About time SC banned Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal and RSS

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, zen said:

 

"The key point is that many people in Ind see certain "Western" type of behavior as alien to Indian culture. Are they right or wrong, we can't decide as it has to be decided by concensus on where Ind wants to go 

 

What can be seen as inappropriate is the way in which many resort to goondagiri to show their PoV. And this is where the problem lies and where action should be taken 

 

If these elements can demonstrate their PoV through more appropriate means, a social media campaign, etc, it is totally acceptable because as I said where Ind wants to go culturally should be decided through concensus 

 

Talking about banning is equalivalent to those asking for bans resorting to extreme tactics too because they feel they are on the right side 

 

To reiterate, where Ind wants to go culturally should be decided through a concensus. India culture isnt totally western inclined, neither it is totally  Saudi type inclined. It is somewhere in the middle. By setting up new playing rules appropriate to Ind's culture, such frictions would be resolved"

 

 

So your point #2 is not applicable too and demonstrates your habit of reading "selectively" for e.g.: 

 

Zen: Many people say that Mahatma Gandhi is not great. However, I think he is great. 

Muloghanto, after highlighting the Mahatma Gandhi is not great part, writes: So you think Mahatma Gandhi is not great? Blah blah

 

 

Already addressed through various posts .... 

 

Good than your whole family would be in jail and the indecent couple can freely park near your house and do their business 

 

 

Various posts have clearly clarified my position on this .... Your position reminds me of the neem hakim khatre jaan story, which goes like this:

 

In a village, a camel had a watermelon stuck in his throat. A hakim, alleviated the camel's pain by smashing the watermelon with stones

 

A neem hakim obeserved that. In the absence of the hakim, later the neem hakim is called up on to visit an old lady who has a lump in her throat. The neem hakim recalls what happens earlier in the day and tries to emulate the hakim by smashing the lump with a stone. The lady dies 

 

Neem hakims like you are a danger to societies too 

 

 

 

Again, the point is that if parties have to be banned for having and/or supporting (by not taking action) members who do criminal activities (whatever they may be), Ind will probably have to ban many parties starting with the likes of Congress, which is corrupt .... We cannot pick and choose on which parties to ban based up on which issues are personally more important to us. If you are talking about the law, it should have universal applicability and on a broader range of issues  

 

So again, do you have anything interesting or meaningful to post? 

 

As i said, anyone who doesn't think that political parties that tolerate crimes from its members should be sanctioned, is basically propagating goonda-raj and fascism.

I've already stated why so.

And all you are demonstrating, is you do not understand the concept of aiding & abetting a crime, which is why you make BS observations about 'neem hakim' or 'family' and such like.

 

Since you have, at no point in your post, admitted that your family IS committing a crime by sheltering you(if you are a criminal) or that they do deserve to go to jail for not reporting a crime they knew about, it simply means you have no idea WTF you are talking about regarding the law. You are damn straight that your family will be rotting in a jail cell and the 'indecent couple' still parked outside your house, if you assault them and your family aids and abets you in the crime. 

Which is not a surprise, because you are Indian and Indians have zero knowledge or interest in personal law.

And it is no surprise, that you went down the route of cut-pasting, as i predicted, instead of answering the question about aiding and abetting. You have not 'already answered' why political parties should be exempt from aiding and abetting responsibilities, when every other organization is held to the same standard. 

Because you have no counter to it. Saying 'all parties would then be banned'- sure, if we have proof like above, where all parties aid and abet crime officially done in the name of the party, they all should be banned.

 

And not to mention, you are categorically wrong, because in India one can go to jail for knowing a crime happened but failing to report it ( aiding and abetting/obstruction of justice ) - just that it happens so rarely because our justice system is too small and too inundated to deal with it.

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, Yoda-esque said:

Lets ban other questionable organizations that do "real" damage first...

Like i said, this is the problem with India - our justice system is so far down the toilet, that we do not consider assault as a 'real crime'. Maybe one day, in my lifetime, India will become civilized enough, like rest of the civilized world, to prosecute assault like it should be.

A country that cannot protect the person, is failing at being a country at the most basic level.

 

[zen]

29 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Your comedy continues ..... 

 

Quote

As i said, anyone who doesn't think that political parties that tolerate crimes from its members should be sanctioned, is basically propagating goonda-raj and fascism.

And who said that any crimes should be tolerated? 

 

In case your forgot, the point was about banning and its use in the larger sense 

 

 

Quote

 

I've already stated why so.

And all you are demonstrating, is you do not understand the concept of aiding & abetting a crime, which is why you make BS observations about 'neem hakim' or 'family' and such like.

Since you have, at no point in your post, admitted that your family IS committing a crime by sheltering you(if you are a criminal) or that they do deserve to go to jail for not reporting a crime they knew about, it simply means you have no idea WTF you are talking about regarding the law.

Which is not a surprise, because you are Indian and Indians have zero knowledge or interest in personal law.

 

 

What crime has been reported? 

 

 

Quote

 

And it is no surprise, that you went down the route of cut-pasting, as i predicted, instead of answering the question about aiding and abetting.

Because you have no counter to it.

And not to mention, you are categorically wrong, because in India one can go to jail for knowing a crime happened but failing to report it ( aiding and abetting/obstruction of justice ) - just that it happens so rarely because our justice system is too small and too inundated to deal with it.

 

Then you should be in the jail, if you think a crime occurred and you did not report it .... and then we can charge you with "aiding and abetting" 

 

Once again thank you for proving my points on your illogical points 

 

Once again do you have anything interesting and meaningful to post? Or should we consider this as a joke section thread 

 

 

[zen]

Please send this thread to the jokes section or everyone here will be in jail for not reporting the crime 

 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

And who said that any crimes should be tolerated? 

 

In case your forgot, the point was about banning and its use in the larger sense 

If the political parties should not tolerate crimes done by its members under its name, then there should be consequences to the political party FOR tolerating said crimes. 

Your argument 'they should not tolerate crimes, but political parties cannot be touched' is inconsistent.

Quote

 

What crime has been reported? 

 

In your example, where you want to assault a couple for parking near your house and committing indecent acts. If your family knows you assaulted but failed to report you, your family is aiding/abetting and/or obstructing justice. Which is a crime. You can't run away from this basic fact.

 

Quote

Then you should be in the jail, if you think a crime occurred and you did not report it .... and then we can charge you with "aiding and abetting" 

 

Once again thank you for proving my points on your illogical points 

 

You are exposing your ignorance of the law and legal procedures, yet again.

What you THINK is irrelevant. Nobody said 'i think a crime is committed, i must report it or else i am in trouble'. But if you KNOW a crime has been committed and you fail to report it, that is a crime. When you see someone assault another person, its not a matter of 'think', its a matter of knowing. X and Y are assaulting each other (if there is a fight,instead of a one-sided beating).

 

Quote

Once again do you have anything interesting and meaningful to post? Or should we consider this as a joke section thread 

People like you, who do not understand the basic concept of aiding & abetting and obstruction of justice, tend to think many aspects of law and legalism are a joke. Thank God, we don't care about those people here.

 

[zen]

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

As I said, the more you post, the more comical your points gets 

 

 

Quote

 

If the political parties should not tolerate crimes done by its members under its name, then there should be consequences to the political party FOR tolerating said crimes. 

Your argument 'they should not tolerate crimes, but political parties cannot be touched' is inconsistent.

 

Good to know that you want to discuss subjects w/o even having an understanding of arguments that others are making .... In case, you are wondering:

 

• 1st - who said that no action should be taken against those who commit crime? I wrote banning is not an answer in this context ... Appears as if you think that only consequence that parties can face is ban so if anyone who does not support ban is against any sort of action against parties (as I said you points and deductions are comical) 
• 2nd - Is a crime reported? If yes, it is up to relevant authorities to take pursue the matter .... if not, you should be in jail as you did not report it (per your comical deductions) 

 

 

Quote

In your example, where you want to assault a couple for parking near your house and committing indecent acts. If your family knows you assaulted but failed to report you, your family is aiding/abetting and/or obstructing justice. Which is a crime. You can't run away from this basic fact.

You are exposing your ignorance of the law and legal procedures, yet again.

What you THINK is irrelevant. Nobody said 'i think a crime is committed, i must report it or else i am in trouble'. But if you KNOW a crime has been committed and you fail to report it, that is a crime. When you see someone assault another person, its not a matter of 'think', its a matter of knowing. X and Y are assaulting each other (if there is a fight,instead of a one-sided beating).

People like you, who do not understand the basic concept of aiding & abetting and obstruction of justice, tend to think many aspects of law and legalism are a joke. Thank God, we don't care about those people here.

 

By your logic, we all are already criminals for not reporting any crime against the alleged Shiv Sankiks, and this also makes every bystander in Ind a criminal 

 

And it is good to know that you edited the OP by removing one of the videos. The other one too does not go with your point as the people in video are opposing Valentines Day based on Ind culture issues that are already discussed 

 

Please come up with more such comical threads! 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

9 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Good to know that you want to discuss subjects w/o even having an understanding of arguments that others are making .... In case, you are wondering:

 

• 1st - who said that no action should be taken against those who commit crime? I wrote banning is not an answer in this context ... Appears as if you think that only consequence that parties can face is ban so if anyone who does not support ban is against any sort of action against parties (as I said you points and deductions are comical) 
• 2nd - Is a crime reported? If yes, it is up to relevant authorities to take pursue the matter .... if not, you should be in jail as you did not report it (per your comical deductions) 

1.  There is no comedy in 'obstruction of justice'. If a crime is committed that YOU know about, yet YOU fail to report it, that makes YOU guilty of obstructing justice. That does not mean you are guilty of obstructing justice for any random crime committed you don't know about.

Again, basic logic fails you.

 

2. So tell us then what is the consequence for the Political organization for aiding and abetting in a crime ? What is the penalty for the political party in such a scenario ? 

 

Quote

 

By your logic, we all are already criminals for not reporting any crime against the alleged Shiv Sankiks, and this also makes every bystander in Ind a criminal 

Bhai, this is not 'my logic', this is what the LAW says. And no, it doesnt make every bystanders a criminal- it makes the ones who KNEW a crime has been committed and didn't report it, a criminal. 

 

Quote

The other one too does not go with your point as the people in video are opposing Valentines Day based on Ind culture issues that are already discussed 

 

Yes, it does go with my point. Because you have no right to assault another person. If you don't like valentine's day, go talk about it but last i checked, you not liking something doesn't give you the right to commit assault over it.  If a law is broken, only a law enforcement person can arrest or apprehend the criminal- you cannot as a civilian. So next time, you see something is a crime, report it. If you interfere and assault someone, even if they are committing a crime, it doesn't excuse your crime. Sad that this basic principle of law is unknown to educated Indians like yourself.

 

 

PS: I didnt edit the video. I actually didnt even see it was missing. Thanks for pointing ti out, i will ask a mod if they edited it out and if so, why.

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

45 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

The comedy keeps coming in 

 

 

Quote

 

1.  There is no comedy in 'obstruction of justice'. If a crime is committed that YOU know about, yet YOU fail to report it, that makes YOU guilty of obstructing justice. That does not mean you are guilty of obstructing justice for any random crime committed you don't know about.

Again, basic logic fails you.

 

Ofc we are talking about crimes we have witnessed or know about .... Many Indians witness or know about many crimes that are committed every day, which means that more criminals are being added to Ind's system everyday (using your point) 

 

 

Quote

2. So tell us then what is the consequence for the Political organization for aiding and abetting in a crime ? What is the penalty for the political party in such a scenario ? 

Those individuals involved for doing goonda-giri be punished by law .... Party pays the damages caused by the workers' actions 

 

 

Quote

Bhai, this is not 'my logic', this is what the LAW says. And no, it doesnt make every bystanders a criminal- it makes the ones who KNEW a crime has been committed and didn't report it, a criminal. 

Appears as if you have nothing much to add .... refer to the first line that I wrote in this post 

 

 

 

Quote

Yes, it does go with my point.

Well, you wrote the below in OP:

 

Quote

They are nothing more than hinduvta terrorists. Random violence against minorities, random violence against Hindus who do not conform to their medieval interpretation of Hinduism, these groups should be banned and their members better off converting to Islam than sully the name of Hinduism.

The video was about opposing Valentine Day so can you show that not allowing celebration of Valentine's Day is Hindu religion based and not cultural where it is not acceptable for Indian parents, in general and irrespective of religion, to see their daughters move out of the house (as discussed earlier in various posts)?

 

 

 

Quote

Because you have no right to assault another person. If you don't like valentine's day, go talk about it but last i checked, you not liking something doesn't give you the right to commit assault over it.  

What is the point in writing the above when noone is saying that action should not be taken against goondas? .... the discussion is about your point on whether the party should be banned

 

And this has been discussed multiple times (post 16, 47, etc. for example) so can you explain why would you write the above when it is not even a point of discussion? What is the point in wasting time with such posts?

 

 

Quote

 If a law is broken, only a law enforcement person can arrest or apprehend the criminal- you cannot as a civilian. So next time, you see something is a crime, report it. If you interfere and assault someone, even if they are committing a crime, it doesn't excuse your crime. Sad that this basic principle of law is unknown to educated Indians like yourself.

To me, it demonstrates your lack of understanding about practical law. Say a person is being attacked by a group and someone sees that. That someone could assault (used to refer to attack in this case to defend oneself or others) that group as a measure of self defense or to save someone if situation demands .... while many idiots will stand reciting the law and not prevent the harm from being done  .... Education is more than what you get from books 

 

So again, do you have anything meaningful and interesting to post? 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

Ofc we are talking about crimes we have witnessed or know about .... Many Indians witness or know about many crimes that are committed every day, which means that more criminals are being added to Ind's system everyday (using your point) 

Correct.

 

Quote

Those individuals involved for doing goonda-giri be punished by law .... Party pays the damages caused by the workers' actions 

Atlast, a straight answer. The 'damages payable' are decided by a judge. As i said earlier, such sanctions must befall parties that tolerate unpunished crime. And in case of repeat offences, the penalties would/should be increased, to the point where parties get banned for repeat violation. That'd be consistent with 'repeat offender' codes.

 

Quote

Appears as if you have nothing much to add .... refer to the first line that I wrote in this post 

Says the guy who took 20 posts to admit that party bears responsibility and an be punitively punished for the actions of its workers.

 

Quote

The video was about opposing Valentine Day so can you show that not allowing celebration of Valentine's Day is Hindu religion based and not cultural where it is not acceptable for Indian parents, in general and irrespective of religion, to see their daughters move out of the house (as discussed earlier in various posts)?

The video was about assault. Which is a crime. Doesn't matter what you feel about Valentine's day, you are not allowed to assault a person over it. 

Quote

What is the point in writing the above when noone is saying that action should not be taken against goondas .... the discussion is about your point on whether the party should be banned

 

This has been discussed multiple times (post 16, 47, etc. for example) so can you explain why would you write the above when it is not even a point of discussion? 

Because you keep saying that the assault happened due to 'western values' clashing with Indian values, without stating that assaults should not happen, period.

 

Quote

To me, it demonstrates your lack of understanding about practical law. Say a person is being attacked by a group and someone sees that. That someone could assault (used to refer to attack in this case to defend oneself or others) that group as a measure of self defense or to save someone if situation demands .... while many idiots will stand reciting the law and not prevent the harm from being done  .... Education is more than what you get from books 

 

 

Again, useless shenanigans from you. I stated that only time assault is legally valid is for self defence/defence of person & property FROM assault. 

Nobody disputed that.

But you cannot beat up people if they do not threaten your personal and propreiterial safety. 

You can see someone offloading a ton of cocaine into a truck- you still will go to jail if you assault them to prevent them from loading the coke. Why ? Because you cannot plead self defence/defence of person when you attacked someone. 

That is what i am stating. 

Same goes for your 'couple committing indecent act in front of your house'. You are entitled to call the police. But them having sex in front of your house, is not a cause for self defence or property defence for you- so if you hit them, you are guilty of assault. And if your family knowingly hides you from the law/fails to report it, it makes them accessory.

I know in India, such things hardly ever get enforced, because our justice system is so backed up. But all I've said above, about how obstruction of justice/aiding and abetting scenarios happen in civilized countries, there is legal consequences to it.

 

 

[zen]

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Correct.

So another attempt to waste time by you 

 

 

Quote

Atlast, a straight answer. The 'damages payable' are decided by a judge. As i said earlier, such sanctions must befall parties that tolerate unpunished crime. And in case of repeat offences, the penalties would/should be increased, to the point where parties get banned for repeat violation. That'd be consistent with 'repeat offender' codes.

Says the guy who took 20 posts to admit that party bears responsibility and an be punitively punished for the actions of its workers

My answers are straight. It is that you take a longer than necessary time to understand and/or put 2+2 together

 

 

Quote

The video was about assault. Which is a crime. Doesn't matter what you feel about Valentine's day, you are not allowed to assault a person over it. 

You posted the video in relation to comment about the crime being Hinduism related - " random violence against Hindus who do not conform to their medieval interpretation of Hinduis"

 

Quote

Because you keep saying that the assault happened due to 'western values' clashing with Indian values, without stating that assaults should not happen, period.

Another comical deduction .... when someone says goondagirdi should be punished, it is implied that it should not happen 

 

 

Quote

 

Again, useless shenanigans from you. I stated that only time assault is legally valid is for self defence/defence of person & property FROM assault. 

Nobody disputed that.

But you cannot beat up people if they do not threaten your personal and propreiterial safety. 

You can see someone offloading a ton of cocaine into a truck- you still will go to jail if you assault them to prevent them from loading the coke. Why ? Because you cannot plead self defence/defence of person when you attacked someone. 

That is what i am stating. 

Same goes for your 'couple committing indecent act in front of your house'. You are entitled to call the police. But them having sex in front of your house, is not a cause for self defence or property defence for you- so if you hit them, you are guilty of assault. And if your family knowingly hides you from the law/fails to report it, it makes them accessory.

I know in India, such things hardly ever get enforced, because our justice system is so backed up. But all I've said above, about how obstruction of justice/aiding and abetting scenarios happen in civilized countries, there is legal consequences to it.

 

It just shows how you waste your posts 

 

/thread

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, zen said:

So another attempt to waste time by you 

Not at all. You finally followed/clued on to the fact that not reporting a crime that you know happened, is a crime and if it makes more Indians criminals, then that is what it is.

Quote

My answers are straight. It is that you take a longer than necessary time to understand and/or put 2+2 together

If your answeres were straight,you'd not take 20 posts to come and agree with what i said about parties bearing sanctions for the actions of its cadres. Now it will take another 5 pages for you to come around that if fining (paying damages as you said) is not getting the said party to stop supporting criminals, repeat offences will escalate the penalty, leading to eventual ban. 

 

Quote

You posted the video in relation to comment about the crime being Hinduism related - " random violence against Hindus who do not conform to their medieval interpretation of Hinduis"

Yes. That is what the reason for the assault is. It is still a video, first and foremost, about the crime of assault.

 

Quote

It just shows how you waste your posts

Says the guy who takes 20 posts to agree that parties should face consequences for the action of its cadres.

 

[zen]

17 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Not at all. You finally followed/clued on to the fact that not reporting a crime that you know happened, is a crime and if it makes more Indians criminals, then that is what it is.

If your answeres were straight,you'd not take 20 posts to come and agree with what i said about parties bearing sanctions for the actions of its cadres. Now it will take another 5 pages for you to come around that if fining (paying damages as you said) is not getting the said party to stop supporting criminals, repeat offences will escalate the penalty, leading to eventual ban. 

 

Yes. That is what the reason for the assault is. It is still a video, first and foremost, about the crime of assault.

 

Says the guy who takes 20 posts to agree that parties should face consequences for the action of its cadres.

 

I trust that you are naive and/or dumb enough to believe what you wrote above .... even skimming that felt like a waste of time .... better luck next time  

 

/thread

 

[gattaca]

18 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

When the 'few' do it in name of the organization, as evidenced in the video above, are members of the organization and the organization takes no action, then the organization is guilty of abetting the crime. 

And i dunno about Buddhists, but yes, Atheists do have less tolerance towards crime. Which is why countries with high levels of atheism have very low levels of crime and high levels of enforcement of the law. 

 

China agrees with this. They kill all people who follow religion and people have to hide to practice religion. 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, gattaca said:

China agrees with this. They kill all people who follow religion and people have to hide to practice religion. 

Err so does Canada. And western europe. Nazi party is banned in Germany. Social Democrats got a 30 year moratorium in British Columbia and then dissolved.

 

[moniker]

@Muloghonto Though I agree most of what you've said here, failure to report a crime is not regarded as a crime. You are under no obligation to report a crime that you've witnessed, unless you are being specifically interrogated.

 

 

Actively concealing a crime comes under aiding/abetting the crime. That is unlawful. But merely not choosing to report a crime cannot be considered as aiding or abetting the crime.

[Vilander]

On 2/19/2017 at 0:38 PM, Muloghonto said:

Or, we as a people can demand our government starts spending more on justice department (police & courts) instead of spending billions on the military that is never going to go to mass scale war and get these Gundaas arrested and prosecuted, down to the last man.

beating them up, will not solve the problem, it will only cause more lawlessness.

 

Indian defence budget is 1.6pc of GDP its very low as such. dont mix up things. Goonda elements in these organizations need to be stopped for sure though, all this **** about moral policing is just a barb for assaulting and molesting people.

[maniac]

@Muloghonto RSS was the only organization that actually did service during the Chennai floods...not any of the other so called "secular" organizations.

 

They were also active helping out refugee camps during partition and other such crisis.

 

They are always in the forefront during any natural disaster,etc.

 

There are a lot more "secular organizations" that deserve a ban and also RSS is not a religious establishment,it's ideology is  nationalistic.

 

Let us ban left parties first before we can even talk about RSS.

Edited February 24, 2017 by maniac

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, maniac said:

@Muloghonto RSS was the only organization that actually did service during the Chennai floods...not any of the other so called "secular" organizations.

 

They were also active helping out refugee camps during partition and other such crisis.

 

They are always in the forefront during any natural disaster,etc.

 

There are a lot more "secular organizations" that deserve a ban and also RSS is not a religious establishment,it's ideology is  nationalistic.

 

Let us ban left parties first before we can even talk about RSS.

This is nonsense. You will ALWAYS find a group of people who you find more abhorrable than a said group being criticized. "Why punish this guy when there are bigger A-holes out there?' is not how one reforms society. We didnt get rid of Sati by arguing 'what about Aghoris ? They eat dead people!cannibals! deal with them first'. 

And i got to LOL about RSS not being a religious society. If they were non-religious, they would not have a problem with liberal nationalists. Or the idea that Hinduism, like every other religion, has no place in government.

 

[Muloghonto]

7 hours ago, Vilander said:

Indian defence budget is 1.6pc of GDP its very low as such. dont mix up things. Goonda elements in these organizations need to be stopped for sure though, all this **** about moral policing is just a barb for assaulting and molesting people.

My point is, spending money on Law & Order is far bigger necessity for a nation than spending on big weapons, given that we hardly ever use them. 

This is the day and age of posturing, asymmetrical warfare and as long as you have nukes, nobody is going to invade you and put you in existential crisis. That doesn't mean we don't need more planes, tanks and other toys- just that we need it LESS than we need a fully functioning country.

 

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

My point is, spending money on Law & Order is far bigger necessity for a nation than spending on big weapons, given that we hardly ever use them. 

This is the day and age of posturing, asymmetrical warfare and as long as you have nukes, nobody is going to invade you and put you in existential crisis. That doesn't mean we don't need more planes, tanks and other toys- just that we need it LESS than we need a fully functioning country.

 

Not that simple. Follow the current missile race between China-India-Pakistan its pretty much cat and mouse, there is something called strategic balance that needs to be maintained to ensure credible deterrence, else the other side will call ones bluff like what China does to India, and India did to Pak with the strikes.