indeed contradictory to nationalism, since the kind of liberalism you advocate is universalist ie universal human rights. That directly takes away the rights of a nation/people to have different values and views of human rights relative to their different cultures.  If the Chinese have a different view on what human rights entail, that is their right. You are the same as Islamists/Christians who want to impose Islam and Christianity on the entire world. The fact that you masquerade as a "liberal" doesn't change that you want to impose your view of the world on the entire world. That is no different than Osama, Aurangzeb, Stalin, and all the other people who feel like they have some universal knowledge that they need to forcefully spread to everyone in the world, even when those people themselves don't ask for it.  

Having universal human rights is not incompatible with nationalism, since rights of the nation are not by default incongruous with rights of the individual. And last i checked, we are all species homo sapiens. Hence a baseline of rights applicable to all is logical. But nice try to 'relativize' human rights, so you can justify your piddly religious views.  And nobody force-spread human rights. India signed it freely according to its own will. 

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Chauvinism

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

To be a male chauvinist

 Nowhere have I said one sex is superior to the other. Please prove it.        

Granting unequal rights and holding unequal standards is de-facto superiorism,just not de-jure. 

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Regionalism and nationalism are compatible: I can't even... I bet you think up also equals down.  :rofl: 

Nice try to vacillate. and fail.

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

 

That reminds me, why did you run away? Everyone is still waiting for a response in this thread. You didn't provide evidence for any of your claims, and at least two other posters are waiting for an explanation as to how exactly a lack of oxygen affects lift. :phehe:

the explanation has already been provided. Look harder. 

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

As of 2015, the rate of violent crime in Gujarat is 12.9 and in West Bengal its 31.7 per 100,000 people. Of all the big states, Gujarat has the lowest violent crime rate.   

As i said, very little difference.

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

The fact is, based on relatively recent events, that in West Bengal one can't criticize either Mohammed or Mamata Banerjee without getting jailed or having a threat on their life. There is also greater political murders historically.  What freedom is there exactly if one gets murdered for a different political opinion, one can't criticize certain religions for fear of their life, and one can't criticize the government in power?       

Goodies saying Bengalis can' t criticize religion, when they routinely go on rampage for offence taken by fundamentalist hindus. ironic. 

What freedom ? i just told you what greater freedom exist in Bengal- i can eat what i want, in my kitchen without my landlord imposing his/her arbitry cultural value on my life. Justify the comment that there is more political murders in Bengal than Gujarat since 1947.

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

Nope, squirm as much as you want worm, you fail both the secular and the nationalist criteria for being Indian. 

 

Secular: Nope, you don't have citizenship, therefore you aren't a citizen.  Indian origin and Indian aren't the same thing. Laws matter to humans, although goons like you don't understand that. You don't contribute to our society, you interfere in our internal matters (even causing ethnic conflicts even on this forum), and you certainly don't feel any of the effects of anything that happens here. Pro-tip: if you can't vote in an Indian election, you aren't an Indian citizen.    

Kiddo, i send more $$ back to India this year alone, than your entire contribution to India for your whole life. I interfere in your internal matters because i am legally entitled to do so. 

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

Nationalist:   Those who consider themselves "nationalist" in India consider India to be a civilizational state based on the Dharmic religions as part of Indian civilization. You are an atheist, at least on some days, who has no cultural ties to India. You are as much a Bangladeshi as you are an Indian. After all, those people in Bangladesh have the same culture as West Bengal. Hell, you're not even a believer in an Indian brand of Christianity or Islam.      

Nope. You just pulled it out of your ar$e that to be a nationalist we have to idenitfy India as a civilization-state with dharmic principles. Nowhere in the definition of a nation or nationalism does it involve religion. Anyone can be a nationalist, if they work in the interest of a nation-state. Ergo, ahteist, hindu, muslim,jew- anyone can be a nationalist towards India. And yes, i do have cultural ties to India. 

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Carry on with your mental gymnastics while giving gyaan from Canada. The fact is you're not Indian.  

Your low IQ is getting the best of you. You made it an ethnic issue, not Gollum. Gollum was speaking purely as a matter of government. Similarly I posted a post outlining all the horrible things that happen in West Bengal, whether on the violence front, or the personal freedom front.  

Gollum compared Gujarat to W.Bengal and said how one is more livable than another. I gave reasons why it is not so. Only an inferiority-complex driven hindu superiorist like you can twist that to an ethnic comment. 

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

It was you that brought ethnicity into this by directly going into slurring the Gujarati people after I made a criticism of the state of Bengal. When your first response to any criticism of a state by a poster is to suddenly attack people as a whole, it is you making it an ethnic issue. I originally responded with facts of things that have historically happened in post-independence West Bengal, not by saying Bengalis are violent or prone to murder.  You went to the extent of essentially calling Gujaratis mass murderers. I criticize a state on objective parameters and you go straight into ethnicity.

What slurring ? so apparently saying Gujarat gives less personal freedom is slurring Gujarati people, but saying there are more poliitcal murders in Bengal is not. Go figure. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Having universal human rights is not incompatible with nationalism, since rights of the nation are not by default incongruous with rights of the individual. And last i checked, we are all species homo sapiens. Hence a baseline of rights applicable to all is logical. But nice try to 'relativize' human rights, so you can justify your piddly religious views.  And nobody force-spread human rights. India signed it freely according to its own will. 

 

 

That's solely your opinion. Not all societies view the individual as the basis of society. Some societies favor collectivism, groupism, tribalism, or other variants. Some societies favor individualism. Some societies will exterminate their own populations. Your imposing views that a society should be centered around individual interests is based on your own beliefs.  I didn't mention India, so that is a strawman. India may have signed it and it may remove itself from it later. That's none of your business as you aren't Indian. 

 

What's funny is that the idea that all humans have value is in itself a religious view. Just like beliefs in blank-slate, this too is derived from religion/are quasi-religious.  The idea of human rights is derived from the concept of natural law, which is law that is derived either from gods/Transcendence or Nature. These rights are considered inalienable. In nature, nothing has inherent value separate from the ecosystem itself. All humans can go extinct tomorrow and nature will move on. In all of human history it is pretty clear that humans themselves have a violent nature and little regard for other human life. This is true even in the recent history of signatories of the HRC.     

 

Communists, who are rabidly anti-religious and atheist by policy, have regularly erased millions of human lives, the lives of their own people and people outside of their political borders. Similar things have happened under religious governments, secular governments, democratic governments, dictatorships, etc. Groups only decide who qualifies for humane treatment and who is expendable.   

 

That you think life has value solely based on everyone being human is not based on anything objective (you probably also support abortions which is taking a human life). Where is the evidence that any life has value, let alone human life? Where is the evidence that the value of an elephant is greater than that of an ant? Humans are just animals, just like any other animals. Humans aren't magic creatures, no matter how much you want to believe so.  One human on one side of the planet doesn't have inherent value to another human on another side of the planet. I would like to see anything objective that says otherwise.  Too bad you're too foolish to see your own cognitive dissonance whining about religon while promoting religious concepts like the value of human life.    

 

 

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Granting unequal rights and holding unequal standards is de-facto superiorism,just not de-jure. 

Prove that unequal rights imply superiority. Oh wait, that is more sophistry by you. :phehe:

 

Someone can pass a law that only left-handed people can wear red shoes , that only right-handed people can wear blue shoes, but all people can wear shoes of any other color besides those two.

Those are unequal rights. Which one is superior: those who are given exclusive access to red shoes or those to blue shoes?    

 

Inequality only means inequality. Only someone of your "intellect" could think that something being unequal implies superiority-inferiority. 

 

Prove that inequality is bad. That's an assumption. 

 

Also, show me where I said people should have unequal rights based on biological sex, along with the numerous other things you accused me of claiming, or do you admit you were lying? 

 

 

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Nice try to vacillate. and fail.

It's not my job to teach someone who believes the Earth is flat that it is in fact spherical... 

 

If you want to believe that loyalty to a state, say Gujarat, over a country say India, is nationalism, that is your prerogative. You can try whatever mental gymnastics that you want to convince yourself of the same.  If you put a state's interests above India's interests, you are not a nationalist. 

 

Considering you support the English colonizing India, thereby supporting the destruction of the Indian economy, looting of the country, killing of millions, I don't think there is much need to lend credence to what you consider nationalism means. 

 

 

Lol at 12/100k people and 32/100k people being a small difference.  

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Goodies saying Bengalis can' t criticize religion, when they routinely go on rampage for offence taken by fundamentalist hindus. ironic. 

What freedom ? i just told you what greater freedom exist in Bengal- i can eat what i want, in my kitchen without my landlord imposing his/her arbitry cultural value on my life.

Where did I say people routinely go on rampage? You need to work on your reading comprehension and quit peddling strawmen. Re-read what I actually wrote (or don't)

 

You claimed that people in Gujarat barge into kitchens on some (undocumented) personal anecdote based on a sample size of n=1.

I can give (n=1) an example of people being arrested in West Bengal for criticism of the state government. 

I can give (n = 1 )an example of people being arrested for criticizing Mohammed in West Bengal.

I can give  (n =1) an example of how certain people aren't allowed religious freedom in West Bengal.

I can give (n = 1) an example of accusations of booth capturing in West Bengal during elections. 

 

If you use n = 1 to paint an entire state, one that you have no experience in, then I can similarly use a sample size of 1 to paint an entire state. These are the "rigorous" standards you yourself provided. By the standards you push, of (n = 1):

 

Gujarat:

No Freedom to eat Fish in a private kitchen 

 

West Bengal: 

No freedom to criticize religion

No freedom of religion

No freedom of speech (criticizing the state government)

No freedom to vote (booth capturing and murder based on political lines)

Some "freedom" 

 

Quote

Justify the comment that there is more political murders in Bengal than Gujarat since 1947

2016-02-19-1455922199-4945069-Figure2.jpg

The graph is property of Rohit Ticku and is based off of INSCR data of political violence incidents from 1955 to 2005. 

Excerpt

Quote

West Bengal alone accounted for over 34% of all political violence-related deaths in the sub-sample (Figure 2).

 

If you want to ignore the data, feel free, it wouldn't be the first time...

 

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Kiddo, i send more $$ back to India this year alone, than your entire contribution to India for your whole life. I interfere in your internal matters because i am legally entitled to do so. 

On a janitors salary?

 

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Nope. You just pulled it out of your ar$e that to be a nationalist we have to idenitfy India as a civilization-state with dharmic principles. Nowhere in the definition of a nation or nationalism does it involve religion. Anyone can be a nationalist, if they work in the interest of a nation-state. Ergo, ahteist, hindu, muslim,jew- anyone can be a nationalist towards India. And yes, i do have cultural ties to India. 

 

Wrong, silly rage-boy. There are only two views of Indian nationalism. I didn't say anyone has to follow either one. I only pointed out that you don't fall under either category. 

 

1) India as a nation-state created post 1947. By this standard, which is the standard most self-declared Secular nationalists, ie the INC, prescribe to, one has to actually be a legal citizen of India. Since you are a citizen of Canada, and India does not allow dual citizenship, you are not legally Indian. No amount of squirming can change that, worm. In this sense anyone with an Indian citizenship can be Indian. (I didn't say Muslims, Jews, etc aren't Indian or can't be nationalist. Another strawman). Anyone without an Indian citizenship, whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Atheist, etc isn't Indian, so long as they don't have citizenship.  

 

2) "Nationalist" (notice the quotation marks around nationalist which I also used earlier because the BJP uses this definition) This is BJP's Civilizational nationalism where Dharmic people + Indian citizens are part of the civilization.   

 

Neither national party's definition excludes Christians etc.  

 

You don't fall under either, 

1) You don't have Indian citizenship, a necessary condition to be Indian under the constitution. 

2) You don't have Indian citizenship and you don't identify with Hindu/Dharmic civilization. (For example, you self claim you are an Atheist and not a Hindu. You purposefully desire to distance yourself from Hindu society. You are too uneducated on Hinduism to even know that there are schools of Hinduism that are also Atheist/Agnostic).  

 

 

 

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills: Here is the sequence of events

1) Gollum makes a post comparing two states, Gujarat and Bengal in terms of government

2) You respond his post saying that you believe that Bengal has more personal freedom because X,Y,Z

3) I laugh at your post, pointing out examples of how Bengal has worse personal freedom in key areas and that there is greater lawlessness in the state of Bengal (in case you don't realize, violence is often used to restrict freedoms like the right to vote).  No mention was made of Bengalis as a group of people. The criticism was solely of the state and how it is run. See my post below

Quote

a state where Hindus aren't allowed to celebrate festivals, people are arrested for facebook posts against the Chief Minister or "insulting" a so-called prophet, people stone-pelt police stations, entire villages are razed in riots, and people rampage on the streets advocating massacring non-believers

has more personal freedom than

a state where women are able to travel freely even at the later hours of night without "male chaperons", low-levels of crime and violence, etc because one of his brainless acquaintances didn't check the rules of the housing society he bought/rented a house in

4) You proceed to call Gujaratis genocidal: what you posted is verbatim below

Quote

Yea. It is better than the state actually practicing mass murder on ethnic lines. Godhra, anyone ? Compared to you genocidal Gujjus (both Muslims who torched the train and the hindus who went on a rampage), we Bongs are just talk. 

You specifically state Gujaratis are genocidal(see red) and imply that Bengalis are non-violent.

 

5) I responded with this post saying that I'm not interested in ethnic issues of Gujarati vs Bengali(red). I proceed to criticize you as a poster and the law and order situation in Bengal. There is still no mention of Bengalis being A,B,C.   

Quote

I don't care about the Gujju-Bong issue that you want to make it into (feel free to make whatever claims you want to make about Gujarat/Gujaratis). I don't have any problem with actual Bengalis, however:

...

 

1) you seem to turn everything into Bengali vs Gujju, Bengali vs, Marathi, Bengali vs Hindi speakers, Bengali vs Punjabi etc. That's your prerogative comrade. I just find it funny that you always try to masquerade yourself as a liberal, yet you consistently display the tendencies of a regionalist, ethnic chauvinist bigot. Embrace your true nature comrade.  :rofl:

 

Again, the only person who attacked an ethnicity in this thread is you. You lost what little mental balance you had the moment I pointed out numerous ways that Bengal was worse on the freedom front, using the same low standards that you used. You made a claim slurring Gujaratis as a group of people as genocidal. I made no generalized claim on Bengalis as people, just the government in charge there and the state of law and order. 

 

Squirm however much you want.  :angel:

 

 

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 Only an inferiority-complex driven hindu superiorist like you can twist that to an ethnic comment. 

I have never said Hindus or Hinduism are superior to other people. Nice, another strawman.  

Enjoy what's below 

Spoiler

Considering how insecure you are on this forum itself, constantly quoting me and begging for my attention in nearly every thread in which I post in this sub-forum, I would say the only person with an inferiority complex is you, and that the inferiority complex you have seems to be relative to me. How else do you explain your psychopathic/pathological need to search out each and every one of my posts in a sub-forum and share your opinion with me? The reverse rarely happens. I rarely quote or even pay attention to your trash posts in any thread, only taking time when they are particularly stupid, to make fun of you.  

 

It is bordering on creepy how obsessed you are with my posts. It's like you have a low sense of self-worth/self-esteem and need to prove yourself to me. You have even been so pathetic that you felt the need to explain your career decisions to me, someone maybe half your age. If that isn't a textbook inferiority complex, I don't know what is.

 

You never seem to provide data in your posts, even though that is what rational people use to change other peoples opinions. You can slur other people as chaddis, sanghis, fascists to your hearts content, but name-calling is no substitute for data/research.  It's like you think that repeating the same stuff to me in the same posts over and over will suddenly make them true or convince me, and obviously you have a pathological need to share your opinion with me.     

 

For someone who thinks so highly of himself, one would think you would have the confidence to back up your claims with data/research. If your goal was truly to convince other people of your views being accurate, you would provide such things, or at least have enough integrity to admit you are just sharing your opinion and have no data/research to support your posts.

 

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

 

That's solely your opinion. Not all societies view the individual as the basis of society. Some societies favor collectivism. Some societies favor individualism. Some societies will exterminate their own populations. Your imposing views that a society should be centered around individual interests is based on your own beliefs.  I didn't mention India, so that is a strawman. India may have signed it and it may remove itself from it later. A point is that you, a non-Indian( by either civilizaitonal or secular standards), are interfering in Indian matters. Unless you want to say your imperialism is liberal, then get off it. 

Nobody said societies do not differ. It is also solely your opinion on whether we should be forced to pray 5 times a day or not. 
I am simply saying that a common set of human rights makes sense on a species level, since your argumen
t relies on assumption of social rights over individual ones. 

And you saying i am not an Indian by civilization standards, is you imposing your theisitc belief on the concept, not party to its definition itself. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

What's funny is that the idea that all humans have value is in itself a religious view. Just like beliefs in blank-slate, this too is derived from religion/are quasi-religious.  The idea of human rights is derived from the concept of natural law, which is law that is derived either from gods/Transcendence or Nature. These rights are considered inalienable. In nature, nothing has inherent value separate from the ecosystem itself. All humans can go extinct tomorrow and nature will move on. In all of human history it is pretty clear that humans themselves have a violent nature and little regard for other human life. This is true even in the recent history of signatories of the HRC.     

Nope, the idea of human rights is derived from the concept that given how opportunity can drastically alter trajectory of any human being and has shown to override natural talent itself (i.e., people with less skills but more opportunity can easily supplant people with more skills), the concept of inalienable human rights is to give a level playing field to as many as possible. Which benefits human society itself. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Communists, who are rabidly anti-religious and atheist by policy, have regularly erased millions of human lives, the lives of their own people and people outside of their political borders. Similar things have happened under religious governments, secular governments, democratic governments, dictatorships, etc. Groups only decide who qualifies for humane treatment and who is expendable.   

Communists are not the only atheist people. So why are you bringing up commie trope ? Does every atheist only every think religious people = islamists ?!

 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

That you think life has value solely based on everyone being human is not based on anything objective. Where is the evidence that any life has value, let alone human life? Where is the evidence that the value of an elephant is greater than that of an ant? Humans are just animals, just like any other animals. Humans aren't magic creatures, no matter how much you want to believe so.  One human on one side of the planet doesn't have inherent value to another human on another side of the planet. I would like to see anything objective that says otherwise.  Too bad you're too foolish to see your own cognitive dissonance.  

Equal rights is based on the objective and empirically verifiable truth, that opportunity overrides meritocracy. You are too young to understand that. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

Prove that unequal rights imply superiority. Oh wait, that is more sophistry by you. :phehe:

Because unequal rights create unequal access. that you are calling it sophistry, is simple example of your simpleton mind.

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Someone can pass a law that left-handed people can only wear red shoes , that right-handed people can only wear blue shoes., but all people can wear shoes of any other color besides those two.

Those are unequal rights. Which one is superior: those who are given exclusive access to red shoes or those to blue shoes?    

Good example of sophistry. this example is irrelevant to actual inequality of laws created to favor classes/races/religions of people in given history. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Inequality only means inequality. Only someone of your "intellect" could think that something being unequal implies superiority-inferiority. 

Inequal opportunity = de-facto inferior access to opportunity. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

It's not my job to teach someone who believes the Earth is flat that it is in fact spherical...

 

If you want to believe that loyalty to a state, say Gujarat, over a country say India, is nationalism, that is your prerogative. You can try whatever mental gymnastics that you want to convince yourself of the same.  If you put a state's interests above India's interests, you

are not a nationalist. 

the definition of nation/region/state/town are all same class of geo-political definitions and loyalty of these entiites invoke same principle, you moron. Ie, nationalism, regionalism are effectively a matter of defining said region and its legal powers. Very different from theocratic or populism, where the mechanism itself is different. 

And nobody put a states interest over its bigger unit's (nation) so use your straw men elsewhere.

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

 

Lol at 12/100k people and 32/100k people being a small difference.  

Yep, very small difference. you may wish to see what the extreme ranges of regions worldwide are, in terms of simple, intercene crime. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Where did I say people routinely go on rampage? You need to work on your reading comprehension and quit peddling strawmen. Re-read what I actually wrote (or don't)

 

You claimed that people in Gujarat barge into kitchens on some undocumented personal anecdote based on n=1.

I can give (n=1) an example of people being arrested in West Bengal for criticism of the state government. 

I can give (n = 1 )an example of people being arrested for criticizing Mohammed in West Bengal.

I can give  (n =1) an example of how certain people aren't allowed religious freedom in West Bengal.

I can give an (n = >1) of accusations of booth capturing in West Bengal during elections. 

Except none of your scenarios are common peer to peer examples. People get arrested inhereltly less than being heckled/harassed by their neighbours. Not just in India, everywhere in the world. Gujarat is more socially oppressive than Bengal. that is as anecdotal as anything else you've said,so inconsistency of standards won't get you anywhere.

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

On a janitors salary?

:laugh1::laugh1:

I don't draw a salary, kiddo. And even if it was a janitor's salary, a simple janitor for 15 years has a far bigger disposable income than an under-educated university grad in his first year or two of work. But then again, math is not your strong suit. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Wrong, silly rage-boy. There are only two views of Indian nationalism. I didn't say anyone has to follow either one. I only pointed out that you don't fall under either category. 

And those two views are invented by you. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

1) India as a nation-state created post 1947. By this standard, which is the standard most self-declared Secular nationalists, ie the INC, prescribe to, one has to actually be a legal citizen of India. Since you are a citizen of Canada, and India does not allow dual citizenship, you are not legally Indian. No amount of squirming can change that, worm. In this sense anyone with an Indian citizenship can be Indian. (I didn't say Muslims, Jews, etc aren't Indian or can't be nationalist. Another strawman). Anyone without an Indian citizenship, whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Atheist, etc isn't Indian, so long as they don't have citizenship.  

Nowhere did i say or imply i am an Indian citizen, so no squirming has been done. No amount of squirming from YOU will change the fact that PIOs have the legal capacity to interfere in Indian affairs, in the form of economic activity. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

2) "Nationalist" (notice the quotation marks around nationalist which I also used earlier because the BJP uses this definition) This is BJP's Civilizational nationalism where Dharmic people + Indian citizens are part of the civilization.   

too bad, BJP definition is irrelevant.BJP can think what it wishes. So can any other party. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Neither national party's definition excludes Christians etc. For example, many of the cadre of BJP's Goa wing are Christians who also refer to themselves as Hindu Christians(or Christian Hindus, I forgot which is more common).  

 

You don't fall under either, 

1) You don't have Indian citizenship, a necessary and sufficient condition to be Indian under the Secular nationalist world-view.

2) You don't have Indian citizenship and you don't identify with Hindu/Dharmic civilization. (For example, you self claim you are an Atheist and not a Hindu. You purposefully desire to distance yourself from Hindu society. You are too uneducated on Hinduism to even know that there are schools of Hinduism that are also Atheist/Agnostic).  

Show me where :

a) political parties get to define the word 'nationalist' for the whole country and not just their party, in a functioning democracy

b) where BJP/Congress specifically exclude atheists from being nationalists. 

 

Quote

Considering how insecure you are on this forum itself, constantly quoting me and begging for my attention in nearly every thread in which I post in this sub-forum, I would say the only person with an inferiority complex is you, and that the inferiority complex you have seems to be relative to me. How else do you explain your psychopathic/pathological need to search out each and every one of my posts in a sub-forum and share your opinion with me? The reverse rarely happens. I rarely quote or even pay attention to your trash posts in any thread, only taking time when they are particularly stupid, to make fun of you.  

Very easily. 

Because i don't care about you, your views, changing your mind. 

I quote your viewpoints, to refute them and expose them as under-educated, chauvinistic, religious garbage. Not for your benefit.but for the benefit of others. 

Kids high on ego like you assume, this is directed at you. It isn't. it is directed at the hundreds of eyes reading this. You could fall off a cliff, change your mind, not change your mind, i wouldn't care for more than 0.01 seconds. 

 

Calling out religious nonsense as such does not fall under the purview of data or research, unless the topic itself merits it. But calling out ideals emanating from idiots 2000+ years ago, is simply pointing out mental regression on the part of religious fools. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote a whole response and then come to this gem. You've just given me enough material to troll you endlessly :hysterical:

 

Let's focus on this in red.

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I quote your viewpoints, to refute them and expose them as under-educated, chauvinistic, religious garbage. Not for your benefit.but for the benefit of others. 

Who are you kidding?  All that false bravado impresses no-one.

Show me one instance where you provided data or a scientific reference that refuted anything I said.  Just 1.  

 

Or better yet, If you're really so confident in yourself, you can man up and take this bet:

I bet I can provide more instances of me refuting things you have claimed with data and scientific references than you can provide instances of you refuting me with data/scientific references. 

 

Whoever loses leaves ICF permanently. What say you Ghanta? Soiled yourself yet or are you going to man up and take the bet?

 

 

(We can both do ICF and the mods/admins a favor by removing one of us from the forum permanently).

 

It also benefits both of us as the other will be gone forever.  I'm willing, are you?

 

 

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

I wrote a whole response and then come to this gem. You've just given me enough material to troll you endlessly :hysterical:

 

Let's focus on this in red.

Who are you kidding?  All that false bravado impresses no-one.

Show me one instance where you provided data or a scientific reference that refuted anything I said.  Just 1.  

 

Data/scientific reference on ethics and moralisms ? :phehe::phehe: 
You are clearly, lost. 

 

12 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Or better yet, If you're really so confident in yourself, you can man up and take this bet:

I bet I can provide more instances of me refuting things you have claimed with data and scientific references than you can refute what I said. Whoever loses leaves ICF permanently. What say you Ghanta? Soiled yourself yet or are you going to man up and take the bet?

Irrelevant, because you have clearly demonstrated contradiction in terms: one does not provide data/scientific reference in calling out ideological & moral stances espoused by idiot-men of 2000 years ago. Its a matter of logic, consistency, not data. Hence it is clear that your intended parameters are poorly understood by yourself to form a basis of analysis, in the first place. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phat gaye kya? Everyone knew that you would run away. :aetsch:

I asked for any instance of you refuting me. 

You couldn't even provide 1 time you refuted me :hysterical:

 

On 25/09/2017 at 11:26 AM, Muloghonto said:

Data/scientific reference on ethics and moralisms ? :phehe::phehe: 
You are clearly, lost.

 

What's even more hilarious is that you claimed to have refuted someone while saying there can't be data

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

To refute

Quote

prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove

You simultaneously say that one can't provide data on morality yet claim to have disproven something. :rofl:

 

Prove that data can't exist on morals and ethics. Just because you're to dumb to research things, doesn't make it that other people can't. That is patently untrue. What does one expect from you. :phehe:

 

Here is some right here

 

 

 

Here's some more on morality

On 30/06/2017 at 6:47 AM, Tibarn said:

False. 

Humans aren't blank slates

Evidence #1

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

Author: Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr.

Abstract:

  Hide contents

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

  Hide contents

T1.large_.jpeg

 

Conservatism, authoritarianism, religiosity, anti-social behavior, openness to experience, etc all can be researched and have data provided.  

 

Here is some more

[Hatemi et al 2010],

Political chart heritability

Everything from opinions on Gay rights, immigration, pacifism, and censorship, to views on death penalty, all moral issues are measurable. 

Analysis

Quote

Indeed, when we consider the effect of measurement error (adding it to the heritability estimate and to the somewhat nonsensical negative gene-environment correlation values), the heritability of political attitudes and social values skyrockets, being upwards of 85% (74%) for views towards pornography in women (men). The heritability of overall political orientation, when accounting for measurement error, teeters on 100%!

 

This guy  thinks both psychology and genetics are conspiracies. 

 

Of course, this is the same guy who thought that WebMD was a reputable source of information and has been caught even lying about his identity depending on who he's talking to.:hysterical:

hypocrit.png

hypocrit2.png

 

Take the bet ?

 

Now let's further delve into this "special" mind.

 

First this genius says this

Quote

I am simply saying that a common set of human rights makes sense on a species level, since your argument relies on assumption of social rights over individual ones. 

Spoiler

Human Rights are an anthropocentric concept not an evolutionary one. I realize you failed remedial biology, but spare me your BS clown.   

 

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with what some uneducated wiki-chor thinks makes sense for a "species" or not. A species isn’t a single functioning unit that some wiki-chor can impose arbitrary rules to on baseless notions of progress. The sole goal of any species is the same: to evolve and reproduce. It’s not to improve the standards of all members of a species. Many members of species die, which drives evolution even faster. If you actually understood evolution and natural selection, you would understand that survival of the fittest isn’t about everyone surviving, but it is about those with the best traits for the environment survive and the failures die.

 

Charles Darwin literally states

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world” 

Nature is brutal and evolution doesn’t care about the feelings of some sad clown who thought he was a scientist. Evolution and nature are not the basis of the concept of human rights.

 fail #1

 

Then this genius says this

Quote

Nope, the idea of human rights is derived from the concept that given how opportunity can drastically alter trajectory of any human being and has shown to override natural talent itself (i.e., people with less skills but more opportunity can easily supplant people with more skills), the concept of inalienable human rights is to give a level playing field to as many as possible. Which benefits human society itself. 

Communists are not the only atheist people. So why are you bringing up commie trope ? Does every atheist only every think religious people = islamists ?!

Spoiler

More prattle. Invent whatever warped sense of history you want. The history of human rights is directly derived from religion and religious philosophers.

 

This essay is an analysis of the theory of human rights based on the writings of Thomas Aquinas, with special reference to the Summa Theologiae. The difference between a jus naturale found in Aquinas and the theory of human rights developed by the sixteenth century scholastic philosophers is articulated. The distinction between objective natural rights—“what is right”—and subjective natural rights—“a right”—is discussed noting that Aquinas held the former position and that later scholastic philosophers beginning with the Salamanca School of the Second Scholasticism developed the latter position. The subjective theory of rights evolved into the modern and contemporary account of individual human rights. The essay ends with an argument suggesting that Aquinas’s theory of objective human rights can serve as the ontological foundation for a robust theory of both positive and negative subjective natural rights

 

A. Lisska Diametros 38 (2013): 134–152

 

Aquinas’s concepts were expanded upon by John Locke.

 

via University of Nebraska’s Department of Human Rights

http://www.unlhumanrights.org/01/0102/0102_04.htm

One of the first and most important of these Enlightenment thinkers was the English philosopher John Locke. Locke was part of the Early Enlightenment. Most of his writings were published in the late 1600s. He was among the first to advocate the view that people have natural rights simply because they are human beings, and that these natural rights should be protected by the government.

 

Locke’s most important piece of political philosophy is his Second Treatise of Civil Government. But in his first treatise, Locke explicitly refuted the idea that kings rule according to divine right (from God), and argued that human beings have natural rights upon which the government may not infringe.

 

http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke/documents/first-treatise-of-government

 

In his first treatise on government he claims that natural rights are derived from God. REad it at the above link.

 

Since nature doesn’t actually give anyone any rights, nature just goes on and has no investment in humans. If all humans died tomorrow then nature would move on.  

Both Aquinas and Locke were Christians. Aquinas was even a Catholic Priest.  

 

 

Let’s see a reference clown. Show us the non-religious origin of human rights. :hysterical: Poor guy is so bigoted against Christians that he won't even acknowledge that they shaped his world view. :facepalm:

 

 

 

Spoiler

The point was that communists both proclaim to be atheist and rationalist yet they didn't seem to think humans have inherent rights. Other people who call themselves atheists and rationalists do think humans have inherent rights(although they themselves will also abandon those beliefs when they need to).

 

New flash: the concept of human rights isn't one of science/data. Humans are just a variant of chimpanzees/bags of meat from a materialist perspective. You won’t be able to name which exact European scientist was responsible for the concept of human rights because that is not where it comes from.

 

All you do when you decide to virtue-signal that you are an atheist and “rationalist” is give yourself a false veneer of knowledge. Someone who soils himself whenever another poster asks for data is not a rationalist, he’s just a virtue-signaling clown.   

 

Actually all people are essentially groups of chimpanzees. Every group of chimpanzees is capable of violence. I don't assign magic powers to chimpanzees who call themselves Atheist  which make them peaceful in comparison to chimpanzees which call themselves Islamists. All are violent. That is human nature.  The differences only stem from degrees of violence and what occurs when violence is sanctioned.

 fails #2 and #3

 

Next our guy says this: 

Quote

Equal rights is based on the objective and empirically verifiable truth, that opportunity overrides meritocracy. You are too young to understand that.

Spoiler

This is rich coming from a guy like you

 

Which objective, empirical truth are you going to provide?  Let’s see how you link this so-called objective empirical truth to the formation of equal rights. Let’s see a study.

 

Oh wait, you can’t provide one. Join a circus, your act is getting repetitive.

Equal rights come from the idea that all people are created in God’s image, and therefore they can’t have unequal rights.  

 

For example, the world’s first modern “liberal” democracy was founded in the US with the Declaration of Independence saying

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— United States Declaration of Independence, 1776

 

Eh, you're too ignorant to know that fluid intelligence decreases with age and people mentally peak at around 25, so you were smarter when you in your 20s than now. It looks like you should go back to being a lolbertarian, back when like in your 20s when your IQ was above barbarian levels. 

fail #4

 

This clown continues with this

Quote

the definition of nation/region/state/town are all same class of geo-political definitions and loyalty of these entiites invoke same principle, you moron. Ie, nationalism, regionalism are effectively a matter of defining said region and its legal powers. Very different from theocratic or populism, where the mechanism itself is different. 

And nobody put a states interest over its bigger unit's (nation) so use your straw men elsewhere.

Spoiler

More prattle.

The actual definition of nationalism

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

 

loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups 

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism

Nationalismideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.

 

How much BS did your madrasa fill your brain with? 

By definition nationalism excludes sepoys like you who promote adherence/loyalty to supra-national groups such as the UN and it also sidelines clowns like you who identify with and prioritize a region over a nation.

 

Don't give me that nonsense of you not being a regionalist. In this thread itself you have ethnically abused people from one state of India. That is your nature. 

 

Squirm however much you want.  

 

fail #5

 

The journey continues here 

Quote

Nowhere did i say or imply i am an Indian citizen, so no squirming has been done. No amount of squirming from YOU will change the fact that PIOs have the legal capacity to interfere in Indian affairs, in the form of economic activity. 

too bad, BJP definition is irrelevant.BJP can think what it wishes. So can any other party

 

Spoiler

The term Indian denotes one’s country and is a legal term, just like German or American. That you want to use it as an ethnic term is unimportant. No one cares what you want to call yourself while in Canada. The fact is that you are not legally Indian.

 

Person of Indian origin =/=  Indian. Even people of non-Indian origin can interfere in India via economic avenues. India has lax visitor visa laws for many countries, so spare me the wonders of a PIO card.

The fact is you are not Indian. You’re a Canadian of Indian origin. Do whatever mental gymnastics you want to try to prove that PIO = Indian. It doesn't, at least not, legally.

 

I understand some violent goon like you doesn't care about laws, but non-barbarian people do. One day someone will have to civilize you and teach you that. :angel:

 

Also I thought Bangladeshis, weren't allowed PIO cards.

 

The BJP, and the Congress before it, represent Indians and their opinions on such issues. They define who is Indian as they have the mandate of Indian people. Some janitor in Canada can't squirm and change that.

 

 If the BJP or Congress ever gets enough Rajya Sabha +Lok Sabha seats, they can change the constitution to even make it that only midgets are Indian. Spare me your randi-rona.

 fail

he thinks I stated that atheists are excluded from being nationalists. :hysterical:

Quote

Show me where :

a)      political parties get to define the word 'nationalist' for the whole country and not just their party, in a functioning democracy

b) where BJP/Congress specifically exclude atheists from being nationalists. 

Spoiler

Once again nationalism is:

Nationalismideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.

Political parties elected by Indian people, to run the Indian government,  get to define what the Indian nation-state entails. It’s as “simple” as changing the constitution to fit those definitions.  These concepts aren’t static you idiot.

The fundamental nature of the Indian constitution and the nation-state was changed during the Emergency era itself. Whether it’s INC, BJP, or some random 3rd party, if they have the numbers, they can change what they want.  They don’t need the permission of some Canadian sepoy.  

 

The Congress party historically defines the Indian state as a post 1947 entity. Gandhi is the father of the nation. (News flash, if someone is the father of a nation, a nation could not have existed before him). The only people who are actually Indian in this view are those that actually hold citizenship. Regardless of beliefs, as I already said before. This is the standard legal definition of a citizen in most countries. (You actually have to have a German passport to be German.)

This is the sole criteria of being an Indian in the INC view.

 

The BJP has an added layer to what they define the Indian nation-state as. Therefore, they would likely consider more people Indian than the INC would. Along with the standard definition of anyone with a passport/citizenship is an Indian, the BJP believes a mixture of this:

 a Hindu as one who was born of Hindu parents and regarded India as his motherland as well as holy land. The three essentials of Hindutva were said to be the common nation (rashtra), common race (jati) and common culture/civilisation (sanskriti). Hindus thus defined formed a nation that had existed since antiquity, Savarkar claimed, in opposition to the British view that India was just a geographical entity.

This notion of Hindutva formed the foundation for Savarkar's Hindu nationalism, which included in its fold the followers of all Indian religions including Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, but excluded the followers of "foreign religions"

From that the BJP’s patriarch Mukherjee removes the part about followers of “foreign religions” not being involved in Hindutva and instead redefines it to this:  

He wanted to uphold Hindu values but not necessarily to the exclusion of other communities. He asked for the membership of Hindu Mahasabha to be thrown open to all communities. When this was not accepted, he resigned from the party and founded a new political party in collaboration with the RSS. He understood Hinduism as a nationality rather than a community but, realising that this is not the common understanding of the term "Hindu," he chose "Bharatiya" instead of "Hindu" to name the new party, which came to be called the Bharatiya Jana Sangh. Thus, yet another term "Bharatiya" came into parlance with rough resemblance to Hindutva, which continues to be used in the successor party Bharatiya Janata Party to this day

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva

 

The BJP basically believes Dharmic people from around the world are still Indian, even though they don’t own official Indian citizenship and they add that to the normal definition of a citizen which is the sole criteria in INC eyes. This is the idea of a civilizational state. Something an uncivilized barbarian like yourself couldn’t understand.

 fail #7

 

Now watch this guy respond with 0 references.

 

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Phat gaye kya? Everyone knew that you would run away. :aetsch:

Everyone knows i am not stupid enough to agree anything on YOUR terms, kiddo. 

 

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Prove that data can't exist on morals and ethics. Just because you're to dumb to research things, doesn't make it that other people can't. That is patently untrue. What does one expect from you. :phehe:

Can't prove a negative, kiddo. Prove that said data exists.Prove to me on basis of data, that its better to look after your old parents instead of feeding them to bears.

 

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

H

Conservatism, authoritarianism, religiosity, anti-social behavior, openness to experience, etc all can be researched and have data provided.  

 

Here is some more

Everything from opinions on Gay rights, immigration, pacifism, and censorship, to views on death penalty, all moral issues are measurable. 

Prevalence of opinions is not proving that said opinions are true/false. I just gave you an example of moral choice : taking care of your parents once they are 80+, versus feeding them to bears. 
Prove to me, using data, that one choice is greater than another.

 

 

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Analysis

 

Our circus clown of an uncle thinks both psychology and genetics are conspiracies. 

 

Of course, this is the same uncle who thought that WebMD was a reputable source of information and has been caught even lying about his identity depending on who he's talking to.:hysterical:

hypocrit.pnghypocrit2.png

Take the bet clown, why are you soiling yourself?

Kiddo, i am a long-time gambler. And first rule of gambling is, don't gamble with the insane. Given that you think calling someone a buddhist and an atheist are incongruous, you've already proven why your terms are laughable and your subjective opinion on your terms of the bet are meaningless.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Then this genius says this

  Reveal hidden contents

More prattle. Invent whatever warped sense of history you want. The history of human rights is directly derived from religion and religious philosophers.

 

This essay is an analysis of the theory of human rights based on the writings of Thomas Aquinas, with special reference to the Summa Theologiae. The difference between a jus naturale found in Aquinas and the theory of human rights developed by the sixteenth century scholastic philosophers is articulated. The distinction between objective natural rights—“what is right”—and subjective natural rights—“a right”—is discussed noting that Aquinas held the former position and that later scholastic philosophers beginning with the Salamanca School of the Second Scholasticism developed the latter position. The subjective theory of rights evolved into the modern and contemporary account of individual human rights. The essay ends with an argument suggesting that Aquinas’s theory of objective human rights can serve as the ontological foundation for a robust theory of both positive and negative subjective natural rights

 

A. Lisska Diametros 38 (2013): 134–152

 

Aquinas’s concepts were expanded upon by John Locke.

 

via University of Nebraska’s Department of Human Rights

http://www.unlhumanrights.org/01/0102/0102_04.htm

One of the first and most important of these Enlightenment thinkers was the English philosopher John Locke. Locke was part of the Early Enlightenment. Most of his writings were published in the late 1600s. He was among the first to advocate the view that people have natural rights simply because they are human beings, and that these natural rights should be protected by the government.

 

Locke’s most important piece of political philosophy is his Second Treatise of Civil Government. But in his first treatise, Locke explicitly refuted the idea that kings rule according to divine right (from God), and argued that human beings have natural rights upon which the government may not infringe.

 

http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke/documents/first-treatise-of-government

 

In his first treatise on government he claims that natural rights are derived from God. REad it at the above link.

 

Since nature doesn’t actually give anyone any rights, nature just goes on and has no investment in humans. If all humans died tomorrow then nature would move on.  

Both Aquinas and Locke were Christians. Aquinas was even a Catholic Priest.  

 

 

Let’s see a reference clown. Show us the non-religious origin of human rights. :hysterical: Poor guy is so bigoted against Christians that he won't even acknowledge that they shaped his world view. :facepalm:

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The point was that communists both proclaim to be atheist and rationalist yet they didn't seem to think humans have inherent rights. Other people who call themselves atheists and rationalists do think humans have inherent rights(although they themselves will also abandon those beliefs when they need to).

 

New flash: the concept of human rights isn't one of science/data. Humans are just a variant of chimpanzees/bags of meat from a materialist perspective. You won’t be able to name which exact European scientist was responsible for the concept of human rights because that is not where it comes from.

 

All you do when you decide to virtue-signal that you are an atheist and “rationalist” is give yourself a false veneer of knowledge. Someone who soils himself whenever another poster asks for data is not a rationalist, he’s just a virtue-signaling clown.   

 

Actually all people are essentially groups of chimpanzees. Every group of chimpanzees is capable of violence. I don't assign magic powers to chimpanzees who call themselves Atheist  which make them peaceful in comparison to chimpanzees which call themselves Islamists. All are violent. That is human nature.  The differences only stem from degrees of violence and what occurs when violence is sanctioned.

Clown fails #2 and #3

 

Next our colorful clown says this: 

  Reveal hidden contents

This is rich coming from a clown like you

 

Which objective, empirical truth are you going to provide?  Let’s see how you link this so-called objective empirical truth to the formation of equal rights. Let’s see a study.

 

Oh wait, you can’t provide one. Join a circus, your act is getting repetitive.

Equal rights come from the idea that all people are created in God’s image, and therefore they can’t have unequal rights.  

 

For example, the world’s first modern “liberal” democracy was founded in the US with the Declaration of Independence saying

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— United States Declaration of Independence, 1776

 

Eh, you're too ignorant to know that fluid intelligence decreases with age and people mentally peak at around 25, so you were smarter when you in your 20s than now. It looks like you should go back to being a lolbertarian, back when like in your 20s when your IQ was above barbarian levels. 

Clown fail #4

 

This clown continues with this

  Reveal hidden contents

More prattle. Why so inbred bro?

The actual definition of nationalism

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

 

loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups 

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism

Nationalismideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.

 

How much BS did your madrasa fill your brain with? 

By definition nationalism excludes sepoys like you who promote adherence/loyalty to supra-national groups such as the UN and it also sidelines clowns like you who identify with and prioritize a region over a nation.

 

Don't give me that nonsense of you not being a regionalist. In this thread itself you have ethnically abused people from one state of India. That is your nature. 

 

Squirm however much you want.  

 

 

Clown fail #5

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

The journey continues here 

  Reveal hidden contents

The term Indian denotes one’s country and is a legal term, just like German or American. That you want to use it as an ethnic term is unimportant. No one cares what you want to call yourself while in Canada. The fact is that you are not legally Indian.

 

Person of Indian origin =/=  Indian. Even people of non-Indian origin can interfere in India via economic avenues. India has lax visitor visa laws for many countries, so spare me the wonders of a PIO card.

The fact is you are not Indian. You’re a Canadian of Indian origin. Do whatever mental gymnastics you want to try to prove that PIO = Indian. It doesn't, at least not, legally.

 

I understand some violent goon like you doesn't care about laws, but non-barbarian people do. One day someone will have to civilize you and teach you that. :angel:

 

Also I thought Bangladeshis, weren't allowed PIO cards.

 

The BJP, and the Congress before it, represent Indians and their opinions on such issues. They define who is Indian as they have the mandate of Indian people. Some janitor in Canada can't squirm and change that.

 

 If the BJP or Congress ever gets enough Rajya Sabha +Lok Sabha seats, they can change the constitution to even make it that only midgets are Indian. Spare me your randi-rona.

Clown fail #6

Our clown's journey finally ends here with his poor reading comprehension skills and strawmen. 

His reading skills are so poor, that he thinks I stated that atheists are excluded from being nationalists. :hysterical:

  Reveal hidden contents

Once again nationalism is:

Nationalismideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.

Political parties elected by Indian people, to run the Indian government,  get to define what the Indian nation-state entails. It’s as “simple” as changing the constitution to fit those definitions.  These concepts aren’t static you idiot.

The fundamental nature of the Indian constitution and the nation-state was changed during the Emergency era itself. Whether it’s INC, BJP, or some random 3rd party, if they have the numbers, they can change what they want.  They don’t need the permission of some Canadian sepoy.  

 

The Congress party historically defines the Indian state as a post 1947 entity. Gandhi is the father of the nation. (News flash, if someone is the father of a nation, a nation could not have existed before him). The only people who are actually Indian in this view are those that actually hold citizenship. Regardless of beliefs, as I already said before. This is the standard legal definition of a citizen in most countries. (You actually have to have a German passport to be German.)

This is the sole criteria of being an Indian in the INC view.

 

The BJP has an added layer to what they define the Indian nation-state as. Therefore, they would likely consider more people Indian than the INC would. Along with the standard definition of anyone with a passport/citizenship is an Indian, the BJP believes a mixture of this:

 a Hindu as one who was born of Hindu parents and regarded India as his motherland as well as holy land. The three essentials of Hindutva were said to be the common nation (rashtra), common race (jati) and common culture/civilisation (sanskriti). Hindus thus defined formed a nation that had existed since antiquity, Savarkar claimed, in opposition to the British view that India was just a geographical entity.

This notion of Hindutva formed the foundation for Savarkar's Hindu nationalism, which included in its fold the followers of all Indian religions including Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, but excluded the followers of "foreign religions"

From that the BJP’s patriarch Mukherjee removes the part about followers of “foreign religions” not being involved in Hindutva and instead redefines it to this:  

He wanted to uphold Hindu values but not necessarily to the exclusion of other communities. He asked for the membership of Hindu Mahasabha to be thrown open to all communities. When this was not accepted, he resigned from the party and founded a new political party in collaboration with the RSS. He understood Hinduism as a nationality rather than a community but, realising that this is not the common understanding of the term "Hindu," he chose "Bharatiya" instead of "Hindu" to name the new party, which came to be called the Bharatiya Jana Sangh. Thus, yet another term "Bharatiya" came into parlance with rough resemblance to Hindutva, which continues to be used in the successor party Bharatiya Janata Party to this day

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva

 

The BJP basically believes Dharmic people from around the world are still Indian, even though they don’t own official Indian citizenship and they add that to the normal definition of a citizen which is the sole criteria in INC eyes. This is the idea of a civilizational state. Something an uncivilized barbarian like yourself couldn’t understand.

Clown fail #7

 

Now watch this clown respond with 0 references. This guy is high in shamelessness and low in IQ/reading comprehension. 

 

So kiddo, your own definition of Hindu means -jati, rashtra and sanskriti. 

By jat, i am Indian. By sanskriti i am Indian. And last i checked, sanskriti != theism belief in God. 

Ergo, an atheist can be Hindu by your definition.

 

And I never said I am still an Indian. I simply said since i have the ability to become Indian any-time i wish,i have de-facto same rights as you, should i chose to exercise it. Ie, i am fully justified in interfering in India's affairs- just as you are. RoI gives me legal right to do so. 

And what BJP/Congress believe, is irrelevant to the discussion. Because BJP and congress are not entitled to speak on behalf of all Indians on said issue. 

the law of the land, gives me the right to assume Indian citizenship anytime i want. Only thing i can't do, is vote or go to certain restricted zones. Beyond that, I can do whatever another Indian citizen can. infact, i can do more, since India cannot theoretically draft me in the future,but it can draft its own citizen if it so choses. 


So your opinion, on whether i can speak on Indian issues or not, is irrelevant, kiddo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at this toyger meowing :hysterical:

 

I called it, didn't I ?

Quote

Now watch this clown respond with 0 references. 

Not a single reference :laugh:

 

He also still can't show a single time he refuted me with evidence, and he won't man-up and take the challenge so that one of us is completely removed from the forum.  :biggrin: 

 

Come on Gappu, this is your chance to get me axed. Put on your big boy pants and let's do this!!! :fight:

 

This guy thinks saying the opposite of what another person says is sufficient to prove them wrong. :phehe:

 

This is the standard of refutation for this guy

Our circus freak of an uncle:  Atheism is true and Jesus isn't God.

Ordinary Christian Fellow:  No it's not and yes Jesus is God

 

^He thinks that is a refutation :adore:(and this guy has the nerve to think all religious people are stupid). How much brain power could you possibly have if you think the above works as a refutation of something?

 

Wiki-chor then says

"You can't prove a negative, kiddo"

https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Steven Hales is a Professor of Philosophy at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania.

Quote

A principle of folk logic is that one can’t prove a negative.

...

But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. 

...

Not only that, but any claim can be expressed as a negative, thanks to the rule of double negation. This rule states that any proposition P is logically equivalent to not-not-P. So pick anything you think you can prove. Think you can prove your own existence? At least to your own satisfaction? Then, using the exact same reasoning, plus the little step of double negation you, can prove that you aren’t nonexistent.

...

So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative?I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it.

 

Literally you can prove a negative. Logic is a conspiracy to this clown. Someone who fancies themselves as a rationalist, doesn't know basic rules of logic.  :rotfl:

The part is red nails this guy perfectly. He is so insecure about his own beliefs that he confuses them with facts. Text-book fundamentalist. :giggle:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

Look at this toyger meowing :hysterical:

 

I called it, didn't I ?

Not a single reference :laugh:

Just like i didn't get a single piece of data on why it is better to look after you parents than feeding them to tigers when they tun 80.

You called it- it being there is no 'data' to produce on ethical choices. Bravo!

 

Quote

 

He also still can't show a single time he refuted me with evidence, and he won't man-up and take the challenge so that one of us is completely removed from the forum.  :biggrin: 

Because since you've never kept you word, i am not going to assume you will. I don't expect anything but dishonesty from chaddis who support a system that creates rapist gurus. 

 

Quote

Come on Gappu, this is your chance to get me axed. Put on your big boy pants and let's do this!!! :fight:

 

This guy thinks saying the opposite of what another person says is sufficient to prove them wrong. :phehe:

 

This is the standard of refutation for this guy

Our circus freak of an uncle:  Atheism is true and Jesus isn't God.

Ordinary Christian Fellow:  No it's not and yes Jesus is God

 

^He thinks that is a refutation :adore:(and this guy has the nerve to think all religious people are stupid). How much brain power could you possibly have if you think the above works as a refutation of something?

Onus of poof lies with theists, kiddo. Atheism is the default, standard policy, since we don't have any indisputable evidence of God. So nice try shifting burden of proof. 

 

 

Quote

Wiki-chor then says

"You can't prove a negative, kiddo"

https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Steven Hales is a Professor of Philosophy at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania.

 

Literally you can prove a negative. Logic is a conspiracy to this clown. Someone who fancies themselves as a rationalist, doesn't know basic rules of logic.  :rotfl:

The part is red nails this guy perfectly. He is so insecure about his own beliefs that he confuses them with facts. Text-book fundamentalist. :giggle:

 

 

He is wrong in a material case, that is pretty self-evident. But again, nice try kiddo. He is correct in a conceptual case. In any material case, proving something doesnt exist involves confirmation of all material as not it, ergo, proving something does not exist, involves going through all material in the universe as not it and only then can it be proven to not exist.

A reductio ad absurdum argument in de-facto scenario: tibarn can't prove that i am not talking to his mummy right now. Modi can't prove that i am not God...ie, everything exists, in de-facto application, as nothing can be said to 'not exist' in entire inventory of the universe. 

this is the kind of BS ideology people hide behind when they get it in their heads that half-naked men from stone ages get to tell us, people who are more educated than Valmiki or Mohammed could even conceive of, how to lead their lives.

 

 

PS: Also waiting for you to back up your claim that an atheist is not a nationalist according to BJP, as you made my religion(or lack of it) a criteria. Ironic you googled Savarkar, as Savarkar is specifically in favour of atheists identifying as Hindu.

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:) Partly self defeating endevor on both sides and atleast one side at times,  the primary reason for debate should be a subject that is verifiable and or falsifiable if not true. Dont debate on the other sides intentions choose more absolute verifiable subjects this is just tedious and results in nothing otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vilander said:

Hey @Muloghonto what are your thoughts on political islam ? For typical right winger in usa or india political islam is without middle ground. For left leaning liberals it should be at the very least acutely unfavored as they willnnot exist in political islam.

Completely agree 100%

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2017 at 8:48 PM, Muloghonto said:

Just like i didn't get a single piece of data on why it is better to look after you parents than feeding them to tigers when they tun 80.

You called it- it being there is no 'data' to produce on ethical choices. Bravo!

297.png

 

 

Spoiler

If ICf's crazy uncle understood sociobiology, he would realize how dumb his example was.

 

Oh well, what can one do. You can't learn that from Wikipedia.

 

 

On 9/26/2017 at 8:48 PM, Muloghonto said:

Because since you've never kept you word,

 

Spoiler

Sure... 

 

This guy's a narcissist who needs the 300 odd views some ICF chit chat threads achieve to feed his fragile ego and need for attention. :rotfl:

 

On 9/26/2017 at 8:48 PM, Muloghonto said:

PS: Also waiting for you to back up your claim that an atheist is not a nationalist according to BJP, as you made my religion(or lack of it) a criteria. Ironic you googled Savarkar, as Savarkar is specifically in favour of atheists identifying as Hindu.

Spoiler

Umm, nice, the same strawman... 

 

I am wrong if I said that. :angel:

 

I'm pretty sure this guy just has poor reading comprehension skills.

 

I already know Savarkar called himself an atheist-rationalist, but he also called himself a Hindu. Hinduism includes schools which are are Atheist, Agnostic, Polytheist, and other things. Only a goofball like this uncle doesn't know that...

 

I specifically criticize this uncle for not identifying himself as a Hindu-atheist, instead removing all ties to Dharmic culture, instead identifying as just an atheist,  not an Atheist-Hindu or Hindu-Atheist see below.

 

Either way it doesn't matter. Everyone can read to determine which is true: whether I was wrong or whether you have poor reading comprehension. 

 

 

On 9/24/2017 at 8:02 PM, Tibarn said:

2) You don't have Indian citizenship and you don't identify with Hindu/Dharmic civilization. (For example, you self claim you are an Atheist and not a Hindu. You purposefully desire to distance yourself from Hindu society. You are too uneducated on Hinduism to even know that there are schools of Hinduism that are also Atheist/Agnostic).

^ That is why you shouldn't be a rage-boy and instead work on your reading comprehension skills. 

 

On 9/26/2017 at 8:48 PM, Muloghonto said:

He is wrong in a material case, that is pretty self-evident. But again, nice try kiddo. He is correct in a conceptual case. In any material case, proving something doesnt exist involves confirmation of all material as not it, ergo, proving something does not exist, involves going through all material in the universe as not it and only then can it be proven to not exist.

A reductio ad absurdum argument in de-facto scenario: tibarn can't prove that i am not talking to his mummy right now. Modi can't prove that i am not God...ie, everything exists, in de-facto application, as nothing can be said to 'not exist' in entire inventory of the universe. 

this is the kind of BS ideology people hide behind when they get it in their heads that half-naked men from stone ages get to tell us, people who are more educated than Valmiki or Mohammed could even conceive of, how to lead their lives.

  

cryinglebron.gif

Spoiler

What a load of BS. This guy tries to rewrite the laws of logic and scientific inquiry because he wants to. And this guy wants to debate people. Basically, he doesn't like the rules of logic, so he wants to change them so that he can be right. ICF's crazy uncle :hysterical:

 

Brick walls aren't meant to reason with... 

 

What's funny is that religious fundoos also use the same argument that you can't prove a negative.

 

Ghanta: God doesn't exist.

Catholic Priest: You can't prove a negative.

 

Catholic Priest: God exists. 

Ghanta:  You're wrong, God does not exist.

Catholic Priest: Prove God doesn't exist

Ghanta: You can't prove a negative. 

 

Newsflash: people actually trained in science know that science is about testable hypotheses.  Science involves only what is specific, what is testable, and that which produces data. If you can't test a claim and prove if it is true or false, then it isn't a scientific (read objective) argument. There is no point in arguing about non-testable topics. Let people believe what they believe.

 

Only insecure uncles feel the need to evangelize on everything that they can't prove. They are a mirror images of evangelical missionaries and radical Islamists who are so arrogant about what they "know" and feel the need to give gyaan to people on everything, without providing compelling evidence supporting the same.   It's like these people think blindly arguing with other people and repeating the same stuff over and over again will convince people to come over to their side.  :facepalm:

 

A positive hypothesis 

If drug A is given to a 40 year old male who suffers from narcissism , it will reduce the  experience of traits of narcissism.

 

A negative hypothesis 

If the drug A is given to a 40 year old male who suffers from narcissism , it will not reduce the experience of traits of narcissism. 

 

Negative hypotheses, ie proving a negative, are literally how you disprove blind beliefs/superstitions like XYZ curing cancer and humans being blank-slates. :whack2:

 

Here is one of the fathers of American skepticism speaking on the same thing

Marcello_Truzzi.png

 

In conclusion: believe what you want Ghanta. If you want to make up your own rules for everything, just so you can be right, feel free. I promise, I'll laugh.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If ICf's crazy uncle understood sociobiology, he would realize how dumb his example was.

Quit hiding behind hidden comments/spoilers, kiddo. Show us data on your so-called 'socio-biology' that shows the empirical validity of caring for your 80+ relatives than turning them to manure. Data- c'mon kiddo.

 

Quote

 

This guy's a narcissist who needs the 300 odd views some ICF chit chat threads achieve to feed his fragile ego and need for attention. 

Again, nice attempt to dodge the fact that your offer is meaningless, because you have never kept your word. We've all seen you proudly proclaim to put me in your ignore list and fail. Its ok kid, kids have impulse control issues.

Admitting is first step to recovery.

 

Quote

I already know Savarkar called himself an atheist-rationalist, but he also called himself a Hindu. Hinduism includes schools which are are Atheist, Agnostic, Polytheist, and other things. Only a goofball like this uncle doesn't know that...

 

I specifically criticize this uncle for not identifying himself as a Hindu-atheist, instead removing all ties to Dharmic culture, instead identifying as just an atheist,  not an Atheist-Hindu or Hindu-Atheist see below.

 

Either way it doesn't matter. Everyone can read to determine which is true: whether I was wrong or whether you have poor reading comprehension. 

Sophistry. 

The reason i don't agree with Savarkar's label, is because Hindu is a tag that is overwhelmingly religious. hence i call myself 'culturally hindu'- which i an record many times calling myself as such. And as such, an 'atheist cultural hindu' is pretty identical to Savarkar's 'blanket hindu' definition. So there is no de-facto difference between my position and Savarkar's. Hence your childish rant is dismissed.

 

Quote

 This guy tries to rewrite the laws of logic and scientific inquiry because he wants to. And this guy wants to debate people. Basically, he doesn't like the rules of logic, so he wants to change them so that he can be right. ICF's crazy uncle

Nobody is re-writing logic. your education in logic isn't strong enough to understand the notions of existential claim, which is why you utter trash like this:

 

Quote

 people actually trained in science know that science is about testable hypotheses.  Science involves only what is specific, what is testable, and that which produces data. If you can't test a claim and prove if it is true or false, then it isn't a scientific (read objective) argument. There is no point in arguing about non-testable topics. Let people believe what they believe.

By your notion of 'cannot prove lack of existence, ergo, cannot be tested', people can believe whatever they want and you have no basis of claiming right or wrong.

For eg, i can claim,there is an exact, smarter copy of your moronic self, except with 4 vaginas. Orbiting a distant star. See, you can't prove it doesn't exist.
Or that there exists a Bong-dream planet : a planet made of rice, embedded with steamed hilsa cooked in mustard. It too, exists, waiting us Bongs to find it and make trillions of babies on the Hilsa-rice planet. All true, because we don't have to substantiate evidence for a claim of existence. 


Reductio ad absurdum. Last bastion of idiots with religion who follow demented thoughts of idiots who wrote those books thousands of years ago, not fit enough to tie my daughter's shoe-laces. Thats why you spout such garbage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, logic is a conspiracy to this guy.

Spoiler

It's also funny that he worked up the courage to respond to my post 7 days after it was posted.

 

I wonder if he was waiting until he knew I was away from the forum or

 

it took all 50 of his IQ points a week to write that gem of a response. 

 

As I said, this uncle is an insecure narcissist who just argues with people to feel a testosterone rush through his old bones.  :phehe:

 

He is yet to give a single reference to prove that one can't prove a negative, let alone anything else he claimed in this or any thread he vomits in. (This is a side effect of getting all one's knowledge from copy and pasting from wikipedia and vomiting that as knowledge).   

 

Go ahead clown, show a reference that someone can't prove a negative (disprove an existential claim).

 

It's a fact, by the rules of logic, that one can prove a negative, which is the opposite of what you said

 

I can prove: there isn't a nuclear bomb in my apartment. (Existential claim).  

 

Newsflash clown, you don't get to make up your own rules.  :hysterical: Provide a reference, or cry to someone else. I have provided two which both state one can prove a negative.  

 

 

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2017 at 1:54 AM, Muloghonto said:

Quit hiding behind hidden comments/spoilers, kiddo. Show us data on your so-called 'socio-biology' that shows the empirical validity of caring for your 80+ relatives than turning them to manure. Data- c'mon kiddo.

This idiot has a problem with me conserving space by putting comments in spoilers, as if no one can see the comments. :hysterical: Seriously how dumb is this guy? 

 

Once again, you may have failed remedial biology, but it's pretty easy to disprove your BS. All one needs to understand is the concept of :  kin selection theory which would be relevant to human parents and the concept of inclusive fitness. 

 

All those theories provide support to the idea that one takes care of elderly parents. 

Just so this dastard doesn't try to squirm by saying these concepts don't have relevance to elderly parents, I'll put there definitions right here. 

 

Inclusive fitness

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inclusive-fitness

Quote

the fitness of an individual organism as measured in terms of thesurvival and reproductive success of its kin, each relative beingvalued according to the probability of shared genetic information, anoffspring or sibling having a value of 50 percent and a cousin 25percent.

Kin selection 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/kin-selection

Quote

a form of natural selection that favors altruistic behavior toward closerelatives resulting in an increase in the altruistic individual's geneticcontribution to the next generation.

 

It's going to be fun watching him disprove evolutionary biology by claiming these theories don't apply to elder parents after google searching what those terms mean. What a clown! Of course this is the same idiot who thought humans are evolutionarily polyandrous and used a clay tablet as proof of the same. :laugh:

 

This idiot now wants to feed his parents to tigers. :hysterical: Of course their inbreeding led to his low IQ, so I kind of understand it from his perspective. :phehe: 
 

 

On 10/5/2017 at 1:54 AM, Muloghonto said:

Again, nice attempt to dodge the fact that your offer is meaningless, because you have never kept your word.

Go ahead, give an example:

 

Pick any mod/admin you want to enforce the bet.  Put up or shut up coward. Pick a mod/admin(s) that you want and let's do this. 

 

(I can give a suggestion for one who claimed you, me, and another poster were all egomaniacs or something along those lines. )

 

Everyone can see you are too much of a coward to take it.  

 

Spoiler

Everyone is also waiting to see how exactly you are Indian, when constitutionally you aren't. Vomit however much you want. You are neither culturally Hindu(what exactly makes you culturally Hindu? your crypto-Marxism? your hatred for knowledge?, your desire to feed your elder parents to tigers?, your wikipedia chori?), nor are you Indian: for someone who claims to value a secular constitution, you sure don't respect the Indian one and how it considers only people with Indian citizenship as Indian. Squirm as much as you want worm.     

 

You are just a sad old, degenerate clown who thinks he is a nationalist when he took the first donkey to Canada and threw away his Indian citizenship the first chance he got and writes about how he was happy the British took over India. Now you vomit about how Indian you are when the country itself wasn't good enough for you and you took the first chance to leave it. Spare me your inbred prattle. 

Yeh lo, ek aur spolier :finger:

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

 

Once again, you may have failed remedial biology, but it's pretty easy to disprove your BS. All one needs to understand is the concept of : reciprocal altruism, a fundamental concept of evolutionary biology and one to by elder parents, depending on the species of animal.  There is also kin selection theory which is particularly relevant to humans and the concept of inclusive fitness. 

That is not data, kiddo. You said, morality can be empirically supported. So show us this so-called data of altruism. Game, set, match kiddo. I used your own field to demonstrate the idiocy of your position that morality has 'data'. So us this data or STFU.

 

 

Quote

 

Go ahead, give an example:

 

Pick any mod/admin you want to enforce the bet.  Put up or shut up coward. Pick a mod/admin(s) that you want and let's do this. 

The mods/admin are irrelevant when YOU yourself are a liar and won't keep your word. 

 

Quote

Everyone is also waiting to see how exactly you are Indian, when constitutionally you aren't.

Constitutionally, i am a PIO, kiddo. a PIO is a former Indian, with an option to become Indian again. Thats exactly what i claimed to be.

 

Quote

 You are neither culturally Hindu(what exactly makes you culturally Hindu?

Food,clothing and music. thats what makes me culturally hindu. 

 

Quote

 

You are just a sad old, degenerate clown who thinks he is a nationalist when he took the first donkey to Canada and threw away his Indian citizenship the first chance he got and writes about how he was happy the British took over India.

No matter how much racism you display, you won't be able to re-write history that the British were better rulers of India than the Maratha jaahils. 

And what is sad, is your typical 'he left the country, he is no true Indian' type of jahilliyat that your type of people propagate. Same jaahils who made Srinivas Ramanujan an outcast for daring to go to England, because no indian alive could even understand his math.

Now, learn from the Chinese - they WORSHIP their overseas Chinese folks. Why ? Because they see the Overseas Chinese as a 'fifth column' and a servant of mother China. Instead, we get jaahil Indians who denigrate the cream of the crop of India.

 

Is it any wonder that morons like you go whine 'oh why oh why does XYZ country not be nice to India, despite Indian population there?' 

Quote

 

He is yet to give a single reference to prove that one can't prove a negative, let alone anything else he claimed in this or any thread he vomits in. (This is a side effect of getting all one's knowledge from copy and pasting from wikipedia and vomiting that as knowledge).   

I have already proven my claim, kiddo. With basic logic, which is why you keep running away from it.

Existential claim, needs positive evidence to substantiate itself. Because by your crooked logic of 'if no falsifiable evidence is present, it could be true' can be taken and made into any number of absurdities of existence.

As i said, there is a Dhokla planet, with a dandia wobble, around a Kofta star. Prove it doesn't exist, fool. 


This is the logic you run the heck away from and can't live up to, because it exposes your belief system for what it is: a faulty, moronic belief system, written by inferior men who are not fit to tie the shoe-laces of a middle schooler. That is the status of your authors of Ramayana/Gita/Mahabharata/Vedas/Upanishads. 


PS: Fool, existential claim means a claim of existence. which means whether it exists in this universe or not. In any uncatalouged super-set (universe), a negative proof requirement, implies any number of absurdities are possible. This is the fundamental illogic of religious morons and demonstrated, why so. 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

That is not data, kiddo. You said, morality can be empirically supported. So show us this so-called data of altruism. Game, set, match kiddo. I used your own field to demonstrate the idiocy of your position that morality has 'data'. So us this data or STFU.

Seriously how dumb are you? You use words without even knowing what they mean :facepalm:

Data means

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

Quote
1.
a plural of datum.
2.
(used with a plural verb) individual facts, statistics, or items ofinformation:
These data represent the results of our analyses. Data are entered byterminal for immediate processing by the computer.
3.
(used with a singular verb) a body of facts; information:
Additional data is available from the president of the firm.

Seriously, you are so dumb that you don't understand that facts count as data :facepalm: Your stupidity should have limits. 

 

Now you're going to say kin selection and inclusive fitness aren't facts, because F*** evolution. This useless worm is squirming :hysterical: 

15 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

The mods/admin are irrelevant when YOU yourself are a liar and won't keep your word.

Prove it coward, give an example of me not keeping my word. You are just deflecting like the coward you are. The only one who doesn't keep their word is you, all for a few eyeballs. 

 

The mods and admins are the ones who can ban us. They can perma-ban whoever loses. Therefore, even a clown like you couldn't return after they lose the bet when one of them accepts. Quit being a coward and accept it.

 

21 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Constitutionally, i am a PIO, kiddo. a PIO is a former Indian, with an option to become Indian again. Thats exactly what i claimed to be.

Person of Indian origin doesn't equal Indian. Words have meaning retard. Constitutionally you can't vote despite being over the age, therefore constitutionally you aren't Indian. 

 

You also claim to be Canadian. Sorry retard, but you can't have dual citizenship in India. It's clear which one you picked.

 

Bold: Once again you prove to be a liar, your first post in response to me claimed this:

On 9/23/2017 at 2:51 PM, Muloghonto said:

Rest of us Indians are not

That doesn't say PIO, now does it? Watch this worm squirm :hysterical: Even I called you a PIO earlier. 

 

33 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

No matter how much racism you display, you won't be able to re-write history that the British were better rulers of India than the Maratha jaahils. 

More prattle,

Lol 

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

Quote

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior

Show me where I have said Marathas are racially superior to British, or Indians being racially superior than British for that matter. :angel:

 

Also please prove with data that British rule was better than Maratha rule for India. Thanks. :angel:

 

Lol at you being the cream of the crop. Considering your spelling/grammar and your thinking that WebMD is a scientific source, the evidence is to the contrary. 

 

Also lol, I don't have a problem with overseas Indian-origin people,(ie posters like Zen, etc). I only don't like C-grade coolies like you who support invaders over Indians. The Chinese diaspora would never support invaders over Indians. They consider foreign rule over China a period of shame. You aren't fit to tie Chinese shoes, only good enough to chaat when Brits thook.:finger: 

 

46 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I have already proven my claim, kiddo. With basic logic, which is why you keep running away from it.

Existential claim, needs positive evidence to substantiate itself. Because by your crooked logic of 'if no falsifiable evidence is present, it could be true' can be taken and made into any number of absurdities of existence.

As i said, there is a Dhokla planet, with a dandia wobble, around a Kofta star. Prove it doesn't exist, fool. 


This is the logic you run the heck away from and can't live up to, because it exposes your belief system for what it is: a faulty, moronic belief system, written by inferior men who are not fit to tie the shoe-laces of a middle schooler. That is the status of your authors of Ramayana/Gita/Mahabharata/Vedas/Upanishads. 

:hysterical:
 

Spoiler

This idiot has proven a claim by saying it while also not providing a reference.

 

Idiot: You can't prove a negative

Logicians, Scientists: Yes you can.

Idiot: Nope you guys are wrong. 

 

^ 1 more "genius" refutation.

Actual logicians are wrong because this idiot says so. Scientists are wrong because this idiot says so. 

Basically this idiot is so insecure about his beliefs that he needs them to be true, even if he doesn't have to prove them.  

Still waiting for a reference from a logician which says one can't prove a negative...

 

This troll's only argument is shifting the burden of proof. He makes a claim and can't back it up, so he would shift the burden of proof. :hysterical: 

 

That something is difficult to prove/disprove doesn't absolve someone of the burden of proof. That is only something an idiot like you would think.  

 

By this clown's logic: two parallel situations:

 

Radical Muslim: Allah is the creator, all the universe was created by Him.

Idiot: Allah is a myth

Radical Muslim: Prove your claim

Idiot: I don't have to prove my claim because it is too hard to prove something exists/doesn't exist in the universe. 

 

Radical Muslim: Allah is the creator, all the universe was created by Him.

Idiot: Prove that Allah created the universe

Radical Muslim: I don't have to prove my claim because it is an existential claim and it is too hard to prove something exists in the universe. 

 

One more fine piece of logic  ^:hysterical:

The Muslim and this Idiot in this example use the same logic, only this idiot thinks only his application of the logic is valid and the Muslim's isn't.  

 

This idiot is a mirror image of this theoretical radical Muslim, who both don't feel the need to prove his claim because it is too hard, yet he wants to pass himself off as rational while he would smear this Muslim as irrational. 

 

Useless Wiki-chor wants to change the rules of logic so he can be right all the time. :hysterical:

 

Quote

PS: Fool, existential claim means a claim of existence. which means whether it exists in this universe or not. In any uncatalouged super-set (universe), a negative proof requirement, implies any number of absurdities are possible. This is the fundamental illogic of religious morons and demonstrated, why so.

Demonstrated because you say so. :hysterical: I don't take the opinion of inbred wikipedia chors as fact.

 

Give me a logician who claims that one can't proof a negative or quit vomiting.  

 

This idiot is also making up his own definition of existential claim.  

 

Existential only means 

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

Quote

Definition of existential

1:of, relating to, or affirming existence 
  • existential propositions
2a :grounded in existence or the experience of existence :empirical
b :having being in time and space

The entire universe is what you are inserting into this, (useless idiot). :facepalm:Once again making your own rules. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Seriously how dumb are you? You use words without even knowing what they mean :facepalm:

Data means

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

Seriously, you are so dumb that you don't understand that facts count as data :facepalm: Your stupidity should have limits. 

You have shown no data on WHY it is preferable to not turn our 80+ grandparents into manure. Facts and figures kiddo. You have presented nada. Just your propaganda. When you have data, which are facts and figures, come back. Till then your squirming means zilch. 

 

 

Quote

Now you're going to say kin selection and inclusive fitness aren't facts, because F*** evolution. This useless worm is squirming :hysterical: 

Prove it coward, give an example of me not keeping my word. You are just deflecting like the coward you are. The only one who doesn't keep their word is you, all for a few eyeballs. 

You have said multiple times i am on your ignore list. Auto-proven that you don't keep your word. 

Kin selection, inclusive fitness - show us the facts. Show us the precise data on feeding/not feeding your kin to wild animals. Not propaganda words, facts, figures, numbers. Show us. 

 

Quote

 

Person of Indian origin doesn't equal Indian. Words have meaning retard. Constitutionally you can't vote despite being over the age, therefore constitutionally you aren't Indian. 

It equals de-facto Indian for people born as Indian, because we have the option to re-claim the citizenship status ANYTIME WE WANT. 

I never said I am Indian citizen, retard.  I said that I am an Indian by birth. Which, no matter how many citizenships i take, won't become false. I also said that by Hinduvta definition itself, i am a 'Hindu', even though *I* personally don't use that label. So GTFO with your nonsense.

 

Quote

 

More prattle,

Lol 

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

Show me where I have said Marathas are racially superior to British, or Indians being racially superior than British for that matter. :angel:

I said the British were better rulers than the Marathas. Race is your invented crap in this discussion, because of your inferiority complex ridden chip on your shoulder. 


Your entire POV against the British is because they are foreigners. That is, by default, a racist position. You cannot justify why the British were bad rulers, because you are afraid, using same benchmark,we can demonstrate the Marathas to be even more inferior rulers. 

 

Quote

Also please prove with data that British rule was better than Maratha rule for India. Thanks. :angel:

As soon as you show data for your morality belief systems. 

 

Quote

Lol at you being the cream of the crop. Considering your spelling/grammar and your thinking that WebMD is a scientific source, the evidence is to the contrary. 

All NRIs/PIOs who send money back to India are cream of the crop compared to mamma's boy like you who is yet to pay off the debt to society, kiddo. 

 

Quote

Also lol, I don't have a problem with overseas Indian-origin people,(ie posters like Zen, etc). I only don't like C-grade coolies like you who support invaders over Indians. The Chinese diaspora would never support invaders over Indians. They consider foreign rule over China a period of shame. You aren't fit to tie Chinese shoes, only good enough to chaat when Brits thook.:finger: 

I support better people. Doesn't matter if they are invaders, not invaders, white, black or blue. Brits did far more for India than the rotten, jaahil Marathas. 

 

Quote

:hysterical:
 

  Reveal hidden contents

This idiot has proven a claim by saying it while also not providing a reference.

 

Idiot: You can't prove a negative

Logicians, Scientists: Yes you can.

Idiot: Nope you guys are wrong. 

 

^ 1 more "genius" refutation.

Actual logicians are wrong because this idiot says so. Scientists are wrong because this idiot says so. 

Basically this idiot is so insecure about his beliefs that he needs them to be true, even if he doesn't have to prove them.  

Still waiting for a reference from a logician which says one can't prove a negative...

 

This troll's only argument is shifting the burden of proof. He makes a claim and can't back it up, so he would shift the burden of proof. :hysterical: 

There is no burden of proof being shifted, moron. The entire point is, in the scale of universal existence, you either prove a claim of existence to be true, or accept any random claim to be true, because you do not have access to the entirety of the super-set data. 

Ergo, if you don't want proof of God to believe in God, you should not require proof of Dhokla planet around Dandia sun- just believe it!

 

 

Quote

That something is difficult to prove/disprove doesn't absolve someone of the burden of proof. That is only something an idiot like you would think.  

The burden of proof on any existential claim, is on the person claiming existence, in the first place. Only religious morons with rotting brains, listening to half-wit fools who wrote those half-witted books thousands of years ago, would shift the burden of proof on those who are not making any claim- atheism rests on not making the claim God doesnt exist, it rests on the principle that nobody has proven a claim of God in the first place and its as silly as believing in Superman claim. 

 

Quote

 

Useless Wiki-chor wants to change the rules of logic so he can be right all the time. :hysterical:

You have no idea on existential logic, which is why you defend your inferior way of thinking, made by inferior men (religion), by shifting the burden of proof to those who are waiting evidence of your existential claim. 

 

Quote

Demonstrated because you say so. :hysterical: I don't take the opinion of inbred wikipedia chors as fact.

 

Give me a logician who claims that one can't proof a negative or quit vomiting.  

 

This idiot is also making up his own definition of existential claim.  

All the squirming cannot erase the fact that its religious morons who are making a claim of existence with zero proof and the ones who are waiting for proof to accept an existential claim, do not have the burden of proof on them.

 

 

Quote

 

Existential only means 

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

The entire universe is what you are inserting into this, (useless idiot). :facepalm:Once again making your own rules. 

 

 

 

Because you silly, silly kiddo, the entire universe is the super-set of any conceivable existential claim IN THE UNIVERSE! 


 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I said this 

On 28/09/2017 at 9:37 PM, Tibarn said:

If you understood sociobiology, he would realize how dumb his example was.

 

Oh well, what can one do. You can't learn that from Wikipedia.

 

This sub 50 IQ moron, first said

Quote

 Show us data on your so-called 'socio-biology

 

asking me to explain why keeping parents alive then I give him the sociobiologal reasons of inclusive fitness and and he starts pissing his pants like this afterwards

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

You have shown no data on WHY it is preferable to not turn our 80+ grandparents into manure. Facts and figures kiddo. You have presented nada. Just your propaganda. When you have data, which are facts and figures, come back. Till then your squirming means zilch. 

 

Kin selection, inclusive fitness - show us the facts. Show us the precise data on feeding/not feeding your kin to wild animals. Not propaganda words, facts, figures, numbers. Show us.

 

Newsflash ,when you ask someone to prove something via sociobiology and they give you the reasons related to that field related to the field, it isn't propaganda. :hysterical: 

 

Make up your mind instead of shifting goalposts: if you want the sociobiological perspective or a general perspective. 

 

As I said, from a sociobiological perspective, keeping parents is beneficial through the concepts inclusive fitness and kin selection. 

 

A tiger eating your parents isn't within the field of sociobiology. Sociobiology only includes

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

Quote

the scientific study of the biological (especially ecological and evolutionary) aspects of social behavior in animals and humans.

The tiger situation falls out of the realm of sociobiology by definition. Useless duffer can only shift goalposts when he's caught soiling himself. :facepalm:

 

If you're asking which one is more beneficial from an overall general perspective, then there can be no data for that and I'm not going to pretend to give one, as the arguments for benefits of one behavior over the other would come from different strands of thought.

 

Keeping elder parents alive has value from a evolutionary perspective via inclusive fitness and kin selection theories. The argument for this would be evolutionary.

 

The argument for feeding someone to a tiger would be a potential increase in tiger population or recycling human matter as energy in the ecosystem. 

 

One is an individual level evolutionary argument and the other is a ecosystem level. In this case, one would have to pick which is more valuable subjectively: is an individual's increasing fitness important or is recycling human matter more important.  

 

What is with this guy.All he does is strawman, shift goalposts, and shift the burden of proof. 

 

 

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

You have said multiple times i am on your ignore list. Auto-proven that you don't keep your word. 

 

Show me the bold in whatever thread and I will leave the forum forever :angel:

 

I've said that you were on the ignore list regarding getting your posts quoting me/mentioning me in my notifications. I've always seen your posts, I just don't get notifications.   :facepalm: After all, you seem to continuously stalk my profile page, that's how desperate you are for my attention.

From today itself

Screenshot_1.png

 

 

 

Now pick an admin/mod or multiple of them and let's do this. 

 

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

 

 

Also, Considering how 

 

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

9

 

Hell, I'll offer again, provide a source, it can even be something like a website, no scientific paper or anything required, that says

 

Here, I'll post 2 more links that one can prove a negative:

Wikipedia, the only source you ever use

Quote

Proving a negative[edit]

A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. Saying "You cannot prove a negative" is a pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.[11][12]

http://factmyth.com/factoids/you-cant-prove-a-negative/

Quote
MYTH

One can’t prove a negative.

 

Proving Negatives and Dealing With Absence of Evidence and Evidence of Absence

The saying “you can’t prove a negative” isn’t accurate. Proving negatives is a foundational aspect of logic (ex. the law of contradiction).[1][2][3]

An Example of Proving a Negative in the Sense that People Mean it When they Say the Phrase

Putting aside negatives we can prove with certainty for a second, consider the following:

To “prove” a something we simply have to provide sufficient evidence that a proposition (statement or claim) is true. In other words, we have to show that it is very likely the case, we don’t have to show it is true with absolute certainty.

Thus, to prove a negative, we only have to show that it is very likely the case. To do this, there must not be compelling evidence that it is the case and there must instead be compelling evidence that it is not the case.

We DO NOT have to observe empirically that which cannot be observed (for example, we don’t have to see a Unicorn not existing to know it doesn’t exist, we just have to show compelling evidence of its non-existence).

Thus, proving a negative in this sense can be accomplished by providing evidence of absence (not argument from ignorance, but scientific evidence of absence gathered from scientific research). For example, a strong argument that proves that it is very likely Unicorns don’t exist involves showing that there is no evidence of Unicorns existing (no fossils, no eye witness accounts, no hoofprints, nothing).

If we did a serious scientific inquiry, searching for Unicorn fossils, and turned up nothing, it would be a type of evidence for the non-existence of Unicorns. If no one could show scientific data pointing toward unicorns to combat this, then at a point it would become a good theory and we could put forth a scientific theory, based on empirical data, that says “Unicorns don’t exist.”

At that point, the burden of proof would be on those who believe in Unicorns to prove that Unicorns do in fact exist (the burden would be on them to prove the theory of non-existent Unicorns false by providing a better theory).

This is just one of many ways to prove a negative, below we list others including using the law of contradiction and using double negatives.

TIP: Science can’t actually prove anything with 100% certainty. Essentially “all we know for sure is that we know nothing for sure.” This is because all testing of the outside world involves inductive reasoning(comparing specific observations to other specific observations). Meanwhile, logically certain truths are generally pure analytic a priori (they are generally tautologically redundant and necessarily true facts like “since A is A” therefore “A is not B.”)

 

 

Pro-tip: I already know I can't prove a Dhokla planet doesn't exist. I, like anyone else who is trained in the scientific method would say it is exceedingly improbable, but not out of the realm of possibility and is nothing that is testable, so I wouldn't make a claim on it either way. I  already know that I can't know everything. Unlike you who bought their degrees online, plagiarize Wikipedia, and watch a few YouTube videos and then fancy themselves intellectuals, most people actually trained in the scientific method, especially those in natural sciences, don't spend their times making absolute claims without proof either way on fantastic stuff. That doesn't concern these people. Only  you thinks he knows everything and will shift the burden of proof to other people when trying to bring them over to his own side. :facepalm: 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tibarn said:

When I said this 

 

This sub 50 IQ moron, first said

 

asking me to explain why keeping parents alive then I give him the sociobiologal reasons of inclusive fitness and and he starts pissing his pants like this afterwards

 

Reasons are not data, kiddo. you said you can show empiricism for your ethics. So show us data. Not propaganda. You have presented zero amount of data. Thus proving my point, that ethics is not about empiricism. 

 

Quote

Newsflash idiot, when you ask someone to prove something via sociobiology and they give you the reasons related to that field related to the field, it isn't propaganda. :hysterical: 

You made the claim that ethics is about data. When i made a statement relating to ethics, you wanted objective, empirical proof. So show us your objective, empirical proof for not feeding 80+ people to the pigs. Still waiting for your data-driven conclusion. 

 

Quote

 

Cool story,  don't blame me that you have an Oedipus complex and wish to continue your family's tradition of inbreeding while thinking you are the cream of the crop. No one with your low IQ is the cream of any crop except being the dumbest person in a room full of retards. 

Talk about being cream of the crop or bottom of the barrel when you've paid off your 20 years of debt to human society. Till then, you are less important and less consequential than even a drug dealer. So piss off, kid. 

 

Quote

Also, Considering how cancerous you are to society, your debt is yet to be repaid and you won't repay it for several centuries  After all, stupid people like you always drag everything down to your pathetic level.  The only way you could possibly repay your debt to society is if you removed yourself and your inferior genes from the gene pool. Feel free to remove yourself at anytime. 

Again, all talk of a kid who is still to pay back the basic social debt of being supported by society. hey fool, you are the one batting at a negative social capital. Not people like me, who's taxes go to educating morons like you. 

 

Quote

Source please. Your soiling yourself doesn't change that you are shifting the burden of proof. No amount of your sophistry will change that. You can't weasel your way out of this idiot, give a source and end this "debate". 

no amount of sophistry will change the fact that it is the person making an existential claim, who has to provide evidence for it. I didn't claim there is a God. You did. So show us evidence or be on equal footing as dhokla planet around dandia-shaped sun. 

 

 

Quote

Hell, I'll offer again, provide a source, it can even be something like a website, no scientific paper or anything required, that says

 

Here, I'll post 2 more links that one can prove a negative:

Wikipedia, the only source you ever use

http://factmyth.com/factoids/you-cant-prove-a-negative/

 

 

Pro-tip: I already know I can't prove a Dhokla planet doesn't exist. I, like anyone else who is trained in the scientific method would say it is exceedingly improbable, but not out of the realm of possibility and is nothing that is testable, so I wouldn't make a claim on it either way. I  already know that I can't know everything. Unlike circus clowns like you who bought their degrees online, plagiarize Wikipedia, and watch a few YouTube videos and then fancy themselves intellectuals, most people actually trained in the scientific method, especially those in natural sciences, don't spend their times making absolute claims without proof either way on fantastic stuff. That doesn't concern these people. Only rejected circus clowns like you thinks he knows everything and will shift the burden of proof to other people when trying to bring them over to his own side. :facepalm: 

Ergo, you are a self-contradictory fool to believe in a religion and the concept of Gods or such. Thank you for proving my point. 

Only kids like yourself lacking basic education think that the burden of proof does not rest on someone making a claim. 

 

 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Reasons are not data, fool. you said you can show empiricism for your ethics. So show us data. Not propaganda. You have presented zero amount of data. Thus proving my point, that ethics is not about empiricism. 

Facts are data,by definition. Kin selection theory and inclusive fitness theory are facts. 

 

If you don't want to accept it, don't. You're the guy who thinks clay tablets are disprove mammalian biology.

 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

You made the claim that ethics is about data. When i made a statement relating to ethics, you wanted objective, empirical proof. So show us your objective, empirical proof for not feeding 80+ people to the pigs. Still waiting for your data-driven conclusion.

More sophistry. The data was provided read harder

 

9 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Data means

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

Quote
1.
a plural of datum.
2.
(used with a plural verb) individual facts, statistics, or items ofinformation:
These data represent the results of our analyses. Data are entered byterminal for immediate processing by the computer.
3.
(used with a singular verb) a body of facts; information:
Additional data is available from the president of the firm.

 

 

Let me guess, you don't know the definition of theory in scientific terms, not unexpected...

Quote

The AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), the world's largest scientific society, has this explanation of what scientists mean when they use the word "theory":
" A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

 

Accept the data or don't. Everyone who wastes their time reading through the thread can decide for themselves which is which. Whether you are right or I am. You won't be convinced .

 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

no amount of sophistry will change the fact that it is the person making an existential claim, who has to provide evidence for it. I didn't claim there is a God. You did.

No amount of sophistry will change that you haven't provided a single reference proving that one can't prove a negative. 

 

You made the claim that god(s) don't exist therefore the burden of proof is on you, as shown by this below.  

Marcello_Truzzi.png

 

I have never claimed that either god(s) exist or don't exist and have certainly never claimed to have proof. I consider myself an agnostic Hindu. I don't believe people believe or disbelieve in god(s) based on evidence. I am of the opinion that people are born either religious or irreligious.  That is what the available biological evidence shows me. Therefore, that is what I accept.

 

I once again challenge you to show me where I made the claim of god(s) existing or not existing. I also challenge you to show me where I said I have evidence for or against either case. (Once again, show me and I will leave the forum forever.)

 

Unlike you, I understand what are beliefs:(free will, tabula rasa, religions,etc) and what are facts (evolution, gravity, etc)

The only thing I've been saying in this entire thread was that anyone who makes a claim, holds the burden of proof. I have given proof stating the same, straight from logicians and even Atheist/agnostic sources.  

 

I'm not fundamentalist garbage like you who thinks I have all the answers, wants to avoid providing evidence for my claims, and is also too much of a coward to accept their own burden of proof or when my own beliefs are unsupported by evidence. I am perfectly willing to say when my beliefs aren't supported by evidence. 

 

Once again this guy hasn't provided evidence that one can't prove a negative and has once again shifted the burden of proof.

One more showing one can proof a negative

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

Quote

I know the myth of "you can't prove a negative" circulates throughout the nontheist community, and it is good to dispel myths whenever we can. As it happens, there really isn't such a thing as a "purely" negative statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa. Thus, "there are no crows in this box" entails "this box contains something other than crows" (in the sense that even "no things" is something, e.g. a vacuum). "Something" is here a set restricted only by excluding crows, such that for every set S there is a set Not-S, and vice versa, so every negative entails a positive and vice versa. And to test the negative proposition one merely has to look in the box: since crows being in the box (p) entails that we would see crows when we look in the box (q), if we find q false, we know that p is false. Thus, we have proved a negative.

 

5 sources that say one can prove a negative, 1 anonymous guy who says otherwise

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Facts are data , by definition. Kin selection theory and inclusive fitness theory are facts. 

 

If you don't want to accept it, don't. You're the same guy who thinks clay tablets are disprove mammalian biology.

Empiric data are not words, kiddo. All you got, is empty theories with empty words. Not data. Show us the data that not feeding 80 year old grandparents is better for humanity. Show us what data is affected if we do. So stop squirming when you got exposed with your nonsense that morality can be empirically objective. 

 

You are the same guy who hides behind the fact that we have objective, empirical evidence of polyandrous propagation of humanity and regardless of how many men a woman slept with, you or I will only have two sets of genes (from mother and actual biological father), thus your lame-misdirection about genetics is completely irrelevant to nature of human sexuality. 

 

Quote

More sophistry. The data was provided read harder

 

To bad for you uncle, inbreeding isn't an excuse for poor reading comprehension.

No data is provided, only hypothesis. For everyone to see. A claim is not data, kiddo. 

Show us, what exact precise data is affected, if i feed your grandparents to the tigers. Not theories, data. You have ZERO data. 

 

Quote

Let me guess, you don't know the definition of theory in scientific terms, not unexpected...

 

Accept the data or don't. Everyone who wastes their time reading through the thread can decide for themselves which is which. Whether you are right or I am. You won't be convinced either way because you have a fragile ego and need to cling on to whatever undeserved pride you still have left. 

No data has been presented. Just empty claims. So show us, exactly, what data is involved with the idea of feeding your grandparents to the tigers once they cross 80 years of age. Show me, what is the difference in data, for feeding humans below the age of 40, above of the age of 60,80,100 etc. to the tigers. 

If you fail to provide data for above mentioned scenarios, you demonstrate, you have no data. Just some hypothesis that matches some very very limited set of observations. 

 

Quote

 

 

Quote

 

No amount of sophistry will change that you haven't provided a single reference proving that one can't prove a negative. 

 

No amount of sophistry will save you from the fact that an existential claim, for it to be true, needs evidence. All your brain-dead writers of religious epics were too ignorant and too stupid to realize that. 

 

Quote

You made the claim that god(s) don't exist therefore the burden of proof is on you, as shown by this below.  

Marcello_Truzzi.png

I have never claimed that either god(s) exist or don't exist and have certainly never claimed to have proof. I consider myself an agnostic Hindu. I don't believe people believe or disbelieve in god(s) based on evidence. I am of the opinion that people are born either religious or irreligious.  That is what the available biological evidence shows me. Therefore, that is what I accept.

So ergo, i have just as much reason to believe in BS hindu religion- or any such BS religion- without evidence. Marvel comics are better written than those BS books. And i don't believe in Marvel comics. So ergo, if you don't believe in Gods, then Krishna, Rama, Sita- are not Gods or avatars or any such.Indra is not God, Krishna is not God, neither is Vishnu or Shiva or any such unsubstantiated hypothesis. Lets see you put your money where your mouth is and state that all these claims of Gods in hinduism are unsubstantiated claims. 

 

Quote

I once again challenge you to show me where I made the claim of god(s) existing or not existing. I also challenge you to show me where I said I have evidence for or against either case. (Once again, show me and I will leave the forum forever.)

You make a lot of empty claims, so your childish challenges are meaningless. 

 

Quote

Unlike you, I understand what are beliefs:(free will, tabula rasa, religions,etc) and what are facts (evolution, gravity, etc)

The only thing I've been saying in this entire thread was that anyone who makes a claim, holds the burden of proof. I have given proof stating the same, straight from logicians and even Atheist/agnostic sources.  

Atheists are not making a claim about non-existence of God. Atheism rests on the fact that theism has presented ZERO evidence. 

 

Quote

I'm not fundamentalist  like you who thinks I have all the answers, wants to avoid providing evidence for my claims, and is also too much of a coward to accept their own burden of proof or when my own beliefs are unsupported by evidence. I am perfectly willing to say when my beliefs aren't supported by evidence. 

I have no burden of proof, because i do not believe in God because no evidence has been provided for God. God to me is on the same level as Batman or Ironman or your Dhokla planet orbiting a sun shaped like Gujarat- unsubstantiated claims. Summarily dismissed. Saying 'i do not believe in your nonsense because you have presented no proof' does not require burden of proof. Hence, i have no burden of proof. 

 

Quote

Once again this guy hasn't provided evidence that one can't prove a negative and has once again shifted the burden of proof.

One more showing one can proof a negative

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

 

5 sources that say one can prove a negative, 1 anonymous duffer who says otherwise

Irrelevent, when the super-set is the entire universe. Negative proof of existential question, is sophistry from religious bigots, because since we do not know the entire super-set of data in the universe, we can say anything 'could be'.And that 'could be' nonsense is what religious people use to hide their God-nonsense behind. 


Its because of you, that engineers care way more about de-facto status, than de-jure status of logical conclusions. Your God hypothesis, is as sound as any and all imaginary ideas. because by the same logic, any imaginary idea is possible in the universe, so any amount of garbage can be believed. 

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Empiric data are not words, kiddo. All you got, is empty theories with empty words. Not data. Show us the data that not feeding 80 year old grandparents is better for humanity. Show us what data is affected if we do. So stop squirming when you got exposed with your nonsense that morality can be empirically objective

Already have, read harder. No one has to hold your hand from A to B. I gave the empirically derived theories, kin selection and inclusive fitness, related to the subject you whinged about(sociobiology), and mentioned how they apply to humans.

 

Now your pet word is "empirical data", one more of the numerous words/phrases you don't know the meaning of. :phehe:

https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

Quote

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method. 

 

Many theories themselves are observational, too bad you didn't know that. Kin selection and inclusive fitness are such. 

 

As I said, whinge however much you want, everyone already sees for themselves reading our posts both in this thread and past threads who relies on evidence and supports and who vomits nonsense. 

 

Leave it to all the thread viewers to decide. One of us has been exposed, either you or me.(hint hint its probably you) :hysterical:  

 

Quote

You are the same guy who hides behind the fact that we have objective, empirical evidence of polyandrous propagation of humanity and regardless of how many men a woman slept with, you or I will only have two sets of genes (from mother and actual biological father), thus your lame-misdirection about genetics is completely irrelevant to nature of human sexuality. 

Wrong, deflect however much you want. I provided mammalian evolutionary history and genetics which supported the same numerous times. Your ego being too fragile/your inability to grasp a concepts is not my issue. To accept genetics and mammalian evolutionary history is your prerogative. Cling to clay tablets as sources of scientific information and the basis of disproving mammalian evolution and genetics as much as you want. :hysterical:

 

All the viewers you're so desperate for can go to the thread below to see for themselves how you were thoroughly exposed, shifted goalposts, shifted the burden of proof, and did other Gappugiri you're known for. 

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/forums/topic/100456-indian-liberals-claiming-to-be-champions-of-science/?page=3

 

Just a taste for everyone to see you for what you are

 

Citation: Hammer MF, Mendez FL, Cox MP, Woerner AE, Wall JD (2008) Sex-Biased Evolutionary Forces Shape Genomic Patterns of Human Diversity. PLoS
Genet 4(9): e1000202. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000202

Quote

For mammals, it is well known that females and males do not
exhibit symmetrical behavior with respect to mating and dispersal
practices. For instance, the typical mammalian system is
characterized by polygyny (a mating practice in which a minority
of males sire offspring with multiple females)
 and female philopatry
(the tendency for females to breed at or near their place of origin)
[2]. The development of sex-specific markers in humans has been
instrumental in providing insights into the effects of sex-specific
demographic processes. Contrasting patterns of diversity on the
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and non-recombining portion of
the Y chromosome (NRY) have been interpreted to reflect sexspecificity in the rate and scale of migration and in effective
population size [3–5]. However, these patterns could also reflect
different molecular properties of these two haploid systems

11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

So ergo, i have just as much reason to believe in BS hindu religion- or any such BS religion- without evidence. Marvel comics are better written than those BS books. And i don't believe in Marvel comics. So ergo, if you don't believe in Gods, then Krishna, Rama, Sita- are not Gods or avatars or any such.Indra is not God, Krishna is not God, neither is Vishnu or Shiva or any such unsubstantiated hypothesis. Lets see you put your money where your mouth is and state that all these claims of Gods in hinduism are unsubstantiated claims. 

Irrelevent, when the super-set is the entire universe. Negative proof of existential question, is sophistry from religious bigots, because since we do not know the entire super-set of data in the universe, we can say anything 'could be'.And that 'could be' nonsense is what religious people use to hide their God-nonsense behind. 


Its because of you, that engineers care way more about de-facto status, than de-jure status of logical conclusions. Your God hypothesis, is as sound as any and all imaginary ideas. because by the same logic, any imaginary idea is possible in the universe, so any amount of garbage can be believed.

Atheism is BS because a Muslim doesn't have burden of proof and atheists do because the Quran is the source of all information and you haven't effectively disproved it. Same logic by hypothetical Muslim, same use of their own made up rules of logic, same shifting burden of proof continuously so they can't lose an argument.  Once again, you are a mirror image of them, yet claim yourself to be different. :hysterical: 

 

A Muslim can argue that you are making a universal claim:  "In the entire universe, there is no such thing as Allah". Now the burden of proof is on you and the Muslim will mirror exactly what you said. :hysterical: 

 

You yourself believe in "garbage"  like atheism from a Muslim's perspective. Atheism is superstition from a Muslim's perspective. Prove them wrong with evidence, otherwise your claim is "unsubstantiated garbage."   

 

We can repeat this cycle endlessly. This will go on until either you (or the hypothetical Muslim) quit shifting the burden of proof to the other person and provide evidence either proving what you say is true or proving what the other says is false. 

 

Whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof. If you make the first claim, it is yours, if the hypothetical Muslim does, it's theirs. You don't get to whinge your way to shifting it to another person. You don't get to make up rules like "you can't prove a negative" and then squirm to "I don't have the burden of proof because it's a universal claim" or whatever form of bizarre nonsense you spout next. 

 

Pro-tip: When you make a statement that something is BS, then you are claiming it is untrue, and then you hold the burden of proof to show it is untrue. (Watch Gappu proceed to shift the burden again) :laugh:

 

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

Quote

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF 

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition.  Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made.  The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. 

 

Also, take the challenge now

The mods Beetle and Laloo have said they are tired of the name calling in this thread. I'm sure one of them will be willing to perma-ban one of us if you accept. Let's do this! :agree: 

 

We're all counting on you Gappu! Banish this Badmash Bacchu :angel:

 

Edited by Tibarn
Didn't see the mod's comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Already have, read harder. No one has to hold your hand from A to B. I gave the empirically derived theories, kin selection and inclusive fitness, related to the subject you whinged about(sociobiology), and mentioned how they apply to humans.

You have not provided any data, hence zero empirical evidence provided. As i said, show us the data on the difference between feeding your 40 year old relative, 60 year old relative and 80 year old relative to the tigers.

Till you show the data, your claim that these are empirically derived theories for my specific case of morality being empiric, is nothing more than hot air. 

 

Quote

Now your pet word is "empirical data", one more of the numerous words/phrases you don't know the meaning of. :phehe:

https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

 

Many theories themselves are observational, too bad you didn't know that. Kin selection and inclusive fitness are such. 

Hence you are too much of a coward to admit the point, that morality is not empirically, data derived. If it is, i demand data on my specific case of morality. Stop squirming 

 

Quote

As I said, whinge however much you want, everyone already sees for themselves reading our posts both in this thread and past threads who relies on evidence and supports and who vomits nonsense. 

Yes, indeed. It is clear to see who has met the burden of proof for their claims and who hasn't. An atheist who relies on null hypothesis or a theist who is relying on 'could be' nonsense to protect his religion. 

 

Quote

 

Wrong, deflect however much you want. I provided mammalian evolutionary history and genetics which supported the same numerous times. Your ego being too fragile/your inability to grasp a concepts is not my issue. To accept genetics and mammalian evolutionary history is your prerogative. Cling to clay tablets as sources of scientific information and the basis of disproving mammalian evolution and genetics as much as you want. :hysterical:

Mammalian genetic/evolutionary history is completely superfluous to the argument of sexual promisquity. Because as i noted and you ran the heck away from it, humans cannot have multiple fathers of the same litter. hence whether a human woman sleeps with 10 men or 1 man, the baby's genetics will  ALWAYS show only 1 man's genetic influence.

 

This is why your obfuscation is dismissed in front of objective, empirical evidence ( of humans actually writing about their sexual proclivities). 

 

Quote

All the viewers you're so desperate for can go to the thread below to see for themselves how you were thoroughly exposed, shifted goalposts, shifted the burden of proof, and did other Gappugiri you're known for. 

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/forums/topic/100456-indian-liberals-claiming-to-be-champions-of-science/?page=3

 

Just a taste for everyone to see you for what you are

 

Citation: Hammer MF, Mendez FL, Cox MP, Woerner AE, Wall JD (2008) Sex-Biased Evolutionary Forces Shape Genomic Patterns of Human Diversity. PLoS
Genet 4(9): e1000202. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000202

Atheism is BS because a Muslim doesn't have burden of proof and atheists do because the Quran is the source of all information and you haven't effectively disproved it. Same logic by hypothetical Muslim, same use of their own made up rules of logic, same shifting burden of proof continuously so they can't lose an argument.  Once again, you are a mirror image of them, yet claim yourself to be different. :hysterical: 

I don't have to disprove a book which is making a claim, since the burden of evidence lies on that which makes the claim. Koran claims to be from God, shows zero proof. Hence Koran fails to meet its burden of proof.  There is no 'mirror image', because my claim of atheism does not rely on proof that God doesn't exist. It relies on the fact that none of your moronic religions have proven their claim first. 

 

Quote

A Muslim can argue that you are making a universal claim:  "In the entire universe, there is no such thing as Allah". Now the burden of proof is on you and the Muslim will mirror exactly what you said. :hysterical: 

Nope, again, the burden of proof is on whomever is making the claim. I don't have to disprove anything if you fail to prove your claim in the first place. 

 

Quote

You yourself believe in "garbage"  like atheism from a Muslim's perspective. Atheism is superstition from a Muslim's perspective. Prove them wrong with evidence, otherwise your claim is "unsubstantiated garbage."   

Nope, because atheism is not belief that God doesn't exist. Atheism is simply belief that religion has failed to provide any evidence of their claim of God existing. 

 

Quote

We can repeat this cycle endlessly. This will go on until either you (or the hypothetical Muslim) quit shifting the burden of proof to the other person and provide evidence either proving what you say is true or proving what the other says is false. 

False. I can make the exact same argument for Dhokla planet circling a Gujarat shaped sun, with a Hilsa-Rice moon. You have zero reason to not demand its inclusion in physics analysis as hypothetical planet, because it 'could be true'. Or why biology does not talk of Adam and Eve during its evolution. It could be true too. 

 

This makes all claims, from a practical perspective, true. Which leads to reductio ad absurdum for any and all claim scenarios.

 

hence your above position, is demonstrated as reductionist nonsense, in practical scenarios. 

 

Quote

Whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof. If you make the first claim, it is yours, if the hypothetical Muslim does, it's theirs. You don't get to whinge your way to shifting it to another person. You don't get to make up rules like "you can't prove a negative" and then squirm to "I don't have the burden of proof because it's a universal claim" or whatever form of bizarre nonsense you spout next. 

Indeed. You are finally learning. Atheists are not making a claim God doesn't exist. Atheists are simply making a claim that your so-called religion has not provided any evidence of God. hence, we have zero reason to believe in said 'God' notion. 

 

Quote

Pro-tip: When you make a statement that something is BS, then you are claiming it is untrue, and then you hold the burden of proof to show it is untrue. (Watch Gappu proceed to shift the burden again) :laugh:

False. Pro-tip: when you make a statement something is BS, its because that said something is making a claim it hasn't substantiated. Ie, i can call ANYTHING that has failed to justify its claim, as BS. which is exactly what BS means, even in common parlance. But nice try squirming and trying to escape the conclusion that you are a liar- because you aint no Agnost if you cannot state unequivocally that Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva are all unproven claims.

 

Quote

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

 

Also, take the challenge now

The mods Beetle and Laloo have said they are tired of the name calling in this thread. I'm sure one of them will be willing to perma-ban one of us if you accept. Let's do this! :agree: 

 

We're all counting on you Gappu! Banish this Badmash Bacchu :angel:

 

If they are tired of the name-calling, its because you are yet to learn the art of insulting people without bringing mention of their family in the midst. Don't worry, its something you will learn with time, as you move on from being a burden to society to an actual functioning member.

 

 

 

PS: Waiting for your coward self to admit that Krishna, Brahma, Vishnu, etc. are all unproven claims by your so-called alleged 'agnostic self'.  You ain't an agnost, if you cannot admit that, kiddo. 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

You have not provided any data, hence zero empirical evidence provided. As i said, show us the data on the difference between feeding your 40 year old relative, 60 year old relative and 80 year old relative to the tigers.

Till you show the data, your claim that these are empirically derived theories for my specific case of morality being empiric, is nothing more than hot air. 

 

Quote

Now your pet word is "empirical data", one more of the numerous words/phrases you don't know the meaning of. :phehe:

https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

 

Many theories themselves are observational, too bad you didn't know that. Kin selection and inclusive fitness are such. 

Hence you are too much of a coward to admit the point, that morality is not empirically, data derived. If it is, i demand data on my specific case of morality. Stop squirming 

False, everyone sees it, you don't, that's your problem.

 

I already said this earlier, I suppose you were too busy raging to read it

Quote

If you're asking which one is more beneficial from an overall general perspective, then there can be no data for that and I'm not going to pretend to give one, as the arguments for benefits of one behavior over the other would come from different strands of thought.

...

One is an individual level evolutionary argument and the other is a ecosystem level. In this case, one would have to pick which is more valuable subjectively: is an individual's increasing fitness important or is recycling human matter more important.  

It turns out you are too much of a coward to read someones posts and instead go straight into raging. That's been common throughout this thread. 

 

I realize that narcissists feel the need to have the last word and always be right,  as you lot tend to be hugely insecure about your own deficiencies, but one should really read another's posts before raging. 

 

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

Quote

individual facts, statistics, or items of information

https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

  Quote

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method.

 

What I have provided is both empirical and data from a sociobiological perspective. No-one is fooled by your nonsense. Show that it is not empirical data or squirm as much as you want.

 

Here is some more

Screenshot_2.png

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Indeed. You are finally learning. Atheists are not making a claim God doesn't exist. Atheists are simply making a claim that your so-called religion has not provided any evidence of God. hence, we have zero reason to believe in said 'God' notion. 

 

Quote

Pro-tip: When you make a statement that something is BS, then you are claiming it is untrue, and then you hold the burden of proof to show it is untrue. (Watch Gappu proceed to shift the burden again) :laugh:

False. Pro-tip: when you make a statement something is BS, its because that said something is making a claim it hasn't substantiated. Ie, i can call ANYTHING that has failed to justify its claim, as BS. which is exactly what BS means, even in common parlance. But nice try squirming and trying to escape the conclusion that you are a liar- because you aint no Agnost if you cannot state unequivocally that Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva are all unproven claims.

That's funny because you aren't. :laugh: You continue to redefine words arbitrarily and won't provide a reference. What's the matter? You don't have a clay tablet readily available? 

 

Let's further expose this "genius": 

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

Quote

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly :one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Which is basically what I already said earlier

Quote

I have never claimed that either god(s) exist or don't exist and have certainly never claimed to have proof. I consider myself an agnostic Hindu. I don't believe people believe or disbelieve in god(s) based on evidence. I am of the opinion that people are born either religious or irreligious.  That is what the available biological evidence shows me. Therefore, that is what I accept.

Newsflash, if you don't think people on either side have beliefs based on information then you don't think they argue about it based on information. I can and do say easily say there is no data for or against any belief like atheism or religion. There is no evidence for Vishnu and there is no evidence against. There is no evidence for Atheism or against. People believe either way without evidence. Reality is unknowable.

 

Only Atheist Fundamentalists and Religious Fundamentalists argue about things they can't prove/disprove. That is in your nature. You lot are mirror images. 

 

Then Gappu redefines Atheist

Here's what it actually means:

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

Quote

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

If someone denies something, that is a claim.

 

A: I saw a white elephant.

B: There is no such thing as white elephant = someone claiming that there is no white elephant in existence.  

 

Atheist and agnostic are not the same thing. Agnostics say I don't know one way or another. Atheists, especially mediocre ones with confidence issues, won't even defend their own arguments, instead  the invent new rules of logic. :laugh: 

 

To further expose you, here is the dictionary definition of a claim  

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

Quote

to assert or maintain as a fact:

Poor guy either doesn't understand simple English, doesn't know how to use a dictionary, or is making up his own definitions of words. :hysterical:

 

If you say something is BS, you are asserting that there is no evidence for it. That is still a negative claim, ie proving a negative. Which brings us back to this:

 

Everyone is still waiting for a reference that states one can't prove a negative or burden of proof doesn't exist for a universal existential claim. :laugh: 

 

Guy still won't take the bet. Watch how he continues to pussy-foot around this.  :hysterical:

 

 

 

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

False, everyone sees it, you don't, that's your problem.

 

I already said this earlier, I suppose you were too busy raging to read it

It turns out you are too much of a coward to read someones posts and instead go straight into raging. That's been common throughout this thread. 

Since you have admitted that there 'can be no data' on whether feeding your 80+ grandparents to the tiger is good or bad, therefore, feeding your grandparents to the tigers (or not), as a value system, is not empirically or objectively driven. Therefore, such a value, is not empiric. Therefore, we can demonstrate, that ethical values are not subject to empiricism. 


You seem to have a simple problem admitting this easy conclusion. 

 

 

Quote

I realize that narcissists feel the need to have the last word and always be right,  as you lot tend to be hugely insecure about your own deficiencies, but one should really read another's posts before raging. 

 

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

https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

  Quote

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method.

 

What I have provided is both empirical and data from a sociobiological perspective. No-one is fooled by your nonsense. Show that it is not empirical data or squirm as much as you want.

 

Here is some more

Screenshot_2.png

Where is your data ? Where ? Show us. Refer to the post, where you have demonstrated, with data, the pros and cons of my ethics related statement.

Above quote, you claim that such ethics cannot be shown with empirical data. Then you claim that you have shown data.


Ergo, you are inconsistent and your inconsistent double standards lie exposed. 

 

What you quoted above- is not data. Its just a hypothesis. 

 

 

Quote

That's funny because you aren't. :laugh: You continue to redefine words arbitrarily and won't provide a reference. What's the matter? You don't have a clay tablet readily available? 

I have not defined any such word arbitarily. 

 

Quote

Let's further expose this "genius": 

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

Which is basically what I already said earlier

Newsflash, if you don't think people on either side have beliefs based on information then you don't think they argue about it based on information. I can and do say easily say there is no data for or against any belief like atheism or religion. There is no evidence for Vishnu and there is no evidence against. There is no evidence for Atheism or against. People believe either way without evidence. Reality is unknowable.

Hey kiddo, if you have 'no opinion' on the ultimate reality re:God, then you are in direct conflict with the idea that Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva are God/Gods. So which one is it ? Do you not know if Vishnu,Shiva and Brahma are Gods and therefore, you can state 'i do not accept Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as Gods because i know no such thing', or will you continue to be in de-facto contradiction of your so-called agnosticism ??

 

Atheism is not a belief. Its lack of belief. 

Quote

Only Atheist Fundamentalists and Religious Fundamentalists argue about things they can't prove/disprove. That is in your nature. You lot are mirror images. 

Nope. Only a religious fundamentalist will argue that something is true without presenting evidence for it. Atheist fundamentalists are those who claim that they know for a fact God does not exist. Ie, the sub-set of atheists known as gnostic atheists. However, atheism is based on the notion that religious people have failed to prove their case, hence without any evidence, i have no reason to accept a claim. 

Ergo, to atheists, claim about God is similar to a claim about a 3 legged Tibarn with the brain where gonads are and gonads in the skull, who breathes Florine. Ie: unsubstantiated, BS. 

 

 

Quote

Then Gappu redefines Atheist

Here's what it actually means:

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

If someone denies something, that is a claim.

Nope. 

Nice try. You thought we wouldn't read your link. Read your link moron: it says "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Ie, atheist is also someone who disbelieves. Ie, lack of belief. Ie, stating that theists have not proven their claim and therefore, i believe them as much as (i.e., i do not) spiderman, guardians of the Galaxy, paneer planet around a Dhokla-powered sun, etc etc. 

 

Quote

A: I saw a white elephant.

B: There is no such thing as white elephant = someone claiming that there is no white elephant in existence.  

False strawman. More appropriate:

A: " I saw a white elephant"

B: " what is a white elephant ?"

A: " it is a 5-ton creature that is white, has 4 legs and a trunk"

B: " ok, show me"

A: " i can't. i have no proof"

B: " then your claim is unsupported. I have no reason to believe your claim any more than a 4 legged Chlorine breathing man who craps out of his mouth and eats through his penis"

 

Quote

Atheist and agnostic are not the same thing. Agnostics say I don't know one way or another. Atheists, especially mediocre ones with confidence issues, won't even defend their own arguments, instead  the invent new rules of logic. :laugh: 

 

Quote

To further expose you, here is the dictionary definition of a claim  

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

Poor guy either doesn't understand simple English, doesn't know how to use a dictionary, or is making up his own definitions of words. :hysterical:

Except Atheists are not making a claim that God does not exist. Atheists are saying that theist claims are invalid.

Since you provided definition of a claim, it is easy to see, that all an atheist has to do, is point out that the theist claim is unproven, therefore, unsubstantiated nonsense. 
Saying a claim is without evidence, is not a claim within itself, except for the fact that it is without evidence. And atheists can easily prove the point that theists have not presented any evidence to back up their claims of the divine. 

I will show the example of unproven theorems in mathematics : i can state that P vs NP problem is unproven, therefore, i have no reason to accept the said claim. It does not require me, or any mathematician to disprove the P vs NP problem. It simply requires us, to state that the proof has not been met for said claim. 

 

Same logic applies here, kiddo. You make a claim, until you substantiate said claim, it is not a valid claim. So i have no reason to try and disprove something that is not a valid claim in the first place. 

Quote

If you say something is BS, you are asserting that there is no evidence for it. That is still a negative claim, ie proving a negative. Which brings us back to this:

Nope. I am simply saying if something is BS, it means it has not established itself as a valid assertion. I do not have to prove something that has zero evidence, does not exist. YOU have to prove a claim of something existing, for it to be considered true. No amount of squirming to try and support jaahils from 2000 years ago, will change this fact.

 

Quote

Everyone is still waiting for a reference that states one can't prove a negative or burden of proof doesn't exist for a universal existential claim. :laugh: 

I never said burden of proof doesnt exist for universal existential claim. I said exactly the opposite: that burden of proof exists for an universal existential claim. 
And since in an universal existence claim, no claim can be demonstrated false (if the super-set is universal existence), then every claim is admissible. Ie, de-facto, all claims are true, because no claim of anything at universal claim can be demonstrated false.

Reductio ad absurdum. 


 

 

 

Quote

Guy still won't take the bet. Watch how he continues to pussy-foot around this.  :hysterical:

 

Because you have demonstrated your inability to keep your word. I simply do not see why i have to accept an offer from someone i have zero trust in. 

 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×