Jump to content

Muloghonto

Members L2
  • Content count

    7,570
  • Runs

    112,930 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Time Online

    91d 13h 23m 3s

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. If the animal could communicate to you and didnt want to have sex with you, is it still wrong to have sex with said animal ? Irrelevant. Comparing food to sexual treatment is being confused. One is a food item- objective necessity of a species. Other is sex without procreation: definition of something unnecessary. Sure. Furs are not just for pleasure, it is for the cold as well. Same with hunting- its for eating or selling the fur/skin (or collecting it). Sexual intercourse is none of these criterias. You have no way of knowing if its hurt or not. It cannot communicate with you. My problem is, for us, a species that relies on consent for procreation as a fundamental pillar of moraility, our members cannot be justified with having sex with anything capable of consent but without the said consent. Its just that simple. I hope you dont bring up your kids with the idea that consent to sex does not matter if its not a human.
  2. Muloghonto

    Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

    Almost all batsmen back then, compared to their equal counterparts, had much better defensive techniques. You are talking about indian batsmen of the 80s who meekly surrendered to bouncers, not the rest of the world's. They were better at handling medium pace swing as well as extreme pace. Nonsense. Great bowlers bowl great spells. This is why its easier for great bowlers to pick up wickets in bunches.
  3. I dont know, its a possibility. We simply do not have objective data about consent as we, species homo sapiens, knows it. Why do you keep dodging my question. Its a simple question, so answer it: Is it okay for one of us to have sex without consent ? Simple yes/no please. What you consider or don't consider is irrelevant, as we have proof that our laws ARE applied to animals, in things like sex, torture etc. Animals having LESS rights than humans does not mean human laws are not being applied to animals. Because it is about personal conduct of a member of species homo sapiens, SOLELY FOR ITS OWN PLEASURE (SEX WITH AN ANIMAL). Because C is responsible for his/her own actions solely for the purpose of pleasure, that is why. Not in all cases. As i said, in Canada, the law is explicitly there to protect animals.
  4. Muloghonto

    Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

    False, because batsmen in the 80s had far greater defensive technique and far less tendency to try and hit good balls. So much harder to pick up wickets, period.
  5. That is not proof of consent. That is assumption of consent. You cannot prove consent with any being you cannot communicate with. Err no. A man CAN put things in a woman's vagina without her consent and still be fine - provided it is a medical procedure and she is not concious. Same applies here. A farmer fertilizing a cow is not deriving sexual pleasure, neither is it a sexual act. Sure. It still doesn't mean its okay to rape an animal. No. If you are a woman and i am a doctor, you come into my ER ward with your face bashed in by a loser and you are in coma, with a dildo stuck in your vag, i dont need your permission to go into your vag and repair the damage. Why ? because it is a medical procedure. Same applies for fertilizing cattle. This is why we have laws against beastiality but not laws against animal farming. Should be fairly straightforward. And you keep dodging my question - tell us why you are okay with the idea that if there is no consent, its still okay to have sex.
  6. Muloghonto

    Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

    because helmets were not as good back then and protective gear was not as good or encompassing either. Not to mention, these blokes didnt grow up with protection, when technique is formed. Which is why they were far better at hooking and pulling than they are today, especially with the hook shot.
  7. Muloghonto

    Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

    Thank you for exposing your ignorance and that you havn't actually watched any old cricket outside of random youtube 5 min clips. I dont know about you, but any batsman, in the pre-helmet, pre-bouncer restriction era, who could score nearly a run-a-ball century against the likes of Marshall, Holding, Daniel counts as 'could demolish any attack'. SunnyG mostly didn't, because rest of the Indian lineup was miles and miles worse than him at handling the new ball and allied with his iron technique, percentage cricket made more sense.
  8. Muloghonto

    Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

    If you watched more than just Indian cricket from 1982, you'd know that the average Aussie batsmen back then would eat the average Aussie batsmen today for dinner for handling pace and swing.
  9. Muloghonto

    Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

    Nope. You can have better batsmen and still lower bowling averages, if the tailenders are a LOT crappier with the better batsmen. You can average 50 vs me. Doesnt mean you will average 50 vs Ambrose, regardless of whether my side is a test side or not. The quality of batting and bowling can BOTH be lower (or greater) and yeild the same average. This should be fairly straightforward to people who've actually watched stuff through the eras and not just random youtube short clips.
  10. Muloghonto

    Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

    Ignorant nonsense. 80s batsmen would eat today's batsmen for dinner when it came to pace. Why ? because back then we had a greater density of really fast bowlers (primarily due to OZ having three pacers in the Brett Lee/Mitchell Johnson zone, aka Lillee, Thompson and Hogg, as well as legions of WI express bowlers like Roberts, Holding, Clarke, Marshall, Daniels,etc, along with Bob Willis also being a genuine fast bowler for Eng). AND they played without protection, meaning they had to judge the ball better and not just 'cop one on the thigh-pad' like they do today. A blind squirrel finds a nut. You've just finally said something- even if its partial, that favors the modern, over-coached game: tailenders today are FAR better batsmen in general than they were in the past, where we really dont have any international cricketer being a club level tail-ender like Courtney Walsh/Chandrasekhar, Tuffnell etc were. Balances out with superior top order wickets collected. Yes. For us. 80s was a poor period for Indian batting. Primarily because Gavaskar was in decline and India lost its ' man on the burning ship rescuing the side' aka Vishwanath to retirement. India however were a good side till the decline of the spin quartet, something the emergence of Kapil could not offset, combined with greater brittleness in the Indian batting.
  11. Muloghonto

    Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

    Nobody is saying old is gold. I am saying that in every sport, we see the 'golden gen' phenomenon. Which is true for the 90s compared to the mid 2000s onwards. Cricket has had 2 golden gens since WWII, basically the early 70s-early 80s ( the old guard of England-WI-AUS, with a very solid India, Pakistan) and the late 80s/early 90s-early-mid 2000s ( where practically every team back then, minus England were a better/equal team to now). I can cite you same golden gen phenomenon in ice hockey, basketball,etc as well. It happens in sports, especially team sports, when we have a few generational talents popping up much closer than the long-term mean. Same can be said of soccer in the 70s vs soccer in the 80s. Golden gen are usually better than prior and post gens. Indian bowlers bowled on spinner friendly pitches in the 90s. Not the square turners we see now, but powder-puff pitches that crumbled, because of Anil 'the crumbler' Kumble. What you suffer from, is the false belief that 'new is better' is a linear progression through sports and ergo tend to favor the current stuff. Which is also a bit of 'out of sight, out of mind' paradigm for most people.
  12. Muloghonto

    Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

    I think the same of you, where you argue 'could've/should've/maybes' against the simple fact that mid 70s-mid 80s and late 80s-early 2000s represents a golden generation of cricket, the likes of which (quality of cricket) has not been since before or after. Or the fact that 90s players *were* better test players and certainly better ODI players on pitches where 250-260 were par scores for average sides.
  13. Prove it. prove it that cows give consent. Animals and even plants have emotional responses. Humans have greater rights simply because humans are equal to one another in rights, a speciestic advantage we enjoy by being *the* dominant animal on the planet. Sure. Doesn't justify a human raping a cow. We are capable of communicating consent to us. As such, consent is function of communication. False. They do. hence there are laws re: beastiality. Animals dont have the same rights as humans. That is another discussion. They also have the right to not be raped by an entity who's consent we can explicitly determine: aka, us. Again, what part of ' if you don't have consent from another being, dont fcuk it' is hard for you to understand or you find objectionable ? Spell it out for us, please.
  14. Muloghonto

    Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

    Irrelevant to the fact of what they ACTUALLY WERE: superior test players. Would've/could've are irrelevant to actual comparisons. Pfft. SunnyG wasn't very fit by modern standards and when he wanted to, could demolish attacks that would've eaten Kohli for dinner. Largely irrelevant when attacking cricket is played, as most scoring shots in aggressive cricket are boundaries or comfortable twos. You seem to not know how test cricket was played till the early 2000s. Pfft. Nonsense. Indian batsmen are poor slip catchers because they don't practice in the slips or were brought up that way. Simple. Try telling ABDV he is a poor slip catcher due to playing T20s. Again, nonsense. Pacers today are simply not good enough. Thats the reality. Bowlers like Holding or Akram could both blow you away with aggression in Tests and contain in ODIs. Same with Ambrose. None of those bowlers i named would struggle one bit with any of what you mention. To this day, the best slower ball i've EVER seen bowled, by a country mile, is that of Courtney Walsh. I just don't see that to be true, sorry.
  15. Err, until 97, Sachin was in the same boat Virat is, overseas. At HOME he was better off, primarily because Sidhu-Azhar were better players of spin (nevermind Sachin himself) than anyone in this lineup. Saurav-Dravid didn't arrive till late 96 and it wasn't till 97 or so that Sachin had one other great guy to rely on (Dravid in tests, Saurav in ODIs). Ie, for a decade, Sachin was our only world class batsman in ODIs and only overseas world class batsman. Kohli hasn't done that for more than 5 years max, since he came in with no pressure or expectation to carry the side, playing along giants like Dravid, Tendy, Sehwag, Laxman, etc.
  16. Irrelevant. If all bulls are rapist, it does not mean we, species homo sapiens raping a cow is okay. Maybe their moos mean a certain thing, maybe not, maybe their particular posture communicates something, maybe not- we cannot tell. All WE can tell, is whether WE have consent or not. And in my books, if a human being has sex without something without consent, provided that thing is alive, it is rape. Should be a pretty easy concept to understand- dont have sex without consent/stop having sex when consent is withdrawn. Irrelevant. If you are a micro-dick guy with women not feeling anything, does that make it okay for you to rape them ? If not, then the same applies to all living organisms- if you are not sure you have consent, dont have sex. Pretty basic thing to adhere to, as a decent, respectful person, i'd think.
  17. Muloghonto

    Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

    Thats just it- i dont think the English attack now is 'much better'. Its ever so slightly better and far more durable, is what it is. Quality-wise, the Caddick-Cork-Fraser attack was doing not a whole lot different from the Broad-Anderson attack. it just didn't last as long.
  18. Muloghonto

    Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

    By 2011, Tendy was done. So you want to compare Virat at his peak with a 38 year old Tendy after 22-23 years of cricket and on the decline. Bravo for making my point. Most of the 100s Tendy scored in England vs Caddick, Fraser, Malcolm, Gough, etc. were chanceless.
  19. Muloghonto

    Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

    Yep, in general they'd be superior test players and slightly inferior ODI players as to pure run-containment/run-scoring.
  20. Muloghonto

    Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

    Sure can. Quality of batting AND bowling can be brought down collectively by making the pitch flatter or when you have slow wickets where the ball stops and the pitch is soft but doesn't break apart. Seen this plenty of times through the eras to objectively say that it is quite possible and has been that both bowling and batting is at a lower level. Also, sports is not linear, it does not improve over time linearly. Its not like every decade, the average player is better than every decade preceeding it. There are golden generations. mid 70s-mid 80s had the WI-AUS golden generation. late 80s through 90s was the golden generation of cricket i've seen because virtually every team was equal or better than its counterpart in the 2000s-2010s period. Not necessarily. Forget the 80s, look at 90s. Anderson is your Angus Fraser. Can swing it ferociously when conditions suit him but zero, zilch, zip, without it. Crappier than most RSA attacks of the 90s, simply because Donald-Pollock is a better combo than Steyn-Philander/Morkel with the new ball, with the old ball the likes of RSA spinners and 4th-5th pacers were better than they are through the 2000s. Sure. But Kumble on a 90s crumbler alone is a harder task than these three combined. You either did not watch or dont remember the pitches we served in the 90s when Kumble was at his pomp (before his surgery), when he could bowl the flipper like a spitting cobra. Yes, this is a better attack. But not a whole lot better than Donald-Pollock-DeVilliers-Kallis,either. Pffft. In empiric terms, they'd not make the WI 4th string in the 80s, neither the Pakistan's first line attack in the 80s post Akram's emergence. Also a good attack, but RSA attack in the 90s was similar. Caddick, Gough, Fraser. The same attack of the 90s effectively. Nuff said. Massively inferior to McWarne-Gillespie-Lee/Fleming. Same as above. Pfft. Plenty of batsmen of the earlier eras would murder the English/Aussie/Kiwi attack.
  21. Muloghonto

    Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

    94 series. Destroyed Murali. 97 series. Destroyed Murali. 09 series and 2010 he more than dominated Murali.
  22. The issue that is decisive to beastiality to me, is that of consent. There is no valid, discernable way to say, if a member of another species consents to sex ( Pavlov-ian training does not count either, as it would be without consent the first time for sure). As such, if you hold the view, that i do, that sexual pleasure with another being, without their consent, regardless of what type of being they are (man, woman, hijra, another species, etc), is rape + I don't condone rape on any accord, i would not condone beastiality. I am pretty sure, as such, if you let a dog hump you, its pretty sad/sick (coz by my view then, you are letting yourself be raped by the dog, as you too, cannot communicate consent with the dog), but it would not qualify as granting consent, either. PS: Its pretty technical to say Canada allows beastiality. Because by SC ruling in Canada, beastiality is 'legal', provided no penetration is occuring, as SC in a surprising twist deemed that when verbal/written communication is impossible, it is technically impossible to rule any behaviuor decisively as sexual without penetration of any kind ( in any thing. Ie, in any order of penetration of any kind- aka you cannot french-kiss an animal (it is an act of penetration deriving sexual pleasure). They also asked the parliament to better define the term 'beastiality' as apparently its poorly translated in terms of legal jargon. So yes, if one can figure out a way to have sex with an animal in Canada without any penetration of any kind, then go for it and good luck to their sad sex life.
  23. Nothing foolish about pointing out that it is hypocritical of citizens of such a barbaric nation to call others uncivilized or barbaric. Sign that you have no counter, is that you are resorting to simple name-calling. Go convince your grandpa that Aboriginals are not vermins before you lecture us. As i said, I've been to your $hit-hole racist country. Will not live there if they paid me enough. Its just good for some eco-tourism, thats it.
  24. Oz-land tidbits : It took until 2012 for Aboriginals to have the same estate rights as non-aboriginals. In australia, if ANY non-aboriginal dies without leaving a will, the estate automatially went to next of kin. Ie, like normal countries. If Aboriginals died without a will ? It automatically went to the state. As i said, OZ land makes deep south of US and the American rednecks look like a bunch of Gandhi-Mandela types hugging trees.
  25. I dont need lectures on how to treat human beings, when ALL your people above the age of 51 grew up in a world where your aboriginals were classified under 'flora and fauna', were not considered citizens of Australia and were classified furthermore as vermins. Aka, farmers and ranchers had right to shoot Aboriginals who entered their property much like we have the right to kill a rat in our house. Until those people are dead, Aussies don't get to lecture us on how to treat people, as i can garantee you, India or Indian law has never plumbed such attrocious depths as that of Oz-land, the most backwards of all western nations.

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×