Jump to content


Members L2
  • Content count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Time Online

    49d 17h 11m 49s

Everything posted by Tibarn

  1. NFL 2017-18

    Football is back, starting tonight My predictions of playoff teams AFC Patriots Steelers Texans Raiders WC- Bengals WC- Chiefs NFC Packers Falcons Giants Seahawks WC- Cowboys WC- Cardinals
  2. vs England Fielder Count Kohli 5.5 Saha 2(+1 stumping) Parthiv 3(+3 stumpings) Rahul 1 Nair 1.5 Ashwin 1 Jadeja 1 Rahane 2 Vijay 1 Bowler Total Wickets Lost(Drops + Stumpings) Ashwin 7 Umesh 7 Jadeja 4 Shami 3 Jayant 1 Mishra 1 vs New Zealand Fielder Total Vijay 1 Umesh 1 Gambhir 2 Rahane 2 Ashwin 1 Bowler Total Wickets Lost(Drops + Stumpings) Ashwin 2 Jadeja 2 Shami 2 vs Bangladesh Fielder Drops Kohli 1 Bowler Total Wickets Lost(Drops + Stumpings) Ishant 1 vs Australia Fielder Total Wickets Lost(Drops + Stumpings) Vijay 3 Mukund 2 Nair 2 Kohli 2 Rahane 2 Saha 2 Ashwin 1 Bowler Total Wickets Lost(Drops + Stumpings) Ashwin 4 Umesh 4 Jadeja 2 Ishant 1 Jayant 1 Bhuvi 2 Overall Fielder Stats Fielder Drops+Missed Stumpings Nair 3.5 Mukund 2 Umesh 1 Gambhir 2 Ashwin 3 Jadeja 1 Kohli 8.5 Vijay 5 Rahane 6 Patel 6 Saha 5 Rahul 1 Overall Bowler Lost Wickets Bowler Lost Wickets Ashwin 13 Jadeja 8 Umesh 12 Ishant 2 Kumar 2 Jayant 2 Shami 5 Mishra 1 Vote in the Poll
  3. 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 False, everyone sees it, you don't, that's your problem. I already said this earlier, I suppose you were too busy raging to read it It turns out you are too much of a coward to read someones posts and instead go straight into raging. That's been common throughout this thread. I realize that narcissists feel the need to have the last word and always be right, as you lot tend to be hugely insecure about your own deficiencies, but one should really read another's posts before raging. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/data https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html 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 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. That's funny because you aren't. You continue to redefine words arbitrarily and won't provide a reference. What's the matter? You don't have a clay tablet readily available? Let's further expose this "genius": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic Which is basically what I already said earlier Newsflash, if you don't think people on either side have beliefs based on information then you don't think they argue about it based on information. I can and do say easily say there is no data for or against any belief like atheism or religion. There is no evidence for Vishnu and there is no evidence against. There is no evidence for Atheism or against. People believe either way without evidence. Reality is unknowable. Only Atheist Fundamentalists and Religious Fundamentalists argue about things they can't prove/disprove. That is in your nature. You lot are mirror images. Then Gappu redefines Atheist Here's what it actually means: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist If someone denies something, that is a claim. A: I saw a white elephant. B: There is no such thing as white elephant = someone claiming that there is no white elephant in existence. Atheist and agnostic are not the same thing. Agnostics say I don't know one way or another. Atheists, especially mediocre ones with confidence issues, won't even defend their own arguments, instead the invent new rules of logic. To further expose you, here is the dictionary definition of a claim http://www.dictionary.com/browse/claim?s=t Poor guy either doesn't understand simple English, doesn't know how to use a dictionary, or is making up his own definitions of words. If you say something is BS, you are asserting that there is no evidence for it. That is still a negative claim, ie proving a negative. Which brings us back to this: Everyone is still waiting for a reference that states one can't prove a negative or burden of proof doesn't exist for a universal existential claim. Guy still won't take the bet. Watch how he continues to pussy-foot around this.
  4. The bowlers, particularly Shami and Ashwin/Jadeja, will have to prove that they actually improved since the last time they were overseas. This will be the first time in a long time that we are actually going to be in unfamiliar conditions: Windies pitches were mostly subcontinental and our other overseas series was SL, once again the subcontinent. Rahul will have to prove to be better than Dhawan there, which I think is a safe bet. If our bowling lineup is Pandya Ashwin/Jadeja Bhuv Shami Umesh I think that would make our batting really deep, enough to ensure good scores, but Ishant may be preferred for his bounce.
  5. At least one 6 an over from Pandya can get us at least past 120, something to defend.
  6. Supreme Court banned sale of crackers in Delhi

    I've never cared about the UCC stuff. If non-Hindus get their own civil code, then we need our own as well, outside of government interference. Desert cultists and the gliberals both have the mosaic distinction as part of their ideology, so it seems neither will ever want to leave Hindus or other "nonbelievers" alone. The best thing in the current situation would be turning their evangelist zeal on each other I guess...
  7. Already have, read harder. No one has to hold your hand from A to B. I gave the empirically derived theories, kin selection and inclusive fitness, related to the subject you whinged about(sociobiology), and mentioned how they apply to humans. Now your pet word is "empirical data", one more of the numerous words/phrases you don't know the meaning of. https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html Many theories themselves are observational, too bad you didn't know that. Kin selection and inclusive fitness are such. As I said, whinge however much you want, everyone already sees for themselves reading our posts both in this thread and past threads who relies on evidence and supports and who vomits nonsense. Leave it to all the thread viewers to decide. One of us has been exposed, either you or me.(hint hint its probably you) Wrong, deflect however much you want. I provided mammalian evolutionary history and genetics which supported the same numerous times. Your ego being too fragile/your inability to grasp a concepts is not my issue. To accept genetics and mammalian evolutionary history is your prerogative. Cling to clay tablets as sources of scientific information and the basis of disproving mammalian evolution and genetics as much as you want. All the viewers you're so desperate for can go to the thread below to see for themselves how you were thoroughly exposed, shifted goalposts, shifted the burden of proof, and did other Gappugiri you're known for. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/forums/topic/100456-indian-liberals-claiming-to-be-champions-of-science/?page=3 Just a taste for everyone to see you for what you are Citation: Hammer MF, Mendez FL, Cox MP, Woerner AE, Wall JD (2008) Sex-Biased Evolutionary Forces Shape Genomic Patterns of Human Diversity. PLoS Genet 4(9): e1000202. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000202 Atheism is BS because a Muslim doesn't have burden of proof and atheists do because the Quran is the source of all information and you haven't effectively disproved it. Same logic by hypothetical Muslim, same use of their own made up rules of logic, same shifting burden of proof continuously so they can't lose an argument. Once again, you are a mirror image of them, yet claim yourself to be different. A Muslim can argue that you are making a universal claim: "In the entire universe, there is no such thing as Allah". Now the burden of proof is on you and the Muslim will mirror exactly what you said. You yourself believe in "garbage" like atheism from a Muslim's perspective. Atheism is superstition from a Muslim's perspective. Prove them wrong with evidence, otherwise your claim is "unsubstantiated garbage." We can repeat this cycle endlessly. This will go on until either you (or the hypothetical Muslim) quit shifting the burden of proof to the other person and provide evidence either proving what you say is true or proving what the other says is false. Whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof. If you make the first claim, it is yours, if the hypothetical Muslim does, it's theirs. You don't get to whinge your way to shifting it to another person. You don't get to make up rules like "you can't prove a negative" and then squirm to "I don't have the burden of proof because it's a universal claim" or whatever form of bizarre nonsense you spout next. Pro-tip: When you make a statement that something is BS, then you are claiming it is untrue, and then you hold the burden of proof to show it is untrue. (Watch Gappu proceed to shift the burden again) http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm Also, take the challenge now The mods Beetle and Laloo have said they are tired of the name calling in this thread. I'm sure one of them will be willing to perma-ban one of us if you accept. Let's do this! We're all counting on you Gappu! Banish this Badmash Bacchu
  8. Facts are data,by definition. Kin selection theory and inclusive fitness theory are facts. If you don't want to accept it, don't. You're the guy who thinks clay tablets are disprove mammalian biology. More sophistry. The data was provided read harder Let me guess, you don't know the definition of theory in scientific terms, not unexpected... Accept the data or don't. Everyone who wastes their time reading through the thread can decide for themselves which is which. Whether you are right or I am. You won't be convinced . No amount of sophistry will change that you haven't provided a single reference proving that one can't prove a negative. You made the claim that god(s) don't exist therefore the burden of proof is on you, as shown by this below. I have never claimed that either god(s) exist or don't exist and have certainly never claimed to have proof. I consider myself an agnostic Hindu. I don't believe people believe or disbelieve in god(s) based on evidence. I am of the opinion that people are born either religious or irreligious. That is what the available biological evidence shows me. Therefore, that is what I accept. I once again challenge you to show me where I made the claim of god(s) existing or not existing. I also challenge you to show me where I said I have evidence for or against either case. (Once again, show me and I will leave the forum forever.) Unlike you, I understand what are beliefs:(free will, tabula rasa, religions,etc) and what are facts (evolution, gravity, etc) The only thing I've been saying in this entire thread was that anyone who makes a claim, holds the burden of proof. I have given proof stating the same, straight from logicians and even Atheist/agnostic sources. I'm not fundamentalist garbage like you who thinks I have all the answers, wants to avoid providing evidence for my claims, and is also too much of a coward to accept their own burden of proof or when my own beliefs are unsupported by evidence. I am perfectly willing to say when my beliefs aren't supported by evidence. Once again this guy hasn't provided evidence that one can't prove a negative and has once again shifted the burden of proof. One more showing one can proof a negative https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html 5 sources that say one can prove a negative, 1 anonymous guy who says otherwise
  9. When I said this This sub 50 IQ moron, first said asking me to explain why keeping parents alive then I give him the sociobiologal reasons of inclusive fitness and and he starts pissing his pants like this afterwards Newsflash ,when you ask someone to prove something via sociobiology and they give you the reasons related to that field related to the field, it isn't propaganda. Make up your mind instead of shifting goalposts: if you want the sociobiological perspective or a general perspective. As I said, from a sociobiological perspective, keeping parents is beneficial through the concepts inclusive fitness and kin selection. A tiger eating your parents isn't within the field of sociobiology. Sociobiology only includes http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sociobiology The tiger situation falls out of the realm of sociobiology by definition. Useless duffer can only shift goalposts when he's caught soiling himself. If you're asking which one is more beneficial from an overall general perspective, then there can be no data for that and I'm not going to pretend to give one, as the arguments for benefits of one behavior over the other would come from different strands of thought. Keeping elder parents alive has value from a evolutionary perspective via inclusive fitness and kin selection theories. The argument for this would be evolutionary. The argument for feeding someone to a tiger would be a potential increase in tiger population or recycling human matter as energy in the ecosystem. One is an individual level evolutionary argument and the other is a ecosystem level. In this case, one would have to pick which is more valuable subjectively: is an individual's increasing fitness important or is recycling human matter more important. What is with this guy.All he does is strawman, shift goalposts, and shift the burden of proof. Show me the bold in whatever thread and I will leave the forum forever I've said that you were on the ignore list regarding getting your posts quoting me/mentioning me in my notifications. I've always seen your posts, I just don't get notifications. After all, you seem to continuously stalk my profile page, that's how desperate you are for my attention. From today itself Now pick an admin/mod or multiple of them and let's do this. Also, Considering how 9 Hell, I'll offer again, provide a source, it can even be something like a website, no scientific paper or anything required, that says Here, I'll post 2 more links that one can prove a negative: Wikipedia, the only source you ever use http://factmyth.com/factoids/you-cant-prove-a-negative/ Pro-tip: I already know I can't prove a Dhokla planet doesn't exist. I, like anyone else who is trained in the scientific method would say it is exceedingly improbable, but not out of the realm of possibility and is nothing that is testable, so I wouldn't make a claim on it either way. I already know that I can't know everything. Unlike you who bought their degrees online, plagiarize Wikipedia, and watch a few YouTube videos and then fancy themselves intellectuals, most people actually trained in the scientific method, especially those in natural sciences, don't spend their times making absolute claims without proof either way on fantastic stuff. That doesn't concern these people. Only you thinks he knows everything and will shift the burden of proof to other people when trying to bring them over to his own side.
  10. Seriously how dumb are you? You use words without even knowing what they mean Data means http://www.dictionary.com/browse/data Seriously, you are so dumb that you don't understand that facts count as data Your stupidity should have limits. Now you're going to say kin selection and inclusive fitness aren't facts, because F*** evolution. This useless worm is squirming Prove it coward, give an example of me not keeping my word. You are just deflecting like the coward you are. The only one who doesn't keep their word is you, all for a few eyeballs. The mods and admins are the ones who can ban us. They can perma-ban whoever loses. Therefore, even a clown like you couldn't return after they lose the bet when one of them accepts. Quit being a coward and accept it. Person of Indian origin doesn't equal Indian. Words have meaning retard. Constitutionally you can't vote despite being over the age, therefore constitutionally you aren't Indian. You also claim to be Canadian. Sorry retard, but you can't have dual citizenship in India. It's clear which one you picked. Bold: Once again you prove to be a liar, your first post in response to me claimed this: That doesn't say PIO, now does it? Watch this worm squirm Even I called you a PIO earlier. More prattle, Lol https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism Show me where I have said Marathas are racially superior to British, or Indians being racially superior than British for that matter. Also please prove with data that British rule was better than Maratha rule for India. Thanks. Lol at you being the cream of the crop. Considering your spelling/grammar and your thinking that WebMD is a scientific source, the evidence is to the contrary. Also lol, I don't have a problem with overseas Indian-origin people,(ie posters like Zen, etc). I only don't like C-grade coolies like you who support invaders over Indians. The Chinese diaspora would never support invaders over Indians. They consider foreign rule over China a period of shame. You aren't fit to tie Chinese shoes, only good enough to chaat when Brits thook. Still waiting for a reference from a logician which says one can't prove a negative... This troll's only argument is shifting the burden of proof. He makes a claim and can't back it up, so he would shift the burden of proof. That something is difficult to prove/disprove doesn't absolve someone of the burden of proof. That is only something an idiot like you would think. By this clown's logic: two parallel situations: Radical Muslim: Allah is the creator, all the universe was created by Him. Idiot: Allah is a myth Radical Muslim: Prove your claim Idiot: I don't have to prove my claim because it is too hard to prove something exists/doesn't exist in the universe. Radical Muslim: Allah is the creator, all the universe was created by Him. Idiot: Prove that Allah created the universe Radical Muslim: I don't have to prove my claim because it is an existential claim and it is too hard to prove something exists in the universe. One more fine piece of logic ^ The Muslim and this Idiot in this example use the same logic, only this idiot thinks only his application of the logic is valid and the Muslim's isn't. This idiot is a mirror image of this theoretical radical Muslim, who both don't feel the need to prove his claim because it is too hard, yet he wants to pass himself off as rational while he would smear this Muslim as irrational. Useless Wiki-chor wants to change the rules of logic so he can be right all the time. Demonstrated because you say so. I don't take the opinion of inbred wikipedia chors as fact. Give me a logician who claims that one can't proof a negative or quit vomiting. This idiot is also making up his own definition of existential claim. Existential only means https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existential The entire universe is what you are inserting into this, (useless idiot). Once again making your own rules.
  11. This idiot has a problem with me conserving space by putting comments in spoilers, as if no one can see the comments. Seriously how dumb is this guy? Once again, you may have failed remedial biology, but it's pretty easy to disprove your BS. All one needs to understand is the concept of : kin selection theory which would be relevant to human parents and the concept of inclusive fitness. All those theories provide support to the idea that one takes care of elderly parents. Just so this dastard doesn't try to squirm by saying these concepts don't have relevance to elderly parents, I'll put there definitions right here. Inclusive fitness http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inclusive-fitness Kin selection https://www.britannica.com/topic/kin-selection It's going to be fun watching him disprove evolutionary biology by claiming these theories don't apply to elder parents after google searching what those terms mean. What a clown! Of course this is the same idiot who thought humans are evolutionarily polyandrous and used a clay tablet as proof of the same. This idiot now wants to feed his parents to tigers. Of course their inbreeding led to his low IQ, so I kind of understand it from his perspective. Go ahead, give an example: Pick any mod/admin you want to enforce the bet. Put up or shut up coward. Pick a mod/admin(s) that you want and let's do this. (I can give a suggestion for one who claimed you, me, and another poster were all egomaniacs or something along those lines. ) Everyone can see you are too much of a coward to take it. Yeh lo, ek aur spolier
  12. The ODI team is pretty good as is. The T20 team needs an almost complete overhaul. If the next WT20 isn't until 2020 as expected, there is no reason to continue with players like Dhawan, Dhoni, Nehra etc in the squad in this format. Now is the time to have Rahul, Thampi, Pant, and other younger players to get experience in this format at an international level.
  13. Supreme Court banned sale of crackers in Delhi

    Going by their own ministers tweets, ie Dr Harshvardhan, some of them are celebrating the move. Honestly speaking, This is why it's better if Hindus tactically vote for parties: particularly regional parties, based on who will actually do stuff that they need, ie repealing RTE, Temple control, etc. Hindus should stop being useless and just selling their votes to the national parties (INC and BJP) who suck their blood to feed non-Hindus.
  14. As I said, logic is a conspiracy to this guy. He is yet to give a single reference to prove that one can't prove a negative, let alone anything else he claimed in this or any thread he vomits in. (This is a side effect of getting all one's knowledge from copy and pasting from wikipedia and vomiting that as knowledge). Go ahead clown, show a reference that someone can't prove a negative (disprove an existential claim). It's a fact, by the rules of logic, that one can prove a negative, which is the opposite of what you said. I can prove: there isn't a nuclear bomb in my apartment. (Existential claim). Newsflash clown, you don't get to make up your own rules. Provide a reference, or cry to someone else. I have provided two which both state one can prove a negative.
  15. Even a 30 average, as he has in Australia, isn't bad, per se. This is just me, but I define a 30-ish average as an "average" average. 40 is good, 50 is excellent, anything below 30 is bad. Thus I currently only consider Pujara a failure in NZ and England. He was average in Australia.
  16. Rabada vs Amir

    It's not even close. Rabada is the best young bowler in the world, assuming Starc isn't considered young... Amir is a mediocre Test bowler, although he is good in limited overs.
  17. Bad idea. Just increase the salary a normal way. Why penalize IPL players?
  18. Ansari is only the easy scapegoat, even the Karnataka government has been releasing PFI members from jail and dropping cases against them. This is from April this year http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/day-after-72-of-98-pfi-activists-released-in-mangaluru/article17834349.ece
  19. I think 50 overs are too many to play Rahul as WK. 20 overs he could be passable, as anyway there aren't as many wickets taken in that format, but I don't think Rahul is good enough to take all the chances given in 50 overs. If someone wants to replace Dhoni but thinks Pant isn't ready, then the stopgap option is DK. I don't think Saha, Ohja, PP, or Samson look that good.
  20. He has a poor average overseas, but he does play a lot of balls when he bats. Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s in Australia 2014-2014 3 6 0 201 73 33.50 471 42.67 0 1 0 26 0 in England 2014-2014 5 10 0 222 55 22.20 510 43.52 0 1 1 32 0 in India 2010-2017 30 50 6 2797 206* 63.56 5537 50.51 9 12 1 334 7 in New Zealand 2014-2014 2 4 0 60 23 15.00 183 32.78 0 0 0 6 1 in South Africa 2010-2013 4 7 0 311 153 44.42 715 43.49 1 1 0 40 0 in Sri Lanka 2015-2017 4 6 1 454 153 90.80 856 53.03 3 0 1 40 1 in West Indies 2016-2016 3 2 0 62 46 31.00 226 27.43 0 0 0 4 0 Average balls faced in each country: Aus: 79 Eng: 51 NZ: 46 SA: 102 By contrast Kohli averages only 29 balls faced in England... I think this implies that although he doesn't score, he isn't being blown away by the bowling. It seems to me that he just doesn't have the scoring shots to rotate strike, so he gets bogged down at one end and the bowlers eventually work him out because of that.
  21. The no.4 conundrum

    Pandya looks somewhat iffy against fast bowling. He smashes the spinners but seems to get a little bogged down when the pacers are there.
  22. ^ That is why you shouldn't be a rage-boy and instead work on your reading comprehension skills.
  23. INDIA vs AUSTRALIA | 4th ODI | Bengaluru | Sep 28 2017

    Time for Axeman to hack some balls for 6s

Guest, sign in to access all features.