Jump to content


Members L2
  • Content count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Time Online

    50d 17h 12m 39s

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Pakistani non-mohajir muslims, particularly the Punjabis and the Pashtuns. Pashtuns adopted Islam after being genocided the heck out of them by Yacoub-As-laith-Al-Saffar. The founder of the Saffarid dynasty. Most Punjabi muslims are muslims, because of force conversion by the muslims. The Pakistani muslims who converted without genocide, were the Baloch and Sindhis- even though Sindhis were coerced to convert by jaziya. This is not a hindu claim, this is a muslim claim itself. Timur for e.g., left back categoric statement that when he genocided his way through Punjab, he force converted many hindus into Islam.
  2. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Quit dodging the question, kid. Someone asked you a direct question.
  3. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    The biggest difference between Ashoka and the Muslims, is that Ashoka did not level cities and kill off all the people in it just to conquer it, nor did he raid & loot kingdoms outside his realm. Ashoka was a statist. Ie, a man who expanded the reach of his state (Mauryan Empire) via conquest. The entire reason he added Kalinga to his empire, was because Kalinga was rich and would augment his empire. He didnt 'pull a muslim' and go raiding in Kalinga, kill off its people and carry its gold back home. When he invaded Kalinga, it is said that he fought a war for 2-3 years and destroyed multiple armies Kalinga sent at him, then walked through the capital and felt sorrow. Whether he felt sorrow or not, the important part of the narrative, which differentiates him from the muslims, is he didnt demolish the capital of the Kalinga kingdom after winning, like so many muslim rulers have done to their defeated kingdoms. This is a small,but huge difference. While i don't condone violence, i also cannot equate warfare against troops and armies, with genocide of the populace.
  4. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Khilji was not an invader of India. Ala-Du-Din was born in India, he aint no foreigner.
  5. They are tacitly admitting their own error in the past.
  6. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    Thats exactly what it means. If religion is 'under' state, then it directly means that if religion and state directly clash, religion loses. How else, is religion 'under' state, if in cases where 'state says no, religion says yes', religion gets to still have its way ?! Object ordanance ban is not specified in the constitution, its a legislative ordinance. Nowhere in the Indian constitution does it ban its citizen from possessing a nuclear weapon. But the state bans you from it, via ordinances. Same can be applied to fire-crackers. You can argue that banning an object (firecraker, meat, etc) is unjust. But it is, by definition, legal.
  7. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    "few bad apples" ?? More like 500 years of our civilization eating itself. All material evidence and literary evidence is there. Cholas-Chalukyas warred for 200 years every 10 years with massive armies. Rashtrakuta, Western Chalukyas, Gujjars, Pals - all ate each other for nearly 300 years. When Xuanzong visited India, circa 550s AD, we were technologically at the top of the tree. When Mahmoud of Ghazni invaded 400 years later, our 'vaunted warriors' had wooden stirrups instead of superior iron 'bridge' stirrups. We are the biggest cause of our own demise. Muslims kicked over our dying civilization, but we are the reason for the rot in it. That is an inescapable conclusion of history. Its a common misconception that liberal means immoral. Not so. For e.g., most of Scandinavia does not believe in God or Godly morality, yet, their crime levels are the lowest in the western world. Proof, that you do not need God to be moral. There are plenty of Indian liberals, who i find are very moral people, despite being atheists. As per traditions - traditions are made to be broken. A tradition which has outlived its purpose and is demonstrably false, is no longer a tradition, its a social parasite. All social structures - philosophy,tradition, etc. exist for two purposes only: for progress of mankind and to support an objective, empiric reality. Any social structure that violates the said core basis for having a social structure, deserves to be discarded and trashed. Most liberals in India bash hindus, because most liberals in India are commies. Indian liberalism has not figured out yet, that one does not need to be a communist, to trash idiotic traditions written by inferior men, pandering to an inferior philosophy (religion). But we are getting there. To me, moral religious people are of less value (in their morality) than moral irreligious people. because religious people have a REASON to be moral : whether they believe in a karmic reward or heaven/hell, they have a direct incentive (reward) and direct deterrent ( punishment/bad karma) to be moral. What reason does an atheist have to be a moral, good person, to help others ? The only reason is altruism/betterment of the species,with zero personal benefit attached. Hence, i feel exactly the opposite : real, moral people are those who are moral despite not believing in a God and the reward/punishment that comes with God or a Godly system.
  8. Since you have admitted that there 'can be no data' on whether feeding your 80+ grandparents to the tiger is good or bad, therefore, feeding your grandparents to the tigers (or not), as a value system, is not empirically or objectively driven. Therefore, such a value, is not empiric. Therefore, we can demonstrate, that ethical values are not subject to empiricism. You seem to have a simple problem admitting this easy conclusion. What I have provided is both empirical and data from a sociobiological perspective. No-one is fooled by your nonsense. Show that it is not empirical data or squirm as much as you want. Here is some more Where is your data ? Where ? Show us. Refer to the post, where you have demonstrated, with data, the pros and cons of my ethics related statement. Above quote, you claim that such ethics cannot be shown with empirical data. Then you claim that you have shown data. Ergo, you are inconsistent and your inconsistent double standards lie exposed. What you quoted above- is not data. Its just a hypothesis. I have not defined any such word arbitarily. Hey kiddo, if you have 'no opinion' on the ultimate reality re:God, then you are in direct conflict with the idea that Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva are God/Gods. So which one is it ? Do you not know if Vishnu,Shiva and Brahma are Gods and therefore, you can state 'i do not accept Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as Gods because i know no such thing', or will you continue to be in de-facto contradiction of your so-called agnosticism ?? Atheism is not a belief. Its lack of belief. Nope. Only a religious fundamentalist will argue that something is true without presenting evidence for it. Atheist fundamentalists are those who claim that they know for a fact God does not exist. Ie, the sub-set of atheists known as gnostic atheists. However, atheism is based on the notion that religious people have failed to prove their case, hence without any evidence, i have no reason to accept a claim. Ergo, to atheists, claim about God is similar to a claim about a 3 legged Tibarn with the brain where gonads are and gonads in the skull, who breathes Florine. Ie: unsubstantiated, BS. Nope. Nice try. You thought we wouldn't read your link. Read your link moron: it says "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." Ie, atheist is also someone who disbelieves. Ie, lack of belief. Ie, stating that theists have not proven their claim and therefore, i believe them as much as (i.e., i do not) spiderman, guardians of the Galaxy, paneer planet around a Dhokla-powered sun, etc etc. False strawman. More appropriate: A: " I saw a white elephant" B: " what is a white elephant ?" A: " it is a 5-ton creature that is white, has 4 legs and a trunk" B: " ok, show me" A: " i can't. i have no proof" B: " then your claim is unsupported. I have no reason to believe your claim any more than a 4 legged Chlorine breathing man who craps out of his mouth and eats through his penis" Except Atheists are not making a claim that God does not exist. Atheists are saying that theist claims are invalid. Since you provided definition of a claim, it is easy to see, that all an atheist has to do, is point out that the theist claim is unproven, therefore, unsubstantiated nonsense. Saying a claim is without evidence, is not a claim within itself, except for the fact that it is without evidence. And atheists can easily prove the point that theists have not presented any evidence to back up their claims of the divine. I will show the example of unproven theorems in mathematics : i can state that P vs NP problem is unproven, therefore, i have no reason to accept the said claim. It does not require me, or any mathematician to disprove the P vs NP problem. It simply requires us, to state that the proof has not been met for said claim. Same logic applies here, kiddo. You make a claim, until you substantiate said claim, it is not a valid claim. So i have no reason to try and disprove something that is not a valid claim in the first place. Nope. I am simply saying if something is BS, it means it has not established itself as a valid assertion. I do not have to prove something that has zero evidence, does not exist. YOU have to prove a claim of something existing, for it to be considered true. No amount of squirming to try and support jaahils from 2000 years ago, will change this fact. I never said burden of proof doesnt exist for universal existential claim. I said exactly the opposite: that burden of proof exists for an universal existential claim. And since in an universal existence claim, no claim can be demonstrated false (if the super-set is universal existence), then every claim is admissible. Ie, de-facto, all claims are true, because no claim of anything at universal claim can be demonstrated false. Reductio ad absurdum. Because you have demonstrated your inability to keep your word. I simply do not see why i have to accept an offer from someone i have zero trust in.
  9. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    ??? Thats the figure often used by Dr. Angus Maddison in his research for historic economics. Ashokan era Indian subcontinent having roughly 160 million people in it, with about 10-15 million people residing outside of his empire (i.e., kerala + Tamil Nadu). This is actually a conservative estimate, some put it over 200 million people. In a time when the world had about 500-700 million people in it.
  10. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    ??? Influence is measured with people. Not with land. Our influence has shrunk by about 40% of what it used to be 1500 years ago.
  11. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    Wrong. Secularism means lack of religious influence in the state. It does not mean lack of state influence in religion. Infact, secularism, in practice means state influence on religion, because in-order to preserve the secular ideal that religion must not influence state, on every occasion that religion clashes with state, the state wins, therefore, it is influencing religion.
  12. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    Learn to read, kiddo. There are people here who are literally posting videos on this very thread and going 'see that ball ? i think he is bowling 140kph+' and then another video going 'see Tony Gray ? he wasn't 140kph' . ON THIS VERY THREAD.
  13. You have not provided any data, hence zero empirical evidence provided. As i said, show us the data on the difference between feeding your 40 year old relative, 60 year old relative and 80 year old relative to the tigers. Till you show the data, your claim that these are empirically derived theories for my specific case of morality being empiric, is nothing more than hot air. Hence you are too much of a coward to admit the point, that morality is not empirically, data derived. If it is, i demand data on my specific case of morality. Stop squirming Yes, indeed. It is clear to see who has met the burden of proof for their claims and who hasn't. An atheist who relies on null hypothesis or a theist who is relying on 'could be' nonsense to protect his religion. Mammalian genetic/evolutionary history is completely superfluous to the argument of sexual promisquity. Because as i noted and you ran the heck away from it, humans cannot have multiple fathers of the same litter. hence whether a human woman sleeps with 10 men or 1 man, the baby's genetics will ALWAYS show only 1 man's genetic influence. This is why your obfuscation is dismissed in front of objective, empirical evidence ( of humans actually writing about their sexual proclivities). I don't have to disprove a book which is making a claim, since the burden of evidence lies on that which makes the claim. Koran claims to be from God, shows zero proof. Hence Koran fails to meet its burden of proof. There is no 'mirror image', because my claim of atheism does not rely on proof that God doesn't exist. It relies on the fact that none of your moronic religions have proven their claim first. Nope, again, the burden of proof is on whomever is making the claim. I don't have to disprove anything if you fail to prove your claim in the first place. Nope, because atheism is not belief that God doesn't exist. Atheism is simply belief that religion has failed to provide any evidence of their claim of God existing. False. I can make the exact same argument for Dhokla planet circling a Gujarat shaped sun, with a Hilsa-Rice moon. You have zero reason to not demand its inclusion in physics analysis as hypothetical planet, because it 'could be true'. Or why biology does not talk of Adam and Eve during its evolution. It could be true too. This makes all claims, from a practical perspective, true. Which leads to reductio ad absurdum for any and all claim scenarios. hence your above position, is demonstrated as reductionist nonsense, in practical scenarios. Indeed. You are finally learning. Atheists are not making a claim God doesn't exist. Atheists are simply making a claim that your so-called religion has not provided any evidence of God. hence, we have zero reason to believe in said 'God' notion. False. Pro-tip: when you make a statement something is BS, its because that said something is making a claim it hasn't substantiated. Ie, i can call ANYTHING that has failed to justify its claim, as BS. which is exactly what BS means, even in common parlance. But nice try squirming and trying to escape the conclusion that you are a liar- because you aint no Agnost if you cannot state unequivocally that Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva are all unproven claims. If they are tired of the name-calling, its because you are yet to learn the art of insulting people without bringing mention of their family in the midst. Don't worry, its something you will learn with time, as you move on from being a burden to society to an actual functioning member. PS: Waiting for your coward self to admit that Krishna, Brahma, Vishnu, etc. are all unproven claims by your so-called alleged 'agnostic self'. You ain't an agnost, if you cannot admit that, kiddo.
  14. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    We are sitting on our own grave of millions. You know whats the sad thing ? Most arm-chair nationalist Indians, have focussed on the 'great Islamic genocide of India'. It is of course, justified- since it has so little purchase globally and since it does represent a huge setback in our civilization. But its a limited view and what isn't focussed on, is we are much to blame for our own demise. If you read of how badly India ripped itself apart between the fall of the Harshavardhana (550s AD) and the first major Islamic conquests in India proper (i.e., east of the Indus) - Ghaznavid conquests of Punjab (late 900s AD) and for much longer in the South till arrival of muslims in the deccan, it becomes pretty apparent, that we destituted and killed off most of our own people in numerous bloody, brutal wars. Did you know that in the Chola-Chalukya wars, both empires mobilized well over 15,000 war elephants each, along with well over 250K total troops ? These are almost every decade event within India for that almost 5 year period, most of the times, multiple instances per decade. So if the native american can point at disease and white man's oppression, our main fall was at our own hands. Muslims came and knocked down the facade, but ultimately, our civilization's failure, is due to our own ancestors. That is a tough reality, most Indians cannot face up to/have yet to face up to and not go totally commie insane. PS: What America did to the natives- well, there is ample evidence that over 75% of natives died of new diseases brought from the old world. Disease like smallpox, tuberculosis - which are deadly enough for old world people but far more deadly for virgin population like the natives (and natives have lesser genetic diversity compared to old world people apparently) were mostly to blame. This of course, does not mean the white man was nice to the natives and didn't do to them, what muslims did to us. But critical difference, they mostly marginalized the few and far between natives left in a vast, depopulated land. PPS: What happened in the past, is ultimately, of lesser consequence to what it is NOW. NOW, Canada, most of western Europe and even USA have far greater individual freedom and are far more liberal than India actually is. As for real liberals - i can tell you as much, they are NOT the staunch hindus. Who are just as bad and as brainwashed and relics of a dying era, as their muslim, christian, etc. counterparts are. Slaves to tradition, slaves to defunct and useless belief systems. But yes, through this, a strong streak of liberalism and freedom has managed to survive in India, so far. But RSS is jeopardizing it as much as the muslim 'kattars' are.
  15. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    whether our 3d view is limited or not (which it isn't), is irrelevant to the fact that your projection of an object moving in 3d being represented in 2d CANNOT be an indicator to speed in either of the 3 vectors. The simple fact that you cannot see this, only illustrates my point : anyone who thinks they can see a random cricket ball being bowled on tv and guess its speed, is only spewing the most basic illustration of being victim of a mirage. You are simply speaking out of your rear end, when you claim you can tell a ball is bowled at 140kph from watching it on tv. And the greatest irony is, people who are claiming such nonsense, think pros don't know what they are talking about. Classic case of arm-chair critic taking themselves too seriously.
  16. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    Ball is moving in 3d, genius. Its not being hucked straight and of constant height. I highly doubt Imran could tell how fast Waqar was, from seeing him on TV. Unfortunately for you, Imran is no fool, so he could probably tell from tv what you CAN tell - that this young kid was a good bowler and had lot of potential. You can tell well, when an object is moving in 2d, when its MOVING IN 2D. A cricket ball, like a tennis serve, is impossible to tell from TV how fast it is, because it is a ball moving in 3d, which is singularly portrayed in 2d. You have zero idea of wtf you are talking about, which as i said, is quite easily demonstrable by just simple experiment. Nobody can tell a random, net bowler's speed from just seeing him bowl on tv.
  17. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    Don't forget the biggest problem of all, *the* historical baggage India has carried that most don't know of : we have always been a humongous population. China actually still hasn't overtaken the 'historic India/aka Indian subcontinent' in population and it wasn't until less than 1500 years ago, when China came close to India in population. IIRC, I remember reading somewhere, Ashoka's empire had over 150 million people in it. Thats 2300 years ago and India would've represented close to 25% of the world's population. Uniting so many people, isn't easy in the first place, especially when most of them are illiterate.
  18. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    Ok. Go back to dreaming you can tell how fast a bowler is bowling from tv and batsmen who've faced them in real life, cannot.
  19. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    .... Ok. Because how fast a ball is moving can be gauged by the human eye from seeing it on a tv, within +/-30kph variations near 100+ kph, (which is the context of the entire basis of telling a cricket ball's speed from tv)..because you know.... err...ok genius. Write a little physics paper on gauging speeds of ball from watching tv. This is so..so basic. And the irony is, people who bring it up, are the people who think they know better than elite career professionals,who've faced these bowlers themselves, on how fast a ball is coming at a human/is X faster/slower than Y. I love this comedy-show, honestly!
  20. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    I'd agree for most of western Europe/USA but Canada is the exception here. Amongst 'white people' there is a huge ethnic diversity (unlike USA, where 90% of white people are English,Irish or German descent, Canada has a lot more French and Eastern European as well as Nordic in them), plus there is nearly 20% of the country's population (and this sector is the fastest rising in Canada) that are non-white. But where Canada has the advantage over India, is Canadians are much better educated and we basically have a country the size of Delhi and Kolkata in population, with a country 3 times the size of India. Yes, it is pretty remarkable how India manages to remain so peaceful, despite having so many ignorant, illiterate people living in it and i'd say it is the most diverse country in the world that is historically diverse. But i wouldn't say India is the most liberal country or the country with most individual freedoms in the world.
  21. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    It isn't,which is why i asked the question.
  22. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    Err, how is India more liberal than western Europe/Japan/Canada/S.Korea etc ?!
  23. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    Yep. But then again, whenever religion conflicts with the state, religion should lose. I have no problems banning firecrackers from religion because its a health-hazard. Same with i have no problem banning animal slaughter for religion or calling religious people who show up and occupy their own holy sites with guns, terrorists. Secularism means each and every-time religion clashes with the common good of the state, religion loses. As any unsubstantiated dogma should.
  24. Bhuvi as 3rd seamer in SA Tests

    Srinath did not have the stamina to be a workhorse (like Kapil or Walsh were) and he did not have the attitude to be a spearhead. I still remember the day Srinath bounced Ponting, hit him on the helmet and immediately went to apologize. Ponting was the guy going 'ma-ki' to Srinath, when every other time, its the bowler circling the batsman hit by a bouncer, like a vulture circles their dying meal. You know why Srinath, despite being express speed, in an era where the world had six-seven hall of famer fast bowlers and on pitches where 300-350 was a par 1st innings score, still sucked so much ? Because batsmen knew against him, they were safe. Sri won't bounce you, unless to remind you he still has a bouncer, he will apologize if he hits you and then feed you stuff outside off-stump. Yes, but is he truly good enough a bowler to be our 3rd bowler in overseas conditions though ? I see currently, we have a clear #1 pacer: Shami. Yadav is the clear #2. And overseas, i don't see why Pandya gets in ahead of Bhuvi, unless they are on Aussie roads, where bounce and speed matter more than seam movement. Bumrah is not a longer format bowler. He will not go for much runs, but Bumrah does not have the ability to take wickets when a batsman is defending him. And if you cannot take wickets against defensive shots, you are not good enough to be a test bowler.
  25. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    The whole of the educated world is trending towards irreligion. You know why ? Because the whole world is realizing, that those inferior men who wrote your religious books, were less educated than a grade 7 child, not fit to instruct us. Oh and saying keep your religion out of government, as in no laws should reflect religion, is not communism. Saying you cannot practice religion behind your closed doors, is Leninism-marxism.

Guest, sign in to access all features.