Jump to content
sandeep

What is Indian Govt policy on the Rohingya Issue

Recommended Posts

I'm aware that India needs Burmese co-operation to police the borders against the fading insurgencies and criminals in the north-east, but the situation is looking increasingly like an officially sanctioned pogrom.   Its criminal.  Tough for GoI to publicly take a strong stand, since China already has too much influence in Myanmar.  But something needs to be done.  At a minimum, help Bangladesh Govt financially to provide refugee assistance.  

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/world/asia/rohingya-violence-myanmar.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=world/asia

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/world/asia/myanmar-video-police-brutality.html?action=click&contentCollection=Asia Pacific&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is our business though.  This is our neighborhood.  We make claims about wanting to be a global power.  If we can't even help our own neighborhood, forget about getting credibility on the world stage.  Besides, these are our people being referred to as "bengalis" as a slur - they are of hindustani ethnic origins even though they have been living in Burma for generations.  Would you feel the same way if they practiced hinduism instead of Islam?  

 

One shouldn't use cynicism about the media to duck difficult issues...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, chewy said:

I heard some have been re-located in Jammu & Kashmir by India Gov, not sure how true

Rohingyas have noticeably East Asian eyes ( not fully east Asian eyes, but their eyes are narrower than the standard Indian almond eye). And they are a LOT darker than Ladakhi/Balti people. Not sure how it can go unnoticed.

 

Share this post


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

Rohingyas have noticeably East Asian eyes ( not fully east Asian eyes, but their eyes are narrower than the standard Indian almond eye). And they are a LOT darker than Ladakhi/Balti people. Not sure how it can go unnoticed.

 

i had just heard rumors, but i did quick google search and seems like a small contingent are residing in J&K, amazing how they managed to get all the way there considering strict residential restrictions in J&K, so one can imagine how many  thousands have probably settled across India.

 

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2017/jan/11/over-13700-foreigners-staying-in-jk-government-1558614.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sandeep said:

unlikely.  Geography, weather etc don't make this an easy transition for the people involved and JK has hurdles when it comes to 'outsiders' settling in.

that's what I thought,

 

another source: 

http://www.kashmirmonitor.in/Details/115653/rohingya-muslim-refugees-could-exacerbate-the-kashmir-problem

 

so what's the point of Article 370?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2017 at 3:13 PM, chewy said:

I heard some have been re-located in Jammu & Kashmir by India Gov, not sure how true

I'm pretty sure that is true. 

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/persecuted-in-myanmar-rohingya-muslims-find-new-home-in-jammu/story-NOv2VcEw2PyNW4Y28E1w7M.html

Quote

Words fail 70-year-old Mohammed Younus and a much younger Shah Alam when they try to explain how lucky they are to be alive and, perhaps, safe.

They are among hundreds of Rohingya Muslim migrants from Myanmar, who have taken shelter in and around Jammu and Kashmir’s winter capital.

“Four years ago, I came to Jammu. The junta in Myanmar had unleashed the gravest atrocities on Rohingyas and the world was silent. They are raping our girls and women, setting our houses on fire, firing at us as if we are sitting ducks, and chopping people into pieces,” Younus said.

As a mark of proof, he lifted his shirt to show bullet scars on his torso.

_adcec332-b9c3-11e6-90a3-d2b8563aec4d.jpg
Mohammed Younus says the Myanmar junta unleashed the gravest atrocities on the Rohingyas (Nitin Kanotra / HT Photo )

The Rohingyas, a stateless ethnic group loathed by many of Myanmar’s Buddhist majority, were forced to leave their homes since a bloody crackdown by the army in their home state of Rakhine. Many came to India, with nothing but the clothes they were wearing and with horrifying stories of rape, torture and murder.

Several Rohingya families — the majority with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) cards and some without papers — have found Jammu a safe haven.

Read | Aung San Suu Kyi should speak against the persecution of Rohingyas in Myanmar

“I work at a scrap-dealer’s shop; my wife and eldest daughter work as domestic helps. We have to pay Rs 500 a month for the shanty and Rs 200 for electricity. Some NGOs help us. Life is not easy, but at least we are alive here,” said 45-year-old Shah Alam in a pidgin mix of Hindi and Urdu.

Fellow migrant Maulana Shafiq, 37, runs a madarsa or Islamic school for Rohingya children in Narwal Bala, where a sizeable number of these stateless people live.

He said about 3 million of the 4 million Rohingyas in Myanmar fled to Bangladesh, India, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Thailand to escape the persecution.

Those left behind put up with inhuman, concentration camp-style restrictions. They can’t marry without permission, married women can’t conceive, and can’t even run small shops for livelihood. Rohingyas can’t even go out at night in Myanmar. There’s a 6pm-to-8am curfew.

I think I read the previous government passed the policy, but this one didn't overturn it.  All these fiends need to be thrown out of India. These people need to be sent to Bangladesh or Pakistan.  :facepalm:

 

Our pseudo-liberals like Yogendra Yadav are against bringing in Hindu refugees from Bakistan/Bangladesh, but they sit on their hands as we import rioters from other countries. :wall:

Share this post


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

I'm pretty sure that is true. 

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/persecuted-in-myanmar-rohingya-muslims-find-new-home-in-jammu/story-NOv2VcEw2PyNW4Y28E1w7M.html

I think I read the previous government passed the policy, but this one didn't overturn it.  All these fiends need to be thrown out of India. These people need to be sent to Bangladesh or Pakistan.  :facepalm:

 

Our pseudo-liberals like Yogendra Yadav are against bringing in Hindu refugees from Bakistan/Bangladesh, but they sit on their hands as we import rioters from other countries. :wall:

if you ask your like-minded Bangladeshi muslims, they will say that hindus are the rioters there.


Repeat after me: India is a constitutionally secular nation, not a Hindu nation. Therefore, its criteria for giving asylum is non-religious/irrelevant of religion. If we give refuge to persecuted Hindus, then we also should give refuge to persecuted muslims, christians,jews, atheists etc. And if we don't grant asylum coz subject is a muslim foreigner, then we should extend the same courtesy to hindu foreigners as well. 

 

No matter how much you chaddis would like to turn India into a hindu-mafia state, it won't happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2017 at 7:46 PM, Muloghonto said:

if you ask your like-minded Bangladeshi muslims, they will say that hindus are the rioters there.


Repeat after me: India is a constitutionally secular nation, not a Hindu nation. Therefore, its criteria for giving asylum is non-religious/irrelevant of religion. If we give refuge to persecuted Hindus, then we also should give refuge to persecuted muslims, christians,jews, atheists etc. And if we don't grant asylum coz subject is a muslim foreigner, then we should extend the same courtesy to hindu foreigners as well. 

 

No matter how much you chaddis would like to turn India into a hindu-mafia state, it won't happen. 

Looks like Gappu and the two clowns who upvoted him are going mad. Try using the one brain cell between the lot of you and make a coherent argument. :aetsch:'

 

Red: Show where constitutionally India has to accept all refugees. Oh wait, it doesn't say that anywhere. 

Furthermore, show how India is a secular state in practice, rather than nominally. 

 

When you're done making love to your goat Muloghatiya, try to employ some logic in your posts. Otherwise, seriously f**k off quoting me repeatedly. 

 

Blue: Also, you degenerate,  I'm not the one who pretends to be an atheist or a Buddhist depending on the thread to lend credence to my argument. I'm not the anglo-bangladeshi whose state is run by an Islamist. :phehe:

 

Can you name which founder was in charge of making India a constitutionally secular state?

 

 

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


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

Looks like Gappu and the two clowns who upvoted him are going mad. Try using the one brain cell between the lot of you and make a coherent argument. :aetsch:'

 

Red: Show where constitutionally India has to accept all refugees. Oh wait, it doesn't say that anywhere. 

 

I guess our chaddi kid got mad at logic. 

Nobody said India has to accept refugees on constitutional basis. But India cannot pick and choose refugee status based on religion. We pick and choose based on need.

Quote

Furthermore, show how India is a secular state in practice, rather than nominally. 

More sophistry.

Indian or any national policy is dictated by their nominal stance.

 

Quote

 Otherwise, seriously f**k off quoting me repeatedly. 

Sorry chaddi. You don't make the rules here. I can quote whomever i wish, whenever i wish. Comprende ?

 

Quote

I'm not the anglo-bangladeshi whose state is run by an Islamist. 

No, you are just a mohajir turned pretend-Gujju pretending to be from the part of India where medeival genocidal practices still run amok in the 21st century.

 

Like i said, dream-on Chaddi. We are NOT a Hindu nation. 

Probably one of the few things the constitutional architects got right.

 

 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


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

Inbred retard, TMC goon doesn't have the brains to read the constitution. There is nowhere in the constitution that says refugees can't be accepted based on religion. Nice try fa**ot. Jumping to conclusions fallacy. :hysterical:

Nowhere does it say that religion can be the basis. It doesnt say anywhere in the US constitution that religion cannot be used to appoint a government job. But doing so is a lawsuit.

I guess inbreeds like you do not understand that you cannot prove a negative and only positives count- i.e., what the constitution SAYS counts. Not what it doesn't say.

 

Quote

After you're done making love to your goat, show which architect made India a secular nation via the constitution, and show that India is a secular country in practice.

None of that is required, because you are engaging in sophistry. Again.

 

Share this post


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

Nowhere does it say that religion can be the basis. It doesnt say anywhere in the US constitution that religion cannot be used to appoint a government job. But doing so is a lawsuit.

I guess inbreeds like you do not understand that you cannot prove a negative and only positives count- i.e., what the constitution SAYS counts. Not what it doesn't say.

You are the one making a positive claim, of course shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy you are prone to use . The US is a secular country in both letter of law and practice. False equivalency fallacy comparing it to India. Inbred retard, use what little brain you have.

 

 I guess you should look up on WebMD the Indian constitution and laws passed by the Indian government. There is already judicial precedence in India to have religious based laws. For some Canadian goat-lover like you, reading is too hard. :hysterical:

 

Check your spelling/grammar chutiya, it's spelled doesn't. :hysterical:

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

None of that is required, because you are engaging in sophistry. Again.

This idiot can't understand that a fallacy must be present for sophistry to be going on. :hysterical: You're the inbred retard engaging in sophistry. It's okay, I don't expect anything else from you. :phehe:

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


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

You are the one making a positive claim, of course shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy you are prone to use . The US is a secular country in both letter of law and practice. False equivalency fallacy comparing it to India. Inbred retard, use what little brain you have.

 

 I guess you should look up on WebMD the Indian constitution and laws passed by the Indian government. There is already judicial precedence in India to have religious based laws. For some Canadian goat-f**ker like you, reading is too hard. :hysterical:

 

Check your spelling/grammar chutiya, it's spelled doesn't. :hysterical:

 

This idiot can't understand that a fallacy must be present for sophistry to be going on. :hysterical: You're the inbred retard engaging in sophistry. It's okay, I don't expect anything else from you. :phehe:

There is fallacy involved for all of us to see. 

Only a fool thinks Indian constitution doesnt state we are a secular nation.

 

As for proving a negative- you are not a scientist till you get off the mindset of 'prove this doesn't exist', which is what you are repeatedly asking people to do in various threads.

 

Share this post


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

There is fallacy involved for all of us to see. 

Only a fool thinks Indian constitution doesnt state we are a secular nation.

Stating and doing are different things. Once again a false equivalency between the US and India as "secular" countries. The sophistry is on your part only. Different religions have different social codes legally, the government of India is involved in the affairs of certain religions, temple management, etc, while not others. The fact that Indira inserted the 42nd amendment and thus the word secular,(and socialist) into the preamble of the constitution during Emergency doesn't mean the constitution is secular. Of course, for a brainless hijda like yourself, stating and doing are the same thing. :hysterical:  

 

I also asked you which founder made it secular. Also, please tell me the difference between the Hindi/Sanskrit version of the constitution and the English version. What is the difference between panth nirapeksha  and secular. 

 

Also, you inbred retard, you misspelled doesn't again. :hysterical:

18 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

As for proving a negative- you are not a scientist till you get off the mindset of 'prove this doesn't exist', which is what you are repeatedly asking people to do in various threads.

Learn to read you inbred fool. It's no wonder you think that WebMD is a scientific source.:hysterical: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, lol at the phony secular hijdas in this thread. Why aren't you hypocrites asking for Buddhist refugees to be taken in? You clowns only want to take in Rohingya refugees and not the Buddhists who were the initial victims of the violence. If you clowns were so concerned about being secular, then why didn't you raise your voice for the Buddhists to be taken in? 

 

Phony "secular" people and their disgusting lack of brain cells. 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-18395788

Quote

What is the nature of Myanmar's communal violence?

Over the last two years accusations of sexual assault and local disputes have created a flashpoint for violence that has quickly escalated into widespread communal clashes.

  • The first and most deadly incident began in June 2012 when widespread rioting and clashes between Rakhine Buddhists and Muslims, largely thought to be Rohingya Muslims, left 200 dead and displaced thousands. It was the rape and murder of a young Buddhist woman which sparked off that deadly chain of events
  • In March 2013 an argument in a gold shop in Meiktila in central Myanmar led to violence between Buddhists and Muslims which left more than 40 people dead and entire neighbourhoods razed
  • In August 2013 rioters burnt Muslim-owned houses and shops in the central town of Kanbalu after police refused to hand over a Muslim man accused of raping a Buddhist woman
  • In January 2014, the UN said that more than 40 Rohingya men, women and children were killed in Rakhine state in violence that flared after accusations that Rohingyas killed a Rakhine policeman.
  • In June 2014, two people were killed and five hurt in Mandalay, Myanmar's second city, following a rumour that spread on social media that a Buddhist woman had been raped by one or more Muslim men

 

Share this post


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

Also, lol at the phony secular hijdas in this thread. Why aren't you hypocrites asking for Buddhist refugees to be taken in? You clowns only want to take in Rohingya refugees and not the Buddhists who were the initial victims of the violence. If you clowns were so concerned about being secular, then why didn't you raise your voice for the Buddhists to be taken in? 

 

Phony "secular" people and their disgusting lack of brain cells. 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-18395788

 

Or maybe we just don't want religion to be the criteria for refugee status, but the actual level of threat faced by the individual on a case by case basis ?


Hard concept for Chaddis to understand i suppose.

 

Share this post


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

Or maybe we just don't want religion to be the criteria for refugee status, but the actual level of threat faced by the individual on a case by case basis ?


Hard concept for Chaddis to understand i suppose.

 

Gappu, I noticed my post disappeared, it looks like you reported it. I guess you shouldn't start abusing people if you don't like getting abused back. :hysterical:

 

None of you phony "secular" posters reared your ugly heads when only Muslim-Rohingyas were given refugee status. Where were you all hiding then? Are Buddhists not worthy of being given refugee status.

 

Gappu, you are the most shameless, on odd days you're Buddhist and on even you're Atheist. At least on odd days, you should have spoken up for Buddhists.

 

WebMD wala Scientist needs "Special Education", there is no reason for me to teach him. One actually has to be competent enough to make it into a university to be taught by a grad student. :finger: 

 

Wait, I can bring a Sumerian parchment to disprove ~200k years of human evolution as well(your brand of "Science") :hysterical: 

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


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

None of you phony "secular" posters reared your ugly heads when only Muslim-Rohingyas were given refugee status. Where were you all hiding then? Are Buddhists not worthy of being given refugee status.Wait, I can bring a Sumerian parchment to disprove ~200k years of human evolution as well(your brand of "Science") :hysterical: 

Once again, if a person is discriminated against and needs refugee status, it should be given on the basis of individual, case by case basis. I don't care if they are Rohingya, Burmese Buddhists, Pakistani Hindus or any such qualifying criteria. If they prove their life is in threat due to discrimination in their homeland, they should be accepted/denied on the basis of that and that alone.

Quote
 

WebMD wala Scientist needs "Special Education", there is no reason for me to teach him. One actually has to be competent enough to make it into a university to be taught by a grad student. :finger: 

 

A grad student who tries to prove a negative and ask us silly, unscientific questions like 'how do we know what was claimed did happen', ' prove that Ashoka is not a liar' etc. is not fit to teach anyone anything about scientific method,because he is failing at the most basic of scientific method : One cannot prove a negative. Just stick to regurgitating rote-memory stuff that got you your grades to the young pups that go to school, before you actually do some work where quality of work determines pay/employment status.

 

Quote

Wait, I can bring a Sumerian parchment to disprove ~200k years of human evolution as well(your brand of "Science")

Another case of sophistry.

Sumerian parchment proves prevalence of certain sexual habits long time ago. That is independent of reproductive history. Whether a woman sleeps with 1 man or 1000, every kid she has will only reflect the DNA of one man- the man who sired that kid (along with of course, her DNA).

You tried sophistry in trying to claim our evolutionary history proves our sexual proclivities. You got found out on that claim as usual and now in your bitterness you are crapping all over every other thread you can find.

 

Share this post


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

Once again, if a person is discriminated against and needs refugee status, it should be given on the basis of individual, case by case basis. I don't care if they are Rohingya, Burmese Buddhists, Pakistani Hindus or any such qualifying criteria. If they prove their life is in threat due to discrimination in their homeland, they should be accepted/denied on the basis of that and that alone.

That's your opinion. There is nothing in the constitution that supports that. There is also no responsibility of India to do that. India is a sovereign country and doesn't need the opinion of uneducated fools. Refugees fall under the Foreigners Act of 1946. India can let in whoever it wants. Your nonsense about "secularism" is trash as usual. Show India is legally required to accept people regardless of religion or buzz off. Your opinions are worth nothing to me, especially as a self avowed Canadian(part time Atheist, part time Buddhist).  Give me a law or don't quote me. You aren't capable of rational discussion.

 

 

The rest of your post is garbage as usual.  Once again, you aren't capable of rational discussion.

 

 You are not a scientist. Neither is Engineering nor Computer Science considered "Science", or medicine for that matter. If you were, you would provide a peer-reviewed journal article to support you claim. Whatever gutter-level discourse you want to reduce everyone else to with your ignorance and scientific illiteracy, is your prerogative. If you manage to impress a few people on the forum that aren't aware of the scientific method, good for you. I already showed you for what you are. There is a reason you disappeared from each of the 8 other threads. Once again, don't quote me without a peer-reviewed paper. You aren't capable of  rational discussion.

 

Provide a peer-reviewed article that supports your claim that humans were polyandrous, otherwise off with you. Here are 3 peer-reviewed journals that confirm what I had stated, the first of which you ran away from answering:

 

1)Am J Hum Genet. 2010 June 11; 86(6): 982.

2)Makova, K.D., and Li, W.H. (2002). Strong male-driven
evolution of DNA sequences in humans and apes. Nature
416, 624–626.

3)Frost, P. (2008). Sexual selection and human geaographic variation.
Journal of Social. Evolutionary and Cultural Psychology
2, 169–191.

 

 

You won't answer any of these, because you are a phony scientist, just like you are a phony historian in the other thread. Your beliefs aren't a substitute for facts. Quote me again with your meandering, incoherent posts and see what happens. 

 

For anyone actually interested in scientific sources and the scientific method, look at the tables below. If anyone claims to be a scientist and doesn't provide data from scholarly publications and research papers. They aren't a scientist. 

types_of_resources.png

types_of_resources2.png

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

That's your opinion. There is nothing in the constitution that supports that. There is also no responsibility of India to do that. India is a sovereign country and doesn't need the opinion of uneducated fools. Refugees fall under the Foreigners Act of 1946. India can let in whoever it wants. Your nonsense about "secularism" is trash as usual. Show India is legally required to accept people regardless of religion or buzz off. Your opinions are worth nothing to me, especially as a self avowed Canadian(part time Atheist, part time Buddhist).  Give me a law or don't quote me. You aren't capable of rational discussion.

Again, sophistry.

I said that India cannot differentiate on refugees based on religion. That doesnt mean India is legally required to accept people regardless of religion. There is no legal requirement to accept refugees in the first pace, demonstrating your statement to be a non-sequitur.

 

Quote

You are not a scientist. Neither is Engineering nor Computer Science considered "Science", or medicine for that matter.

LOL. Keep dreaming boy. Engineering is applied science. One cannot apply something one doesn't know/understand. And as i've demonstrated with my links, the standard of scientific methodology in engineering, is also second to none. Convenient that you steered clear of the EE website i posted from an university regarding standard of evidence.

We get it. You are butthurt that you couldn't get into Engineering, compsci or medicine and had to settle for biology. But no need to trash those disciplines as 'not science' just because you happen to be not good enough to get into them.

 

The fact that it is YOU who is pretending to be a scientist, is amply demonstrated by your penchant for asking people to prove a negative. Basic science fail.

 

Quote

Once again, don't quote me without a peer-reviewed paper.

You don't own this forum boy. I can quote whom i wish, when i wish. If you can't handle it, use the ignore function the creators of this forum have generously provided you with.

 

Quote

Quote me again with your meandering, incoherent posts and see what happens. 

Oh no! I am shivering in my booties !! 

2spky.gif

Quote
 
For anyone actually interested in scientific sources and the scientific method, look at the tables below. If anyone claims to be a scientist and doesn't provide data from scholarly publications and research papers. They aren't a scientist. 

Says the guy who is quoting wikipedia, then quoting an economist writing for a Chaddi magazine as counterpoint to peer-reviewed historical writings from a professional historian.

Classic obfuscation, pedantry, non-sequiturs and sophistry displayed here by our wanna-be scientist.

 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


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

Again, sophistry.

I said that India cannot differentiate on refugees based on religion. That doesnt mean India is legally required to accept people regardless of religion. There is no legal requirement to accept refugees in the first pace, demonstrating your statement to be a non-sequitur.

 

LOL. Keep dreaming boy. Engineering is applied science. One cannot apply something one doesn't know/understand. And as i've demonstrated with my links, the standard of scientific methodology in engineering, is also second to none. Convenient that you steered clear of the EE website i posted from an university regarding standard of evidence.

We get it. You are butthurt that you couldn't get into Engineering, compsci or medicine and had to settle for biology. But no need to trash those disciplines as 'not science' just because you happen to be not good enough to get into them.

 

The fact that it is YOU who is pretending to be a scientist, is amply demonstrated by your penchant for asking people to prove a negative. Basic science fail.

 

You don't own this forum boy. I can quote whom i wish, when i wish. If you can't handle it, use the ignore function the creators of this forum have generously provided you with.

 

Oh no! I am shivering in my booties !! 

2spky.gif

Says the guy who is quoting wikipedia, then quoting an economist writing for a Chaddi magazine as counterpoint to peer-reviewed historical writings from a professional historian.

Classic obfuscation, pedantry, non-sequiturs and sophistry displayed here by our wanna-be scientist.

 

0 laws provided and 0 peer-reviewed journals. Once again, make a million claims and provide 0 evidence.  

Gappugiri:

Make a legal claim but don't provide a legal answer

Make a scientific claim, but don't provide a peer reviewed publication.

As expected. You are as impotent as ever.

44446571.jpg  

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


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

Also, lol at the WebMD wala Gappu who thinks those charts were from Wikipedia. :hysterical:

 

Gappu, you are free to provide a source that says WebMD is a scientific source, since you are the only one to use it as such.:hysterical:

More sophistry.

I didnt say those charts are from Wiki.

I said you use wiki and opinion of an economist in a historical article as 'standard' but then want peer reviewed article from your opposition.


Classic double standards and sophistry. You lie exposed, bachchey. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2017 at 7:46 PM, Muloghonto said:

if you ask your like-minded Bangladeshi muslims, they will say that hindus are the rioters there.


Repeat after me: India is a constitutionally secular nation, not a Hindu nation. Therefore, its criteria for giving asylum is non-religious/irrelevant of religion. If we give refuge to persecuted Hindus, then we also should give refuge to persecuted muslims, christians,jews, atheists etc. And if we don't grant asylum coz subject is a muslim foreigner, then we should extend the same courtesy to hindu foreigners as well. 

 

No matter how much you chaddis would like to turn India into a hindu-mafia state, it won't happen. 

Nope there is no such restriction. If the elected representatives deem it as peoples will to give assylum to hindus only and not to muslims then it will be so.  It should be as well. Muslims hve several islamic republics across the globe where they will be accepted and they will have a good life there. 

Share this post


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

Nope there is no such restriction. If the elected representatives deem it as peoples will to give assylum to hindus only and not to muslims then it will be so.  It should be as well. Muslims hve several islamic republics across the globe where they will be accepted and they will have a good life there. 

I see that as very prone to abuse, if the criteria is based on religion. On the other hand, its a lot fairer if its case by case basis, where the subject proves that there is threat to his life or incarceration or civil violence for non-criminal activity by our standards. 

 

Share this post


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

More sophistry.

I didnt say those charts are from Wiki.

I said you use wiki and opinion of an economist in a historical article as 'standard' but then want peer reviewed article from your opposition.


Classic double standards and sophistry. You lie exposed, bachchey. 

It looks like you got another of my posts deleted. :rofl: You can call me whatever names you want, but you have a problem if I do it back to you. :hysterical:Here is the veg version of the post. :phehe:

 

I just don't read your posts anymore,:hysterical: I skim them to see if you provided a source or not.

Thereafter I just post what I know you won't answer to in response.:hysterical:

Considering the lack of sources in your posts, I don't feel the need to read your worthless, unsubstantiated opinions. :finger:  

Feel free to waste your time with long, meandering posts, devoid of sources. :angel:

 

Once again, you made a legal claim, provide a legal source. You claimed that India was constitutionally secular and that this requires that India accepts refugees on "secular" grounds. Please provide a source, otherwise there is no legal basis that India has to accept refugees on "secular" grounds. India can and will accept refugees based on whatever grounds it wishes to. If India only wants midgets as refugees, then only midgets will come into India.  If cantankerous old fiends are what India wants, that is what India gets. 

 

You made a scientific claim, provide a scientific source(peer-reviewed journal/original research). If you can't, then you are full of hot air, but I already knew that. Phony WebMD wala scientist. 

 

I warned you what would happen if you didn't provide sources. Now:

(This is more or less the same post you will see repeatedly in response to both threads until you provide sources for your claims. I don't care about your opinions and you have shown yourself to be incapable of rational discourse (ie providing sources)).

Tibarn 10 other poster 0 :aha:

 

 

Share this post


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

It looks like you got another of my posts deleted. :rofl: You can call me whatever names you want, but you have a problem if I do it back to you. :hysterical:Here is the veg version of the post. :phehe:

 

I just don't read your posts anymore,:hysterical: I skim them to see if you provided a source or not.

Thereafter I just post what I know you won't answer to in response.:hysterical:

 

Considering the lack of sources in your posts, I don't feel the need to read your worthless, unsubstantiated opinions. :finger:  

 

Feel free to waste your time with long, meandering posts, devoid of sources. :angel:

 

 

 

You made a scientific claim, provide a scientific source(peer-reviewed journal/original research). If you can't, then you are full of hot air, but I already knew that. Phony WebMD wala scientist. 

 

 

You won't read my posts, yet you want evidence. I give you evidence in form of links to sources, you don't read them.

And then you got the gall to call others 'unscientific'. 

LOL.

Bacchu, you are the horse who's been brought to water but will keep its mouth shut. Not much anyone can do if you won't read the evidences presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fort hose who are saying India has same resposnsibility toward persecuted Hindu's and muslims alike are wrong. Hindu's Sikh's , Jains and Parsi's  if persecuted anywhere in world can only look upto India for help.On the other hand There are 50 plus nations for muslims and christians to help.Let me put it that way your 2 cousins one from father side and one from mother side become orphan.Your father side has big family and apart from you he/she has 10 plus more cousins but you are the only cousin of the child from mother's side.Now don't you feel more responsible toward the cousin which only has you to look after?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Singh bling said:

Fort hose who are saying India has same resposnsibility toward persecuted Hindu's and muslims alike are wrong. Hindu's Sikh's , Jains and Parsi's  if persecuted anywhere in world can only look upto India for help.On the other hand There are 50 plus nations for muslims and christians to help.Let me put it that way your 2 cousins one from father side and one from mother side become orphan.Your father side has big family and apart from you he/she has 10 plus more cousins but you are the only cousin of the child from mother's side.Now don't you feel more responsible toward the cousin which only has you to look after?

Arre baba, my point is simple.

What makes one a refugee ? If one is going to face violence from society, jail, death penalty, harassment, etc. for doing something that is not a criminal offence, it gives the host nation valid reasons to offer asylum.


So what does it matter what the religion of the guy is ? Your options are either grant refugee status or send the guy home. No nation ever calls up another nation and goes 'hey, i don't want this guy as a refugee, he is on a plane to your nation, wanna take him?' In that case, the second nation will always be like 'wtf, why are you sending him my way ? you either accept him or send him home'. 


If criteria for refugee status are met and we are accepting a certain number of refugees, it shouldn't matter what imaginary friend in the sky the person looks up to or doesn't. 

Your analogy is wrong, because refugees are not related to us or are our family. 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


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

I see that as very prone to abuse, if the criteria is based on religion. On the other hand, its a lot fairer if its case by case basis, where the subject proves that there is threat to his life or incarceration or civil violence for non-criminal activity by our standards. 

 

That is true as well. This policy can be abused to the end of not supporting muslims and supporting hindus. The thing is still we already have millions of bangladeshi muslims it time to help the hindus who are getting killed their daughters abducted etc. If we dont help the hindus in pak and bd no one else will, stuff that happened to hindus in SL will happen again. Never again. 

Edited by Vilander

Share this post


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

You won't read my posts, yet you want evidence. I give you evidence in form of links to sources, you don't read them.

And then you got the gall to call others 'unscientific'. 

LOL.

Bacchu, you are the horse who's been brought to water but will keep its mouth shut. Not much anyone can do if you won't read the evidences presented.

 

Once again, you made a legal claim, provide a legal source. You claimed that India was constitutionally secular and that this requires that India accepts refugees on "secular" grounds. Please provide a source, otherwise there is no legal basis that India has to accept refugees on "secular" grounds. India can and will accept refugees based on whatever grounds it wishes to. If India only wants midgets as refugees, then only midgets will come into India.   

 

You made a scientific claim, provide a scientific source(peer-reviewed journal/original research). If you can't, then you are full of hot air, and are indeed a "phony, webMD wala "scientist."  

 

 

Otherwise, congrats on derailing another thread.

 

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


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

 

Once again, you made a legal claim, provide a legal source. You claimed that India was constitutionally secular and that this requires that India accepts refugees on "secular" grounds. Please provide a source, otherwise there is no legal basis that India has to accept refugees on "secular" grounds. India can and will accept refugees based on whatever grounds it wishes to. If India only wants midgets as refugees, then only midgets will come into India.   

 

You made a scientific claim, provide a scientific source(peer-reviewed journal/original research). If you can't, then you are full of hot air, and are indeed a "phony, webMD wala "scientist."  

 

 

Otherwise, congrats on derailing another thread.

 

Its funny that a guy bringing in discussions from another thread is accusing someone else of derailing the thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2017 at 1:11 PM, Muloghonto said:

Arre baba, my point is simple.

What makes one a refugee ? If one is going to face violence from society, jail, death penalty, harassment, etc. for doing something that is not a criminal offence, it gives the host nation valid reasons to offer asylum.


So what does it matter what the religion of the guy is ? Your options are either grant refugee status or send the guy home. No nation ever calls up another nation and goes 'hey, i don't want this guy as a refugee, he is on a plane to your nation, wanna take him?' In that case, the second nation will always be like 'wtf, why are you sending him my way ? you either accept him or send him home'. 


If criteria for refugee status are met and we are accepting a certain number of refugees, it shouldn't matter what imaginary friend in the sky the person looks up to or doesn't. 

Your analogy is wrong, because refugees are not related to us or are our family. 

1) Theoritically you are right that religion should not considered when giving asylum , but we have to look at real world. Muslims where they went as refugees or immigrants created trouble for host nation , either , increasing population , not accepting their secular culture  etc India already is facing problem of muslim population increase which will create big communal divide in future , that's why India need to look into religion of refugees.

 

2) Religious people do feel like a family that's why Religious organisations work across country lines. Indian muslims happily marry with Pakistani's but will never ever consider non muslim as spouse. It is also true for other religions.If tommoroww there is massacre of 1 lakh Hindu's in Pakistan or Bangladesh it will create massive communal environment in India

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2017 at 2:41 AM, Muloghonto said:

Arre baba, my point is simple.

What makes one a refugee ? If one is going to face violence from society, jail, death penalty, harassment, etc. for doing something that is not a criminal offence, it gives the host nation valid reasons to offer asylum.


So what does it matter what the religion of the guy is ? Your options are either grant refugee status or send the guy home. No nation ever calls up another nation and goes 'hey, i don't want this guy as a refugee, he is on a plane to your nation, wanna take him?' In that case, the second nation will always be like 'wtf, why are you sending him my way ? you either accept him or send him home'. 


If criteria for refugee status are met and we are accepting a certain number of refugees, it shouldn't matter what imaginary friend in the sky the person looks up to or doesn't. 

Your analogy is wrong, because refugees are not related to us or are our family. 

right and for India, criteria should be are you Muslims -> no refuge, kindly redirect to the land of pure. Are you Hindu/Sikh/Jain/Parsi/Yezidi ? --> are you not a terrorist or criminal--etc etc - Yes for refuge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

India has always provided refuge to those persecuted in their home countries. Parsis, Baghdadi Jews, Iranis (Sunni Iranians), Buddhists from Tibet etc. And most of these communities have, over the course of time, become a part of the fabric of the nation, contributing immensely in the process of nation building.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2017 at 7:46 PM, Muloghonto said:

Repeat after me:

No

 

I need no advice from someone who thinks British rule over India was positive. Give advice to some of your cotravellers, those of your stature: Islamists, comrades, etc

Quote

India is a constitutionally secular nation, not a Hindu nation. Therefore, its criteria for giving asylum is non-religious/irrelevant of religion.

India is a constitutionally Panth nirpeksh not Dharm nirpeksh and that too only after Indiria Gandhi imposing emergency and forcefully injecting the 42nd amendment. Neither phrase means "secular". You might not understand English, Hindi, or Sanskrit,and the nuance required when translating between languages, but here is a lesson for you:

Definition of secular(as allegedly followed by most western nations)

Quote
of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal:
 
or
 
not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred )

Panth nirpeksh

Quote

Sect-independent. This means not aligned to a particular Dharmic sect, not a religion. A sect, for example, is the Aghouris, Naga Sadhus, Ajivikas, Nam-Dharis(Sikh), Nirankaris, etc. 

Dharm nirpeksh

Quote

Roughly translated as "religion"-independent but more accurately Dharma-independent. Dharma would mean a version of Hinduism/Jainism/Sikhism/Buddhism. Non-Indian religions aren't Dharma.

If you have the mental faculties to see the distinction between the three phrases, you would see the dissonance. Sadly,not everyone is born with the pre-requisite ability to see nuance in language. 

 

Original constitution: no mention of "secular". Therefore the constitution wasn't "secular" at the time of design.  

 

Indira's constitutional amendment: cognitive dissonance between the Hindi/Sanskrit and the English versions of the constitution. One can no-more say India is "secular" than say it is panth-nirpeksh.  Someone uninformed about the importance of language in legal matters, and who learned a new word "sophistry" from watching SpongeBob Squarepants and therefore wants to misuse it, may not understand nuance, but civilized people do.   

 

You might not know Indian history, especially if you made the journey to this country after Mamata Bannerjee came to power and established secular sharia in W Bengal, but there is a Indian history lesson for you. For someone whose only "accomplishment" in life is their age, you should at least know that much.  That's the problem with the internet, however, any uninformed person can spout uninformed nonsense. 

 

There was no "secularism" or "secular" in the constitution as originally designed. The imposition of "Secular" was simultaneously a political ploy, against the spirit of the constitution which Ambedkar designed, and illegal. The fact that the 43rd and 44th amendments by the Janata Party failed to restore the original constitution in its entirety, doesn't change that.   

 

To argue that Ambedkar was "secular", by the western concept of the word, is both laughable and ignorant. Ambedkar argued that India would only have harmony if a complete population transfer upon independence occured:

From   BR Ambedkar’s Pakistan or the Partition of India

Quote

Some scoff at the idea of the shifting and exchange of population. But those who scoff can hardly be aware of the complications, which a minority problem gives rise to and the failures attendant upon almost all the efforts made to protect them. The constitutions of the post-war states, as well as of the older states in Europe which had a minority problem, proceeded on the assumption that constitutional safeguards for minorities should suffice for their protection and so the constitutions of most of the new states with majorities and minorities were studded with long lists of fundamental rights and safeguards to see that they were not violated by the majorities. What was the experience ? Experience showed that safeguards did not save the minorities. Experience showed that even a ruthless war on the minorities did not solve the problem. The states then agreed that the best way to solve it was for each to exchange its alien minorities within its border, for its own which was without its border, with a view to bring about homogeneous States. This is what happened in Turky, Greece and Bulgaria. Those, who scoff at the idea of transfer of population, will do well to study the history of the minority problem, as it arose between Turky, Greece and Bulgaria. If they do, they will find that these countries found that the only effective way of solving the minorities problem lay in exchange of population. The task undertaken by the three countries was by no means a minor operation. It involved the transfer of some 20 million people from one habitat to another. But undaunted, the three shouldered the task and carried it to a successful end because they felt that the considerations of communal peace must outweigh every other consideration.

That the transfer of minorities is the only lasting remedy for communal peace is beyond doubt. If that is so, there is no reason why the Hindus and the Muslims should keep on trading in safeguards which have proved so unsafe. If small countries, with limited resources like Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria, were capable of such an undertaking, there is no reason to suppose that what they did cannot be accomplished by Indians. After all, the population involved is inconsiderable and because some obstacles require to be removed, it would be the height of folly to give up so sure a way to communal peace.

There is one point of criticism to which no reference has been made so far. As it is likely to be urged, I propose to deal with it here. It is sure to be asked, how will Pakistan affect the position of the Muslims that will be left in Hindustan ? The question is natural because the scheme of Pakistan does seem to concern itself with the Muslim majorities who do not need protection arid abandons the Muslim minorities who do. But the point is : who can raise it ? Surely not the Hindus. Only the Muslims of Pakistan or the Muslims of Hindustan can raise it. The question was put to Mr. Rehmat Ali, the protagonist of Pakistan and this is the answer given by him :—

"How will it affect the position of the forty five million Muslims in Hindustan proper ?

" The truth is that in this struggle their thought has been more than a wrench to me. They are the flesh of our flesh and the soul of our soul. We can never forget them ; nor they, us. Their present position and future security is, and shall ever be, a mailer of great importance to us. As things are at present, Pakistan will not adversely affect their position in Hindustan. On the basis of population (one Muslim to four Hindus), they will still be entitled to the same representation in legislative as well as administrative fields which they possess now. As to the future, the only effective guarantee we can offer is that of reciprocity, and, therefore, we solemnly undertake to give all those safeguards to non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan which will be conceded to our Muslim minority in Hindustan. " But what sustains us most is the fact that they know we are proclaiming Pakistan in the highest interest of the’ Millet’. It is as much theirs as it is ours. While for us it is a national citadel, for them it will ever be a moral anchor. So long as the anchor holds, everything is or can be made safe. But once it gives way, all will be lost ". The answer given by the Muslims of Hindustan is equally clear. They say, " We are not weakened by the separation of Muslims into Pakistan and Hindustan. We are better protected by the existence of separate Islamic States on the Eastern and Western borders of Hindustan than we are by their submersion in Hindustan. " Who can say that they are wrong ? Has it not been shown that Germany as an outside state was better able to protect the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia than the Sudetens were able to do themselves ? 41[f.41]

Be that as it may, the question does not concern the Hindus. The question that concerns the Hindus is : How far does the creation of Pakistan remove the communal question from Hindustan ? That is a very legitimate question and must be considered. It must be admitted that by the creation of Pakistan, Hindustan is not freed of the communal question. While Pakistan can be made a homogeneous state by redrawing its boundaries, Hindustan must remain a composite state. The Musalmans are scattered all over Hindustan—though they are mostly congregated in towns—and no ingenuity in the matter of redrawing of boundaries can make it homogeneous. The only way to make Hindustan homogeneous is to arrange for exchange of population. Until that is done, it must be admitted that even with the creation of Pakistan, the problem of majority vs. minority will remain in Hindustan as before and will continue to produce disharmony in the body politic of Hindustan..

It is against the spirit of the Constitution to import Rohingyas.  That actions will disrupt communal harmony and would be against homogenization, another goal of Ambedkar.  Ambedkar would likelyonly accept refugees from a spiritually congruent country.

 

Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Thoughts on Pakistan, Thacker & Co., 1941, p.60

Quote

If unity is to be of an abiding character it must be founded on a sense of kinship, in the feeling of being kindred. In short it must be spiritual. Judged in the light of these considerations, the unity between Pakistan and Hindustan is a myth. Indeed there is more spiritual unity between Hindustan and Burma than there is between Pakistan and Hindustan

or

Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development

Quote

It may be granted that there has not been a thorough amalgamation of the various stocks that make up the peoples of India, and to a traveller from within the boundaries of India the East presents a marked contrast in physique and even in colour to the West, as does the South to the North. But amalgamation can never be the sole criterion of homogeneity as predicated of any people. Ethnically all people are heterogeneous. It is the unity of culture that is the basis of homogeneity. Taking this for granted, I venture to say that there is no country that can rival the Indian Peninsula with respect to the unity of its culture. It has not only a geographic unity, but it has over and above all a deeper and a much more fundamental unity—the indubitable cultural unity that covers the land from end to end.

Of course as part of Ambedkar's homogenization project, he would have wanted to "purify"  Hinduism (compared it to Catholicism) to Buddhism(compared it to Protestantism ), but that is neither here nor there.

 

To add to this, Ambedkar was a capitalist, but Indira inserted Socialism into the constitution with the same 42nd amendment.   

 

Call Ambedkar a Sanghi/Chaddi/Hindu Sharia etc as well. :angel:

 

I wonder why you support the importing of Rohingya terrorists into Indian J&K? Your Rohingya brethren, after being imported into Myanmar by your British masters(those same British you were thankful for ruling India), ran an insurgency to break off from Myanmar and join East Pakistan up until the 1960s. It looks like you are getting paid by Saudi and Pakistan. Is it your grand plan to provide more foot-soldiers for the J&K terrorist organizations? 

Quote

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-idUSKBN1450Y7

Myanmar's Rohingya insurgency has links to Saudi, Pakistan

It looks like your double game was exposed. 

 

Quote

If we 

There is no "we". I am also not associated with anyone that thinks British rule over India was positive, which you yourself claimed. 

 

Quote

give refuge to persecuted Hindus, then we also should give refuge to persecuted muslims, christians,jews, atheists etc. And if we don't grant asylum coz subject is a muslim foreigner, then we should extend the same courtesy to hindu foreigners as well.

Your "should"s are as irrelevant as your logic is poor. Should is your opinion and irrelevant in national law. Legally, refugees are governed by the  Foreigners Act of 1946. India doesn't have to accept anyone on what you claim are "secular" grounds. That is an arbitrary measure imagined by you.

 

A country whose citizens can't legally settle in another part of its own territory, in case you didn't know the rest of India can't settle in Kashmir, and one where the native inhabitants were chased out, in case you didn't know the Kashmiri Pandits are still unable to return to their homeland, has no business importing Islamists and Rioters from Myanmar and settling them in J&K. 

 

Your argument that nation policy is based off the constitution is rubbish as well. You claim India is secular and therefore that requires a secular national policy. That is your naivety and nothing more. Here's a clue for you:

 

India's domestic policies aren't secular. Aside from personal laws being different based on different religions, giving reservation based on religion, there is also this chart which shows how "secular" India is:

swarajya_Hindu_temples.jpg

 

The only people that think India is "secular" after viewing that chart either: 1) learned some Orwellian definition of the word, or 2) Just repeat the word without knowing what it means. If you think domestically India is secular, well, my opinion of you already can't get any lower, so all I can do is laugh. If you don't think India is secular domestically, there is no reason to expect it to be so on a national/international level. 

 

I can name a number of countries that are secular constitutionally, but don't act in secular ways, either domestically, in terms of national policy, and international actions. Only the naive think the instance of a word in a constitution affects national/foreign policy.

 

In regards to "Hindu Chaddi Sanghi" nonsense you post as well as the ethnic attacks on Marathis, Gujaratis, and Hindi speakers you made in the other thread regarding: 

 

Don't read if easily offended

Spoiler

1) Your personal hero Ashoka is a confirmed mass murderer and religious bigot, by actual historians, confirmed by all sources of history. 

2) Your from either West Bengal, or Bangladesh. One is ruled by an Islamist and the other is a defacto Islamic state. It looks like people of your ilk love actual sharia and love hallucinating about "Hindu sharia"

3) States ruled by people of similar pseudo-secular" ideology as you,  are national leaders in political murders, riots, violent crimes, new ISIS recruits, butchering Dalits, etc. It looks like your phony secularism is really helping out.

4) To add to 3, your pseudo-secular states also seem to lead the nation is garbage economies. Of course, as someone who thinks "Scandinavia bro" is an economic policy, it is no wonder you are ignorant of economics. 

5) You are habitually dishonest. You pretend to be Buddhist or Atheist depending on the thread. Who knows what else you lie about. Evidence below:

hypocrit.png

hypocrit2.png

 

Penultimately, you claim to be an empiricist, yet can't provide sources for your claims and shift burden of proof regularly. You simultaneously claim to be an Engineer/Software developer and a Scientist. I will dispel that myth right now. 

 

Source 1:

Via Boston University School of Engineering

http://www.bu.edu/eng/about/deans-welcome/dean-lutchen/engineering-is-not-science/

Quote

Engineering Is Not Science

Engineers are not a sub-category of scientists. So often the two terms are used interchangeably, but they are separate, albeit related, disciplines. Scientists explore the natural world and show us how and why it is as it is. Discovery is the essence of science. Engineers innovate solutions to real-world challenges in society. While it is true that engineering without science could be haphazard; without engineering, scientific discovery would be a merely an academic pursuit.

Source 2: Via the IEEE, a 400k member Engineering Professional Organization, writen by Duke Professor of Engineering

Quote

Engineering Is Not Science

And confusing the two keeps us from solving the problems of the world

By HENRY PETROSKI     
 

In political discourse, public policy debates, and the mass media, engineering is often a synonym for science. This confusion might seem an innocuous shorthand for headline writers, but it can leave politicians, policymakers, and the general public unable to make informed decisions about the technical challenges facing the world today.

Science is about understanding the origins, nature, and behavior of the universe and all it contains; engineering is about solving problems by rearranging the stuff of the world to make new things. Conflating these separate objectives leads to uninformed opinions, which in turn can delay or misdirect management, effort, and resources.

Source 3:

Literal dictionary defintion of a Scientist

Quote
  1. a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
 
Choose languageAfrikaansAlbanianAmharicArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBengaliBosnianBulgarianBurmeseCatalanCebuanoChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CorsicanCroatianCzechDanishDutchEsperantoEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekGujaratiHaitian CreoleHausaHawaiianHebrewHindiHmongHungarianIcelandicIgboIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseJavaneseKannadaKazakhKhmerKoreanKurdishKyrgyzLaoLatinLatvianLithuanianLuxembourgishMacedonianMalagasyMalayMalayalamMalteseMaoriMarathiMongolianNepaliNorwegianNyanjaPashtoPersianPolishPortuguesePunjabiRomanianRussianSamoanScottish GaelicSerbianShonaSindhiSinhalaSlovakSlovenianSomaliSpanishSundaneseSwahiliSwedishTajikTamilTeluguThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduUzbekVietnameseWelshWestern FrisianXhosaYiddishYorubaZulu
 
 

You don't have a PhD, therefore you aren't an expert in any science. You aren't studying either of the two categories of science, thus you aren't a scientist. Your own biography you told me states:

Quote

I came to Canada in 1989, graduated in Electrical Engineering (BASc) in 1992, MASc in 1994. My specialization is in control systems and i worked in several companies- mining, pulp mill, electronics production, etc. for almost 15+ years. Then i transitioned into programming, predominantly due to a superior lifestyle ( i am a master of my own time as a coder) almost 5 years ago and since then, i've mostly been doing programming and some occasional engineering consultancy.

Where exactly is there expertise of science or spending one's life researching/studying. Programming isn't the equivalent of studying.

 

Engineering isn't a natural science. It also isn't a physical science.

By definition, a physical science is a part of this list:

https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/cipdetail.aspx?y=55&cipid=88479

Quote
Close panel Browse 
 

Taking a couple of  classes in Physics for your engineering doesn't qualify you as a scientist. Just about every university in the US requires a battery of Biology/Chemistry/Physics courses for undergraduate students, even those studying subjects like Poetry. All US Poetry undergrads who take some Bio/Chem/Physics courses aren't scientists. 

 

If you were either a Scientist or an Engineer, you would be knowledgeable about the difference between the scientific method and the engineering method or at minimum be knowledgeable about at least one of the two. The fact that you conflated the two, implies that you are neither or ignorant of the differences. (I actually do believe your an engineer)

Steps of the Scientific Method

Steps of the Engineering Design Process

 

In your attempts to derail this thread,based on the Triple Talaq thread, I will repost the relevant portion:

 

Muloghonto's post

Quote

Your first claim was this:

You are completely mistaken actually. We have plenty of evidence that 'nuclear family' is a relatively recent creation amongst species homo sapiens and the fundamental form of sexual propagation of homo sapiens is various forms of polyandry (or di-andry). 

 

Thereafter, this was your supporting "evidence"

We have clay seals from Sumeria, where king Urukagina of Lagash outlaws the 'widespread prevalence of polyandry' amongst the citizens of Lagash, 4400 years ago.

Many of the hyper-backwards places in India, such as tribals in Andaman, tribes in Lahul-Spiti, polyandry has been a dominant form of marriage (practice is declining in Lahul-Spiti in the last 50 years). As recently as 100 years ago, the predominant form of marriage in Bhutan is polyandry. 

The Nivkh still practice polyandry. 

Amongst the inuit, the bulk majority of amazon tribes, etc. we see polyandry as the defaut form of propagation.

 

 

For a Scientific argument, you provided a clay seal with ambiguous wording, and isolated cases of polyandry among isolated tribes, in isolated parts of the world.

 

Let me re-post what qualifies as a Scientific resource.  

types_of_resources.png

If you notice, clay tablets and anecdotes don't make it on the list.

Now let me re-post the quality of Scientific resources:

types_of_resources2.png

Clay tablets and anecdotes don't even qualify as gray literature.  

 

To your unscientific  assertion, which I will re-post again, 

Quote

Your first claim was this:

You are completely mistaken actually. We have plenty of evidence that 'nuclear family' is a relatively recent creation amongst species homo sapiens and the fundamental form of sexual propagation of homo sapiens is various forms of polyandry (or di-andry). 

 

Thereafter, this was your supporting "evidence"

We have clay seals from Sumeria, where king Urukagina of Lagash outlaws the 'widespread prevalence of polyandry' amongst the citizens of Lagash, 4400 years ago.

Many of the hyper-backwards places in India, such as tribals in Andaman, tribes in Lahul-Spiti, polyandry has been a dominant form of marriage (practice is declining in Lahul-Spiti in the last 50 years). As recently as 100 years ago, the predominant form of marriage in Bhutan is polyandry. 

The Nivkh still practice polyandry. 

Amongst the inuit, the bulk majority of amazon tribes, etc. we see polyandry as the defaut form of propagation.

I retorted with this:

Quote

Now for some actual evidence. The mutation rate, based off the cycles of recombination of human chromosomes in meiosis, was examined over half a decade ago. Based on the comparative rates of meiotic mutation between sex chromosomes of X and Y and the autosomes. Geneticists were able to prove modern human mating structure. This is known as the breeding ratio. The number of women to men breeding in 3 different regions.

 

The values by region were

Africa: 2.792

Europe: 2.048

East Asia: 1.168

 

Thus they concluded, based on DNA evidence, over hundreds of thousands of years, that humans were either Monogamous or Polygamous in all three major regions of the world. If you want, I can send some of the data.

 

To add to this, our closest common ancestor is the Chimpanzee, which, like humans, has shown to have its evolution male-driven. This means that reproductive strategies were patriarchal. Once again, polyandry has no evidence. 

My argument was backed by these three Scientific research journals

1)Am J Hum Genet. 2010 June 11; 86(6): 982.

2)Makova, K.D., and Li, W.H. (2002). Strong male-driven
evolution of DNA sequences in humans and apes. Nature
416, 624–626.

3)Frost, P. (2008). Sexual selection and human geographic variation.
Journal of Social. Evolutionary and Cultural Psychology
2, 169–191.

 

All three of which fall under the categories of Scholarly publications and Primary Literature. Only 1 person used "science" in that thread, the other used pieces of clay. 

 

Your false bravado is cute, but, it is meaningless at the same time. Quote me again, without providing sources, and I will report you for trolling. Back up your claims with data/citations, or continue your disingenuous, unproductive discussions with someone who tries to derail every thread with their personal issues/agendas.  I don't have interest in TimesNow style opinion "shouting" matches. 

Share this post


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

No

 

I need no advice from someone who thinks British rule over India was positive. Give advice to some of your cotravellers, those of your stature: Islamists, comrades, etc

First up, congratulations- first post of yours where you've been able to present a coherent argument. 

 

However, this still is sophistry. I said i can see the good in British Rule. I also clarified multiple times that I don't want to pass judgement/do not consider British rule to be a good thing necessarily. I simply see it as a mixed bag- some positives, some negatives. I don't consider you, me or anyone else for the matter- to be qualified enough to pass judgement on such a multi-dimensional topic as 'was British Rule net positive or net negative', especially when we can see that there were clear, categoric horribly negative consequences to british rule as well as some remarkably positive consequence to it too.

Even if you want to see it as a narrow-minded few issues, thats your prerogative, but misrepresenting my position as someone who sees it as a mixed bag, is sophism at its best.

 

Quote

India is a constitutionally Panth nirpeksh not Dharm nirpeksh and that too only after Indiria Gandhi imposing emergency and forcefully injecting the 42nd amendment. Neither phrase means "secular". You might not understand English, Hindi, or Sanskrit,and the nuance required when translating between languages, but here is a lesson for you:

Definition of secular(as allegedly followed by most western nations)

......


Indira's constitutional amendment: cognitive dissonance between the Hindi/Sanskrit and the English versions of the constitution. One can no-more say India is "secular" than say it is panth-nirpeksh.

Sure. Both are official languages. Get a supreme court judgement. Logic would dictate that whichever language was actually used to pass the bill would hold sway in the 'spirit of the law' aspect, but we shall not know this till it happens i suppose, as its a matter of professional legal opinion.

 

Quote
 
You might not know Indian history, especially if you made the journey to this country after Mamata Bannerjee came to power and established secular sharia in W Bengal, but there is a Indian history lesson for you. For someone whose only "accomplishment" in life is their age, you should at least know that much.  That's the problem with the internet, however, any uninformed person can spout uninformed nonsense. 

:laugh:
Ok Bacchu. dream on. When you grow up a bit and get kids, marry etc. and oh i dunno, you may still have plenty of passions on this planet, you may value the concept of 'master of my own time' as more important than your fancy degree works. Which of course, you won't know yet, but in a decade or two, you most probably will also stop caring about them.

Quote

To argue that Ambedkar was "secular", by the western concept of the word, is both laughable and ignorant. Ambedkar argued that India would only have harmony if a complete population transfer upon independence occured:

Strawman. I have not implied that Ambedkar's secularism == western secularism. India and the west are fundamentally different models of secularism. But that is still irrelevant to the discussion.

As per implying that Amberkar was automatically against secularism, because he proposes population transfers- well, i happen to agree with him and i am still a secular. However, India missed the boat and it is not 1947. Cannot kick people out of India who are born to India. Again, basic legalism of citizenship act of India.

Quote
 
I wonder why you support the importing of Rohingya terrorists into Indian J&K? Your Rohingya brethren, after being imported into Myanmar by your British masters(those same British you were thankful for ruling India), ran an insurgency to break off from Myanmar and join East Pakistan up until the 1960s. It looks like you are getting paid by Saudi and Pakistan. Is it your grand plan to provide more foot-soldiers for the J&K terrorist organizations? 


Another bit of sophism. I actually oppose Rohingyas in Kashmir. That doesnt mean i oppose Rohingya refugees in rest of India. We are talking about insignificant amounts over time that make no dent to our population growth figures, selected on individual basis.

Like normal, civilized people. 

 

Quote

You don't have a PhD, therefore you aren't an expert in any science. You aren't studying either of the two categories of science, thus you aren't a scientist. Your own biography you told me states:

....

aking a couple of  classes in Physics for your engineering doesn't qualify you as a scientist. Just about every university in the US requires a battery of Biology/Chemistry/Physics courses for undergraduate students, even those studying subjects like Poetry. All US Poetry undergrads who take some Bio/Chem/Physics courses aren't scientists. 

Thats funny. 

We engineers spend 20-25% more time than you lame science grads in class & doing homework, in science & math, defend thesis and we are not 'scientists'. 

Sure bacchu.

Yes, we are not 'technically a scientist. But too bad for you, My degree says Bachelor of Applied SCIENCE. 

The only difference between your 'SCIENCE' and my 'APPLIE SCIENCE' is that mine will make 2x the money at 21 than yours will at 24. Its no coincidence that our marks in science courses for admissions purposes is higher than your departments on average.


Here is a tip for you bacchu: one day when you are bored with the monotony of life and wish you could just go off and enjoy life 2 months from now, with your wife or family or alone, you may lose some sense of attachment for your shiny degrees and do something that makes you MASTER OF YOUR OWN TIME.

That day, you will remember good old Muli. 
If you'd bothered to ask WHY an engineer would bother to become a coder, you'd realize that to many of us grown ups (and by that, i mean people who have ticked off the major boxes in life- career, marriage, kids, house, etc), being the master of our own time, doing what i want to do, when i want to do and not be stuck at 9-5 is the ULTIMATE career choice.

I can take my work with me and go wherever i want. My trustly laptop comes and " I need ze internet. Ya" And i make money sitting in a tropical paradise in December. Comparable money to my good old six figures and benefits.THATS why an engineer would choose to be a 'code coolie' as you may call it. I can do what you can't : Go * off to wherever i want, whenever i want or atleast, with 1000x more flexibility than your sorry 9-5 behind.


 

Quote
 

For a Scientific argument, you provided a clay seal with ambiguous wording, and isolated cases of polyandry among isolated tribes, in isolated parts of the world.

 

For a scientist it also provides greater prevalence rate than currently, which is the crux of the original argument.

 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always looked down upon scientists and engineers as the necessary dregs of the society. We need em, but don't really like em at all. Kind of like ear wax.

Can't believe that people here are trying to 'outscientist' each other. :facepalm:

Edited by Mariyam

Share this post


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

I always looked down upon scientists and engineers as the necessary dregs of the society. We need em, but don't really like em at all. Kind of like ear wax.

Can't believe that people here are trying to 'outscientist' each other. :facepalm:

You will be surprised how many actors, musicians, sportsperson and even super models come from science / engineering background

 

Share this post


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

I always looked down upon scientists and engineers as the necessary dregs of the society. We need em, but don't really like em at all. Kind of like ear wax.

Can't believe that people here are trying to 'outscientist' each other. :facepalm:

Scientists  are the reason the world is where it is today(the good parts not the bad). The winds of progress. 

 

I'm not trying out scientist Muloghonto. I'm showing him he is a engineer, so he shouldn't fake expertise in a field he isn't qualified to comment on. 

 

The earwax of society are you normies. :aetsch: 

Science> All

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


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

First up, congratulations- first post of yours where you've been able to present a coherent argument. 

 

However, this still is sophistry. I said i can see the good in British Rule. I also clarified multiple times that I don't want to pass judgement/do not consider British rule to be a good thing necessarily. I simply see it as a mixed bag- some positives, some negatives. I don't consider you, me or anyone else for the matter- to be qualified enough to pass judgement on such a multi-dimensional topic as 'was British Rule net positive or net negative', especially when we can see that there were clear, categoric horribly negative consequences to british rule as well as some remarkably positive consequence to it too.

Even if you want to see it as a narrow-minded few issues, thats your prerogative, but misrepresenting my position as someone who sees it as a mixed bag, is sophism at its best.

 

Sure. Both are official languages. Get a supreme court judgement. Logic would dictate that whichever language was actually used to pass the bill would hold sway in the 'spirit of the law' aspect, but we shall not know this till it happens i suppose, as its a matter of professional legal opinion.

 

:laugh:
Ok Bacchu. dream on. When you grow up a bit and get kids, marry etc. and oh i dunno, you may still have plenty of passions on this planet, you may value the concept of 'master of my own time' as more important than your fancy degree works. Which of course, you won't know yet, but in a decade or two, you most probably will also stop caring about them.

Strawman. I have not implied that Ambedkar's secularism == western secularism. India and the west are fundamentally different models of secularism. But that is still irrelevant to the discussion.

As per implying that Amberkar was automatically against secularism, because he proposes population transfers- well, i happen to agree with him and i am still a secular. However, India missed the boat and it is not 1947. Cannot kick people out of India who are born to India. Again, basic legalism of citizenship act of India.


Another bit of sophism. I actually oppose Rohingyas in Kashmir. That doesnt mean i oppose Rohingya refugees in rest of India. We are talking about insignificant amounts over time that make no dent to our population growth figures, selected on individual basis.

Like normal, civilized people. 

 

Thats funny. 

We engineers spend 20-25% more time than you lame science grads in class & doing homework, in science & math, defend thesis and we are not 'scientists'. 

Sure bacchu.

Yes, we are not 'technically a scientist. But too bad for you, My degree says Bachelor of Applied SCIENCE. 

The only difference between your 'SCIENCE' and my 'APPLIE SCIENCE' is that mine will make 2x the money at 21 than yours will at 24. Its no coincidence that our marks in science courses for admissions purposes is higher than your departments on average.


Here is a tip for you bacchu: one day when you are bored with the monotony of life and wish you could just go off and enjoy life 2 months from now, with your wife or family or alone, you may lose some sense of attachment for your shiny degrees and do something that makes you MASTER OF YOUR OWN TIME.

That day, you will remember good old Muli. 
If you'd bothered to ask WHY an engineer would bother to become a coder, you'd realize that to many of us grown ups (and by that, i mean people who have ticked off the major boxes in life- career, marriage, kids, house, etc), being the master of our own time, doing what i want to do, when i want to do and not be stuck at 9-5 is the ULTIMATE career choice.

I can take my work with me and go wherever i want. My trustly laptop comes and " I need ze internet. Ya" And i make money sitting in a tropical paradise in December. Comparable money to my good old six figures and benefits.THATS why an engineer would choose to be a 'code coolie' as you may call it. I can do what you can't : Go * off to wherever i want, whenever i want or atleast, with 1000x more flexibility than your sorry 9-5 behind.


 

For a scientist it also provides greater prevalence rate than currently, which is the crux of the original argument.

 

Gappu is triggered. Inbreeding IQ depression is lethal for him. Still no sources or references. :rofl:

 

Looks like he's pulling stuff out of thin air again.

 

He pretended to be a scientist, but was just a sad code coolie living in an igloo in Canada:phehe:

 

Now he is trying to explain his career decisions to someone half his age. :hysterical:

Edited by Tibarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Army wants check on Hyderabad Rohingyas

 

About 4,000 Rohingya refugees stay in the city with a sizeable number residing near defence establishments.

 

Whose bright idea was it to settle them near defence installations :facepalm:? Most of them might be innocent but even a few bad eggs can spoil the broth, after all they have indulged in terror attacks on Indian soil, btw ARSA is headed by a Pakistani and backed by LeT...so Army is cautious with a valid reason. Please shift them to the outskirts far away from these sensitive places.

 

https://deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/090718/army-wants-check-on-hyderabad-rohingyas.html

 

Share this post


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

Army should be given a free hand in dealing with these cretins. Dare I say we need a Serbian approach here.

Serbian approach gets our 'generals' branded as war criminals and tried in ICJ. Not great for Indian diplomacy which is already on the backfoot against the Chinese in our quest to be the dominant power in our own backyard.

 

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

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×