Muloghonto Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 26 minutes ago, beetle said: Yes if they leave their sleeping spouse and child without any future plans. So if Buddha had told his wife he is going, it'd be ok to be absent ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: So if Buddha had told his wife he is going, it'd be ok to be absent ?? No it would still not be okay.....but this was worse....almost cowardly . Besides there is a difference between abandoning and going out to work. We can differ in our opinions .....there is no right or wrong view here...just different views based on personal perceptions and opinions. Edited April 21, 2018 by beetle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 19 minutes ago, Garuda said: Wrong thread cutie pie. I asked about Genghis and his exploits. Are you suffering from psychosis. It takes some doing to accuse me of dodging a question when it is you who is doing it. Internet troll PS: The other poster was demanding the same and you chose to dodge it. He cant google Genghis and his mistresses in google and probably wont give anything. You are cooking this up as you go along Google Borte Khan , Genghis Khan and The secret history of the Mongols. You will find that Genghis was a better husband than Ram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 1 hour ago, beetle said: No it would still not be okay.....but this was worse....almost cowardly . Besides there is a difference between abandoning and going out to work. We can differ in our opinions .....there is no right or wrong view here...just different views based on personal perceptions and opinions. So if the man leaves to earn money and is absent it's ok. But if man leaves after setting up his family for life, to go travel the world, it's not ok?? sounds like the man is an emotional hostage in your books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 2 hours ago, beetle said: Gandhi's conduct was totally different and comes under criminal conduct. It is not even open to interpretation . At Gandhi's time age of consent was 12 , so if girls were sleeping with Gandhi with their consent then it was not a crime at that time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 (edited) BN (Bhookha Nanga) Gandhi was a sexual deviant. That is the only (along with being a dhimmi) reason, liberandus put him at a pedestal (in every other way he was an antithesis to everything modern day liberandu) . He sets a precedent and allows them their own effed up moral compass. Edited April 21, 2018 by surajmal Jimmy Cliff, beetle and adi B 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 1 hour ago, surajmal said: BN (Bhookha Nanga) Gandhi was a sexual deviant. That is the only (along with being a dhimmi) reason, liberandus put him at a pedestal (in every other way he was an antithesis to everything modern day liberandu) . He sets a precedence and allows them their own effed up moral compass. Most Indians put him on a pedestal because Gandhi is the singular biggest reason for our independence. Under_Score 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarcastic Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 5 hours ago, beetle said: it was a sarcastic post. I do not support Gandhi or his perverted ways in any way. Yes, I realized it eventually. I fully respect and support your stance on Gandhiji with regard to his bad ways. beetle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MechEng Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, Stradlater said: You are talking out of your rear end again. Firstly Like Muloghonto said he was never a king to begin with. He was a young prince with all the worldly pleasure at his disposal. And he didn't become 'depressed', he had an epiphany which prompted him leave the luxury of his kingdom and seek out the truth. No depressed man could have survived in the wild for nearly a decade like Siddhartha did living simply on fruits and water. He meditated constantly until one day when he was sitting under a banyan tree in Gaya when he attained Nirvana. Thereafter he decided to spread his message to the world. And not by sword but by ahimsa. Lol His kingdom was a small one at the foothills of Himalayas near Nepal therefore danger of invasion was never really there. And you are forgetting the most important thing. Siddhartha was from the Shakya clan of Lichhavi Kshatriya who were Ganrajya and not simply Monarchy. There were several Kings in that kingdom and they collectively took all the decisions. It was sorta oligarchy system. Siddhartha never really had any danger to his kingdom. You don't understand human nature I believe. It doesn't matter how big or small a kingdom is, a weak king/prince is always an easy target, have you forgotten how Ashoka mercilessly waged wars against neighbouring empires? And a prince is technically someone who is just a step behind becoming a king, and he needs to be brave, strong and wise to be promoted to that, Siddhartha had none of those qualities, since he was naive enough to take a stupid risk by leaving his family. I would have been more happy had he realised during the 'enlightenment' how stupid he was to abandon his family. He reminds me of those typical Silicon Valley hippie entrepreneurs who make big money, take an early retirement and spend the rest of their lives roaming around holy Hindu/Buddhist cities. Interesting but not inspiring. Edited April 22, 2018 by MechEng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 1 minute ago, MechEng said: You don't understand human nature I believe. It doesn't matter how big or small a kingdom is, a weak king/prince is always an easy target, have you forgotten how Ashoka mercilessly waged wars against neighbouring empires? And a prince is technically someone who is just a step behind becoming a king, and he needs to be brave, strong and wise to be promoted to that, Siddhartha had none of those qualities. He reminds me of those typical Silicon Valley hippie entrepreneurs who make big money, take an early retirement and spemd the rest of their lives roaming around holy Hindu/Buddhist cities. Interesting but not inspiring. you will find,that the bulk majority of princes and kings did not posess these qualities in ANY civilization. Roaming aruond the ganges valley 2500 years ago is pretty much my definition of NOT having a good time.If you want a good time back then, you went to one of the major cities and locked yourself up in a pleasure garden. Not travel to unknown parts roughing it. Its like super crappy backpacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 6 hours ago, Muloghonto said: So if the man leaves to earn money and is absent it's ok. But if man leaves after setting up his family for life, to go travel the world, it's not ok?? sounds like the man is an emotional hostage in your books. Marrying and having a child are both voluntary actions. People who don't want to be around have the option of not doing either. No emotional bondage from the their silly families.No hostage situation. Going out to earn with a promise to return with in a time line is different for just taking off forever . No point discussing with you guys if you feel a father has no role other than providing . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 1 hour ago, beetle said: Marrying and having a child are both voluntary actions. People who don't want to be around have the option of not doing either. No emotional bondage from the their silly families.No hostage situation. Going out to earn with a promise to return with in a time line is different for just taking off forever . No point discussing with you guys if you feel a father has no role other than providing . It is emotional bondage, if your argument is 'once you are married and a.parent, you can't leave'. The promise means not a whole lots if you are going to be gone 15-20 years. The father has a role more than just providing. But experience has taught me that when a human wants to leave, it's always the best option than forcing them to stay by social or emotional pressure. In in the grand scheme of things, if all a person can say they've done wrong in their life is leave their family after setting them up for life, I'd say they have a very successful life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Under_Score said: Mariyal weak Pedophile Gandhi lived like a coward until age 78....getting beat up by the British and ultimately shot & killed by an Indian. Shaheed E Azam B H A G H A T S I N G H died at age 23 while fighting against the British.....hanged to death by the British. In India....not sure how many movies made on Gandhi but many movies made on the Martyr Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh is an overglorified guy because of Punjabi dominance of Bollywood. There are thousands like him or more impactful than him that don't get the proper recognition. And Gandhi still accomplished 100x more than Bhagat Singh or any of the other 1000s like Bhagat Singh. When it comes to Shaheeds and martyrs for the independence movement, Bengalis are the bravest of the lot. Which is strange, because before the British, you'd have to go back a thousand years to find a brave Bengali. Edited April 22, 2018 by Muloghonto Alam_dar, coffee_rules and adi B 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garuda Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 8 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Most Indians put him on a pedestal because Gandhi is the singular biggest reason for our independence. BS. Gandhi did jack squat for our independence. Charkha gumake azadi dilwaya adi B and Under_Score 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garuda Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, Under_Score said: He's a troll sadastic type of person who will argue & post garbage without any proof and even lie to get his dumb points across. Agreed. I have been engaging this troll for a few days and come to the same conclusion. I dont know how he types a wall of text within a minute. He must be a real troll possibly a bot . Under_Score 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garuda Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 8 minutes ago, Under_Score said: Not sure if you visited B'lore....I grew up there....it was very common that many people referred to Third class front tickets in movie Theaters as 'Gandhi Class' In Chennai, if somebody is not willing to pay back the money owed to other guy, he would say its in gandhi's account . Under_Score 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, Garuda said: FFS man give me an actual quote. you can just make some tripe credible by saying just google it. I have written essays when I was in the US where you have to cite references and give an actual link thats also credible. Your some wannabe historian so do cite your references. Otherwise its coming out of Uranus https://jigjids.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/the_secret_history_of_the_mongols_the_life_and_times_of_chinggis_khan1.pdf Now kindly go read and see how Genghis was a better hubby than Ram. Alam_dar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 11 minutes ago, Under_Score said: Not sure if you visited B'lore....I grew up there....it was very common that many people referred to Third class front tickets in movie Theaters as 'Gandhi Class' Sure. Does not change the fact that he did more for Indian independence than a thousand bhagat singhs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, Garuda said: BS. Gandhi did jack squat for our independence. Charkha gumake azadi dilwaya Sorry, almost all actual scholars disagree with you. He is the main reason why the Raj started to lose massive amounts of money in India. The british were in INdia to make money, not colonize. A smart lawyer like Gandhi realized astutely that a salt march is worth a thousand revolutionary actions in the big picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Cliff Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 26 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Sorry, almost all actual scholars disagree with you. He is the main reason why the Raj started to lose massive amounts of money in India. The british were in INdia to make money, not colonize. A smart lawyer like Gandhi realized astutely that a salt march is worth a thousand revolutionary actions in the big picture. Thoughts on this? Genuinely interested btw as you seem to know your history. Quote Starting February 18, 1946, a group of ratings at the Royal Indian Navy mutinied in Bombay. The mutiny soon spread to all units of the Royal Indian Navy: ships at anchor, shore establishments, ships on the high seas. The mutiny was brutally suppressed by the British with complicity of icons of India’s freedom struggle: Gandhi, Patel and Nehru. The import of the mutiny may be judged from an extract of a letter written by P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30 1976: "When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in post war years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan Calcutta for two days`85 I put it straight to him like this: ‘The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time, which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?’ In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN Mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’." [28]. How Gandhi, Patel and Nehru colluded with Brits to suppress Naval Mutiny of 1946 Garuda, Turning_track and Under_Score 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts