Muloghonto Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) 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. 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. Wait, I can bring a Sumerian parchment to disprove ~200k years of human evolution as well(your brand of "Science") Edited January 18, 2017 by Tibarn Moochad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 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") 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 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. Moochad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 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 !! 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 January 19, 2017 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 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 !! 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. Edited January 19, 2017 by Tibarn Moochad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Also, lol at the WebMD wala Gappu who thinks those charts were from Wikipedia. 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. Moochad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 8 minutes ago, Tibarn said: Also, lol at the WebMD wala Gappu who thinks those charts were from Wikipedia. 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 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. You can call me whatever names you want, but you have a problem if I do it back to you. Here is the veg version of the post. I just don't read your posts anymore, 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. Considering the lack of sources in your posts, I don't feel the need to read your worthless, unsubstantiated opinions. Feel free to waste your time with long, meandering posts, devoid of sources. 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 Moochad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 2 hours ago, Tibarn said: It looks like you got another of my posts deleted. You can call me whatever names you want, but you have a problem if I do it back to you. Here is the veg version of the post. I just don't read your posts anymore, 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. Considering the lack of sources in your posts, I don't feel the need to read your worthless, unsubstantiated opinions. Feel free to waste your time with long, meandering posts, devoid of sources. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 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? Vilander 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 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 January 19, 2017 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 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 January 19, 2017 by Vilander Singh bling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 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 January 19, 2017 by Tibarn Moochad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 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. sandeep 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts