Jump to content


Members L2
  • Content count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Time Online

    69d 12h 14m 2s

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. Yes but you can make that argument for practically anything. This universe as we know it,is unbounded (ie, it means, we are not 100% sure if it is finite or not and even if it is, we havn't charted all of it). So, you can make the argument ' X has no proof of existing, but it can exist, in some nook/cranny of the universe where who knows what the laws of physics are because hey-we havn't found that area of universe yet/studied it yet'. So by that metric, ANYTHING is possible, correct ? Ok - so bring on the Paneer planet circling an aloo-gobi sun that has a moon made up of paratha. Coz hey, same logic applies - havn't found it, can't prove it doesn't exist (coz universe is unbounded to us), so accept it as possible. This is effectively what the God argument boils down to - utterly illogical, utterly inconsistent, but since its an unbounded universe, 'could be true, who knows'. So apply the same logic to ALL absurd, illogical and inconsistent ideas and say they are all possible too.Or as you say ' doesn't rule out the paneer planet around aloo gobi sun, from exiting, either'.
  2. Yeah well, i used to think that, before i realized the absurdity of a higher power being necessary to explain lesser phenomena. Well conceptually, God is just as well substantiated as Superman is. This isn't some new-age BS created by neo-liberals. Read Jinasena - an acharya of Jainism who dismisses the ridiculous concept of God. Or Epicurius. The problem with God/Gods is simple - you say 'this universe must have a creator because it has to come from somewhere' - well that argument will then instantly apply to God. And if you say 'this universe is too complex, too ordered to've popped into existence on its own', well you've just compounded the problem by inventing God- the perfection of compexity, ordering and immaculate. So if the universe is too complex and too ordered to exist on its own, then an absolute entity that is peferection of complexity and order, is even less likely to exist on its own. This is called infinite regression. The notion of God simply begets the notion of God's creator. And then on and then on. This is why ALL sophisticated civilizations were polytheistic : they recognized the absurdity of one God argument (Romans and Greeks go to great lengths to laugh at what they considered a 'barbarian jewish beleif') and simply solved the 'what begat God' question by inventing older and older Gods. Hence in almost all Polytheistic religions, Gods have childeren and parents themselves until they go to a point where the first primeval God popped out of the universe itself. debunking thought process that has ZERO substantiation is not a beleif system, its sticking to reality. The dangerous trend, in intellectualism, is to believe- in anything. because belief is nothing more than a cop-out and lazyness. And if belief is not to be discouraged, there is no distinction between fact and fiction, as the definition of fact is incompatible with belief.
  3. That is illogical. Its like saying 'i dont believe in it, nor do i have any evidence for it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a talking planet cursing at its paneer-masala moon while a Fish Pakora sun is laughing at the planet, in some distant galaxy.
  4. How is it flawed ? Name one thing except God or Karma, that you definitely believe in, that has ZERO evidence of existing. There is a fine line between saying ' there are things out there in the universe that we don't know of and can't prove' and saying ' there is THIS PARTICULAR THING- named God or Karma- that is out there, but have no proof of'. Its just silly and product of brainwashing.
  5. Sure. But there is far more sample size to Africa than not Africa. Again, evidence wins. If I remember the name properly, it was Carleton Coon who did a lot of work on it. And was thoroughly debunked. Plenty of work is being done because of racist reasons, pure and simple, as there are many people who are uncomfortable with the idea of originating from ' black Africans'. Doomed for failure, as Coon was. It has far greater foundation than any other competing theory. As I said, genetics present a double-blind proof for it and you are simply talking out of your rear end if you think African genetic diversity is about simple genetic drift. It is not. Their alleles are far older than any other alleles in humanity. And far more diverse. Same with the mitochondria - older than ours, as mitochondria is a clone-copy from the mother. And guess where all mitochondria leads to - Africa. You are putting the cart before the horse by considering far inferior possibilities, simply because you've decieded, for whatever reason, you don't like the idea of your ancestors looking like Africans.
  6. things can exist beyond our means to find evidence, but God is the only delusion people dedicate to their whole life, that has no evidence. I can say the same thing about Superman. Or a paneer planet around an aloo-tikki sun. See, who knows, its possible superman exists. People just have been conditioned to believe in God as a simple carrot and stick control mechanism of society.
  7. Terrorism/cowardliness in Pak DNA?

    That they were too stupid, is a hindsight of history that cannot be ignored. Because its one of the biggest reasons why India is not a major global civilization. Ofcourse, the geo-politics and economics, racial ideas, etc. must've been so different as NW was not a priority. Otherwise, if the NW really was a tremendous threat to our security on a conceptual basis, I cannot believe that the most prolific conqueror of Indian history- Samudragupta- chose to ignore it, despite coming within 300 kms of it and instead chose to go and whack the heck out of Chennai. His conquest of Orissa and Kanchipuram, are generally held to be his last conquests given the wording on his pillar.
  8. Terrorism/cowardliness in Pak DNA?

    The reason why NW was never a priority could be a host of reasons. What I find telling, is that a military genius like Samudragupta chose to go conquer all the way into Nagaland area and into Chennai practically, over crossing the Indus. We most definitely have confirmation of the entire period of Peshwawar up to 390AD being under the direct control of the Sassanids.
  9. Terrorism/cowardliness in Pak DNA?

    you don't believe what theory ? That our rulers ignored the crap out of the NW ? well, that's what history indicates. I am yet to see an Indian ruler from the north- a major kingdom- making it a priority to conquer Taxila-Purushapura. Especially in the post Gupta age, all the major battles we have epigraphical as well as literary evidence of, is Indians fighting Indians in the Cis-indus region, then heading south. So many wars between the Gurjaras and Rashtrakutas. So many wars of Harsha, not a single one directed at Khyber (and he is one of the best chronicled ancient Indian rulers). Except for Chandragupta Vikramaditya and a highly stylized (and exaggerated account of Devpal, from his great great grandson or something), there is literally only ONE other ruler, who for his own lifetime, briefly, held sway in the Khyber-Punjab region all the way into the Ganges doab: Lalitaditya. All the accounts of warfare, seems to be mostly dedicated to the region in between Sindh-Punjab ( cut-off was usually Ravi river and sometimes Satluj) to Bengal region and then headed into the deccan.
  10. Terrorism/cowardliness in Pak DNA?

    That's what history shows us. Only ones to've shown attention to the Khyber areas directly were : Chandragupta Maurya, Bindusara, Ashoka and Chandragupta Vikramaditya. I will include the Shungas as honorary to this list because they atleast displayed intent : their major wars were with the Indo-Greeks and their influence peaked at around Ludhiana, but the borders of Indo-Greek kingdom and Shunga Empire more or less stabilized around Mathura (with Mathura in control of the Indo-Greeks), with the Indo-Greeks stretching in Punjab to Khyber. But look closer to rest and you find ALL of them ignored the whole NW frontier. Check Harshavardhana: He consolidates his homeland ( Pushyabhuti dynasty, from Haryana-eastern Punjab-western UP region). Peacefully conquers the Maukharis based in UP ( via marriage and a few minor engagements).Then goes up against Shashanka, the first Bengali emperor. He struggles years to conquer Bengal-Magadh region, but finally does it after Shashanka dies, when his weaker son Manava comes to power. So at this point, Harsha controls Sutlej to Brahmaputra, Himalayas to Vindhya. Where does he go ? Heads straight south and engages in a war with Pulakeshi II of the powerful Chalukya Empire, loses most of his elephants and retreats back home to rule what he has. Next, Mihir Bhoj : same pattern. Gurjar-Pratihara ruler finally vassalizes the Pal empire and remains unchallenged from Indus-Ravi to Bengal. Next move ? Go fight with the Rashtrakutas (again, deccan empire). Deadlock. And the father of all Indian conquerors (the one who conquered the most # of kingdoms & fought the most number of battles) : Samudragupta. Conquers all the way to Manipur, Burma and Arunachal Pradesh. Recieves submission (vassal status) from all the rulers between Indus-Chenab, to Burma. Next move ? goes conquers Orrisa and goes whacks the crap out of the Pallavas of Kanchipuram, makes them his vassals. Of the native rulers of India, Chandragupta Vikramaditya stands out as the ONLY ruler of the last 2000 years who's shown interest in conquering the Khyber and the only one since Ashoka who's actualy done it. That's basic geo-political fail and focus on 'riches instead of security'. In their defence, prior to Babur, a powerful North Indian Empire had fallen only once to invaders from outside India : Gupta's fall under the Hepthalites. So maybe they figured they are 'too big to fail from western attack' if they could dominate northern INdia's fertile regions only.
  11. Oh the theory has its detractors as far as 'exact location' in Africa goes. Africa is pretty humongous, you see and only reason we can say we found the oldest sets from Ethiopia is due to the rift-valley. If the earth wasn't splitting itself down the middle there for more than a mile deep at places, maybe we'd never have uncovered those bones. But that's the thing- there is no real smoke outside of Africa. Everything we know of genetics and biology also predicts that humanity left Africa in small batches after being in Africa first and for a much longer period than outside. And no, original population has been evolving and expanding at same rate as immigrant population (remember, till farming, which is less than 20K years old - we've not found ANY evidence of farming older than that, anywhere in the world- so basically 6-10% of human existence is farmed, the people in Africa, Asia, Americas, etc. all more or less grew at the same rates population-wise, in the lush, jungle regions or when comparing the desertic regions). Only way original population has less diversity than immigrant population, is if almost all of the people left the continent and had no contact with the 'remaining originals'. Ie, for out of Africa to be false, it'd mean mankind evolved outside Africa, then most of us packed up and left FOR Africa. Then nobody left Africa (of the ones who went) and rest of the world was populated by this very small group of 'original population outside Africa'. Which is a far less likely scenario than the simple idea of 'mankind evolved in Africa and only a small few left it in few small batches'. Either way, until we have actual species homo sapiens remains outside of Africa that are older, there is no questioning the OOA theory, especially since genetics are silent confirmatory of it.
  12. Terrorism/cowardliness in Pak DNA?

    So Jatt Pakistanis are cowardly too, because they worship Allah and not Ram ? The reason why Punjab never was a power, is mostly due to two main reasons: a) instability due to numerous tribes pouring through the Khyber through the ages and the original Gandharain civilization (that emerged post IVC) being trade-oriented rather than farming oriented (ie, more interested in setting up trade outposts far and wide than being farmers who farmed the heck out of the land. b) lack of strategic thought amongst Native Indian dynasties. Except for a rare few like the early Mauryas ( Chandragupta-BinduSara-Askhoka) , Shungas and Vikramaditya Gupta, nobody in India had the foresight to secure the Khyber region and thus stabilize Punjab enough for an irrigated economy to emerge. Much of Pakistani Punjab receive far less rainfall than the Ganges-Yamuna region and its 'bread-basket' quality is dependent on irrigation. Which requires stability. The biggest failings of North Indian dynasties has been looking to conquer the South instead of securing the Khyber. From SamudraGupta to Harsha even Mihir Bhoj- all of them bee-lined it to the Deccan conquest mode (and except for Samudragupta, all of them got dead-locked) the moment they conquered Practically Lahore to Bengal.
  13. From your article: "The hominins who made tools at Attirampakkam made a wide variety of items, some of which closely resembled the Middle Paleolithic style that emerged in Africa around 300,000 years ago" Notice the word 'hominins'. Ie, it could be homo erectus as well. Infact, it most likely is, since upper-limit of species homo sapiens (us) is usually put at 250,000-300,000 years. Until we find homo sapiens remains older than Africa, Africa is the homeland of Homo Sapiens. This fact, is also predicted by genetic research, where Africans have the highest genetic diversity of all, which is consistent with the picture of 'humans are from Africa and only a small group left Africa in a couple of migration spurts to populate rest of the world' picture.
  14. Evolution is most strongly denied by Christians and Orthodox Jews, followed by Muslims. The reason for muslim denial is simple : Koran states we come from Adam and Eve and if we don't, then the Koran is wrong, which means Koran isn't perfect, which means Islam isn't perfect. This is not a logical progression Muslims can handle. For Christians, its even worse. Because if Adam and Eve are not real, then not only is the bible wrong, it also means, there is no original sin. No original sin = we are not all born sinners = there is no need for salvation of all = Jesus didn't die to save us all. Completely destroys Christianity. It isn't just about an error in their book, it destroys their entire fundamental basis of religion itself.
  15. You are completely wrong about the bolded part. Not believing in something without evidence, is not a 'belief system'. Otherwise saying 'Batul-the-Great doesn't exist' or 'superman doesn't exist' is also a belief system. I used to be an agnostic before I became an atheist and the realization is simple - agnosticism, unless its purely Buddhist agnosticism (which in a nutshell is, even if God/Gods exist, they are ultimately irrelevant to YOUR HAPPINESS AND NIRVANA), is just a weaker version of 'Pascal's wager'. The whole 'I don't consider something to be true unless there is evidence' is a simple graduation from ' maybe there is something without evidence', which in turn is a massive step up from ' there is something without evidence for sure'.
  16. It'd make sense for the original inhabitants of Britain to be dark-skinned and then evolve into the pale versions we see today.
  17. Terrorism/cowardliness in Pak DNA?

    You clearly implied they look at what your national/ethnic background is, with your obnoxious 'pattern recognition' BS. And you sound like a quintessential idiot. I didn't invent the definition, its the bloody dictionary definition. Your ignorance is not my problem. FTR your limited personal experience is irrelevant and indicative of your poor education - for well educated people know not to draw absurd conclusion from limited personal experiences over a vast group of people. There is no logic to asking/believing something till its proven false - proving a negative, in an existential sense, is practically impossible. These are YOUR personal anecdotal data, completely at disparity with reality. Nobody said Pakistanis are peace-loving. But I am saying your racist tirade that its in their DNA is ...well, racist,idiotic and completely unsubstantiated. And you sound like a pacca idiot.
  18. Terrorism/cowardliness in Pak DNA?

    Nonsense. Nobody thinks of race or country of origin in silicon valley when hiring, period. Nobody is changing any definition. You are ignorant of the definitions. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/race Focus on part 2.: " a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology. (no longer in technical use) any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. a socially constructed category of identification based on physical characteristics, ancestry, historical affiliation, or shared culture: Her parents wanted her to marry within her race. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans. 4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic lineage: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race." Same definition is found in merriam-webster as well. Therefore, yes we can classify Paksitanis as a race when referring to all of them and therefore, discriminating against ALL Paksitanis is racist. Has anyone looked for evidence of whether brown eyes cause shortness ? Because blue eyed people are taller than brown eyed people as an average. This is the kind of illogic you are proposing. You cannot prove a negative. There is no basis to looking for DNA link to terrorism and if there is, you can claim such a discriminatory notion ONLY AFTER YOU HAVE PROOF. Anecdotal reference means nothing. Every Russian I've met over the age of 60 loves the USSR and is sad to see it go. Your experience with PAKs are different than mine, so I see no reason why our limited experience of a few dozen people get to form an opinion on 200 million. Nothing more than racist drivel.
  19. Terrorism/cowardliness in Pak DNA?

    Kindly don't talk nonsense about interviews. In Silicon valley, like in most tech interviews, its about how well you work in a team, pass the in-situ test, resume, people skills etc. There is no ' pattern recognition amongst groups'. Its individual. Sophistry. Race is a fluid term cognate with xenophobia, indicating discrimination of physical differences, distinct nationalities, color groups, etc. And since race itself is not a scientifically valid term, its contextual use is all that matters. And yes, if you go 'all people from this nation are XYZ due to their DNA' its racist. The answer is no. Otherwise, you'd have found evidence of it. There is no conundrum. I am neither obtuse, nor failing to read. When I said 60+ older Russians, I am not just talking of citizens of Russia either. Plenty of 'Brit-Russians' also exist. No, I am not just racist or trying to indicate a group's social behavior (which is what you are describing- social behavior of a subset of species homo sapiens) is due to their genetic make-up. Its racism.
  20. Terrorism/cowardliness in Pak DNA?

    No, its not. For most jobs, its direct-interview based. What you are saying, is silly, baseless racism. If you think its in their DNA, provide evidence of said DNA from scholarly sources. Else, you are just being racist. Irrelevant. You wouldn't find a single Russian who's 60+ and condemns Budapest, either. Doesn't make them all racists.
  21. First...holy crap you agreed with me on something. Second- forget supporting infra around aircraft carriers, we don't even have proper planes for INS Vishal yet. Mig-29KUBs are the 21st century flying coffins and cost 3x as much to maintain & service than Su-30s do. The Navy most definitely doesn't want the Mig-29s and its one of the major reason why the next A/C is slated to be a CATOBAR carrier- because Yankees have proven CATOBAR launched naval fighters. But as it stands now, India is spending 4-5 billion dollars on INS Vishaal, so it can be a floating football field. Brilliant 'need and usage' of our resources.
  22. Yes. Not requiring mega aircraft carriers and tenders for another 100-150 aircrafts in the pipeline and stuff. That's what our 1.2 million army is there for and there is a thing called defending- ie, fortify, replenish numbers etc. Err ok. Not more important than law and order falling apart inside our nation. Guess who is spending money venturing in the Indo-Pacific AFTER making sure their law and order is enforced ? that's right.....China. They are all smaller than law and order failure in India, which is alarmingly behind virtually EVERY SINGLE MAJOR GLOBAL PLAYER (something desis love to aspire to and fool themselves in thinking they are already there). You may think we need all these mega-weapons and stuff as our neighborhood is all 'dangerous and bad' but that's the nationalism cool-aid talking. All the while, the enemies of India are laughing at how India is leaking efficiency from all corners compard to EVERY SINGLE MAJOR PLAYER and how its internal dynamics prevent it from ACTUALLY turning into a cohesive society. No nation needs offensive weaponry more than a basic high efficiency of enforcement of its legal system. That is the one case where India is trying to be the first exception to the rule in the modern world. Again, this is the same bait-n-switch employed by GW Bush after 9-11. Where he said American defence needed bolstering after 9/11 and then immediately placed an order of 200 F-22s. Ie, feeding the military-industrial troll.
  23. The Australian Open 2018

    FYI, those who are saying closed roof helped Federer, here's a few stats for you folks: Federer win % on outdoor hard courts : 84.8% Federer win % on indoor hard courts : 80.7% Cilic win% on outdoor hard courts : 73.3 % Cilic win% on indoor hard courts: 75.5% The more 'power game' you have, the more indoor conditions favor you. Simple.
  24. None of what you are saying is countering the point that these type of incidents will be much lower if our law and order situation was better enforced. Far more peaceful = far less crimes being committed per capita than in places like the subcontinent. Because of law and order. The same muslims are far more peaceful in the middle east, in terms of law and order, because they never get away with it. And yes, even if better law and order takes us 'only so far', lets get that far instead of not improving the situation by demanding more $$ be spent on law and order. Remember, our motherland is a country where you can beat people up and get away with it. That has to change.
  25. The Australian Open 2018

    The closed roof assisted Marin far more than Federer. When you put the roof on, you take away the wind variations. And Marin's first serve & forehand are a LOT flatter and with far less margin of error than Federer's. Cilic was not happy with the roof closure, because he was not notified of it before the match. This is why you see him change his racket after falling 4-0 behind.

Guest, sign in to access all features.