Jump to content

Tibarn

Members L2
  • Content count

    2,634
  • Runs

    101,790 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Time Online

    60d 15h 33s

Everything posted by Tibarn

  1. Lol, people like Shusma are the reason BJP lost so many elections for so long. Too bad Modi didn't have her join Advani et al on the Marg Darshak Mandal. The rootless Delhi 4 of the BJP should've been removed long ago. Decent, normal people have to follow all the procedures for visas/passports, yet people from certain backgrounds and even people from hostile countries get treated like celebrities, cutting in front, not having to follow the same procedure. Some clown plays victim when a bureaucrat actually does his job properly, doing due diligence and this genius Swaraj lets brainless outrage-mongers brow beat her into trying to transfer the officer.
  2. Tibarn

    The all-time men's T20I XI

    Let's see what the batting would look like if we only included stats from the WT20 A settled top 4 of M. Hussey Gayle Kohli KP 5, 6, and 7 are harder to pick Jayawardene and White average over 35 with SR over 130; Jayawardene is an opener so he doesn't fit, White doesn't pass the smell test and he has 6 NO in 13 innings, inflating his average. Most of the players with high averages ie Duminy and Rohit have lower SR, under 130. The remaining players with over 140 SR are Maxwell 29@ 160, Watson 28@ 140, ABD 30 @ 143 The WK options, Dhoni and McCullum are both basically the same, low SRs below 130, Dhoni averages higher but lower SR, vice versa McCullum. ABD is better than both it looks like. M. Hussey Gayle Kohli KP ABD(WK) Watson Maxwell
  3. Tibarn

    Congrats Jon Snow and Ygritte !!

    He better watch out for Ramsey Bolton
  4. Chal, last post in this thread so since my question wasn't answered, I will answer it myself, Shruti texts are "those which are heard" those which are closer to the idea of divine texts. These include ie Vedas, the Upanishads, etc Smriti are works with specific authors, referred to as something like, what is remembered. They are essentially most other texts ie law texts based on interpretations, Gita, Mahabharat, texts on art, some even involve otherwise "secular" matters such as even agriculture. Even texts that encompass ecnomics, spying, law, etc like Arthashastra, written by Chanakya, are considered Smriti. The thing about Smritis is that they are open to interpretation, and are constantly revised by learned people. There is nothing in Hinduism that binds us to not reinterpreting them, should me have the requisite knowledge. Even notorious indologists like Sheldon Pollock and Wendy Doniger have noted the fluid nature of them as well: open to change and open to interpretation. There are at least 18+ smriti law texts alone, (I think these are referred to as Dharmashastras, someone correct me if I am wrong, but are essentially law books) some are: Vishnu, Daksha, Samvarta, Vyasa, Harita, Satatapa, Vashishtha, Yama, Apastamba, Gautama, Devala, Sankha-Likhita, Usana, Atri, Manu, Saunaka, Yajnavalkya, Parasara, Nitisara Some of these were written earlier, some later, some likely developed on a previous one, others contradict each other. Some are written in different parts of the country, ie Nitisara was from Telugu lands and written in Telugu if I remember correctly. The Manu Smriti, is estimated to be by some as ~2,000 years old, yet we are supposed to believe that only it, of many different comparable texts has left any sort of imprint on Hindu society over the thousands of years we have existed? We are supposed to believe that only it has been applied throughout our continent sized nation. A number of these 18 Dharmashastras were composed after Manu Smriti, along with other law texts such as the aforementioned Arthashastra, yet we are to believe that Hindu society stopped with a 2,000 year old text and ignored the later composed Dharmashastras in favor of Manu only For example the Yajnavalkya and Nitisara both came after Manu Smriti and Arthashastra. The Yajnavalkya along with the Arthashastra are considered part of the law in the Gupta Empire to Maratha Empire period. By the end of the Maratha period, we can see the slow take over of India by the British. The British Era is when the Manu Smriti suddenly comes back into popular consciousness. The British in Bengal were looking to codify law for their subjects to minimize resistance from the native population. They used the Koran as the basis of Muslim personal law, but there wasn't a comparable text for Hindus. They eventually found that the Manu Smriti was one such book of laws, and used it as part of establishing Hindu personal law. Later on Ambedkar viewed it as a source of castism in Hindu society and burned it. It was also used by others such as Periyarist as proof of some Aryan scheme of suppressing native Shudras. No one with serious knowledge of Hinduism even considers it as anything resembling as a definitive, define, final source on anything. It is no more divine or definitive as say if we started implementing any legal aspects from the Arthashastra. There is also nothing stopping us from creating a new, modern Dharmashastra which removes aspects of caste discrimination that indeed still ails Hindu society(or some other way).
  5. Tibarn

    Which was our most successful tour to SENA countries?

    I picked 2007 England, we won the test series, have a roughly even ODI series, and won another 2 short series ODIs
  6. This is purely on the door of the WB government (obviously), but I remember there were statistics last year regarding Swachh Bharat where it showed some states weren't even spending the central funds allocated to them, Nitish Kumar's Bihar government and Akilesh Yadav's UP government were among those who weren't spending the funds. I guess Mamata was leading the pack also there.
  7. Tibarn

    This will break your heart

    One doesn't need to go back all the way to the Nazis, there are numerous cases even today, including people sitting on the UNHRC... Even countries like the US/Canada have recent histories of facilitating or actively supporting the suppression of human rights! Why would the US refusing "human rights" for asylum seekers be any different than what they already do? Nation-states may be a recent invention, but tribes are as old as can be seen methinks. Edit: Here is an example of a different view on a "human right" http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/elecciones-2018/amlo-urge-epn-detener-actos-racistas-e-inhumanas-de-eu-migrantes Here a candidate for President of Mexico is saying that it is a Human Right for South Americans to migrate to the United States.
  8. There should be some sort of test for coaches to be allowed to coach, or at least to speak to the media...
  9. Have you surveyed the majority of Buddhists and seen that they don't support caste? Have you surveyed the majority of upper castes and seen that they supported discrimination against shudras/dalits? You have obviously done neither, yet are pushing your prejudiced views of both groups on the issue on both. I have given historical evidence that Buddhists aren't opposed to the caste system, right from the Buddha himself, using a scholarly research paper, the rest all is mental gymnastics. Do you have proof it is better because of what you consider humanity, and not obvious things like technological advancement? Neither do all humans have equal rights in the world, or do you have evidence for that? First you said this(saying that there is no more slavery) now you say the world isn't perfect. I'm sorry to say, but you are mentally stuck on your idea of an utopia, which will never exist. Just like al-Baghdadi's dream of the entire world ruled by sharia. That is his utopia. Your's may be better (or worse) but they are both dreams/utopias in both your eyes. It is not unfair, you possibly will try to impose your dream through violence, if you see how few people comparatively care for your dream. That is what many people do, think humans are flawed when they fail to achieve what they. Your dreams partly come from Abrahamic thought, who also view a world of no borders(no more nationalism), people ruled under a single type of law(in your case what you consider human rights, in their case Biblical or Sharia law), etc. I am still asking you to prove that the Indian constitution is secular when it gives different rights to people of different religions? I am wondering why you can't answer that? Nice strawman saying I support the caste system, don't lie or misrepresent what I said. Now you are repeating yourself adding nothing of value. Prove that the human mind is faulty. Maybe you are faulty, humans are what they are. How do you know that humanity is against discrimination? Animals discriminate as well. Are humans not animals? Have you surveyed everyone's view to know what "humanity" views as right or wrong regarding discrimination? If most humans view discrimination as good, do you acknowledge that you are trying to enforce your views on others, or that you are faulty and not the "human mind"? 2 of 6 orthodox schools of Hinduism are atheist/agnostic, do people of those schools of thought also do things for fear of gods they don't even believe/know to exist? This is an excuse atheists use all the time, which doesn't work beyond a superficial level, sorry. The necessary logical consequence of atheism is one of 3 things: nihilism, moral relativism, or morality based on biological processes/systems. Everything else would be irrational. None of those 3 things are averse to large scale violence, discrimination, or even genocide. Neither have you surveyed all atheists where you can speak for them, saying that all atheists view xyz crimes as crimes against humanity. Many of the same atheists participated in crimes against humanity or deny their co-travellers did them. Islam is clear, Koran + Sunnah + Hadiths are the corpus and are the basis of it. Any serious Muslim scholar knows that. As are what is considered Jewish/Christian traditions, neither do I care about any of the three. Do you have proof of this with regards to Hinduism or are you just making things up again? Why should systems not change when they get access to new information? You want systems to be closed minded (like Islam)? That is how natural systems work, when new stimuli arrive, they adapt. Just because that makes it harder for you to criticize, doesn't make it a flaw of that system. It makes it a flaw of yours that you expect others to be as rigid as those from your experience with your Islamic heritage. False, that is Islamic/Abrahamic view of divinity, not a Hindu one. You are also ignorant here as well, Smritis aren't divinely originated. Are you a comparative religions scholar that you can make such a blanket statement? Do you have proof that humans suffered for thousands of years because of religion and not simply due to a lack of technology? Why do you think suffering will ever end when plants and other animals also suffer. Maybe suffering is a natural state of life, human or otherwise? Now you are making excuses for discrimination: first you said any system which condones discrimination is anti-humanity and should be thrown into the dustbin, now you are justifying discrimination against others because their ancestors discriminated in the past? Should I advocate your jailing for crimes your ancestors likely committed(as part of the Islamic invasion of India)? Which is it: Is discrimination wrong or is it okay in cases when you want to defend something you like? Neither do all shudras get reservation/quota: my jati doesn't, neither do Jatts or Marathas or Patels for example. You must also justify why there is religious discrimination, constitutionally validated, against certain groups based on their religion. You said something along the lines of religion/nationalism are standing in the way of humanity. Unless you can objectively define what is or isn't good/bad for humanity, by some quantifiable measure, that is discrimination. Chauvinism may very well be part of "humanity", people have always been tribal; chimps are also tribal. What if it is in our DNA? I don't spend time criticizing Muslims on "science" in the Koran or the lack thereof. Anyone can criticize whatever is not scientific in Koran, Hinduism, whatever else. However, criticizing something on science and then use vague, meaningless terms like "humanity" is ironic on your part. Are you holding your concept of humanity to the standards of "science" as well? I was not talking of your Muslim past, but your Atheist present. Atheists oftentimes cause mass destruction, going by recent history only. Should I judge atheists by their checkered history when they actually get power? You are far more likely to try to kill me, than I you. You are assuming what you think is good and bad is the same as for others. You are assuming love is good and hate is bad: if I hate a rapist, is it bad? If I love a murderer, is it good? Hate and love are just one of a myriad of human feelings and emotions, positive and negative depends on the situation. What if some people view gau as part of their family? Are you allowed to murder and eat the members of another's family because you do not view them as family? If someone tries to abduct and eat a member of your family, and the only way to save that member is violence, is that violence justified or not? What if gau are property of people, but certain other people feel it is their right to steal others property? Are you allowed to defend your property, especially if police prove incapable? What if certain people believe that harming gau is part of their religious duty, while others view protecting them as it? Is the love of another creature wrong and negative, while the desire to hate it and murder/consume it positive? Neither does Atheism remove one from "religion": 2 of 6 orthodox schools of Hinduism are unsure of/don't believe in gods; A prominent example from recent history is Veer Savarkar who some consider the founder of Hindutva, was himself an Atheist. You can disagree respectfully or disrespectfully, the reality doesn't change. The concept of Secularism itself is derived from Roman-Christian conflicts in ancient Rome. The concept of what are or aren't human rights are similarly derived Christianity. If you want book recommendations which trace this lineage, I will give them to you. What if free thinking/free will don't exist, then what is humanity based on?
  10. Tibarn

    New trend of "Reaction" videos

    I am not a fan of reaction videos either, but what I find weirder is people watching videos of other people cooking something and then eating it on video. It's a big thing in South Korea.
  11. Are you sure the Buddha worked to abolish the "Caste system"? Here is something which suggests otherwise! https://www.jstor.org/stable/29757366?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents and Here also something that suggests that wasn't a concern of Buddhists https://www.docdroid.net/ymyp/india-in-japanese-literature-a-case-study-of-hirata-atsutane.pdf Unfortunately, slavery still exists today! https://www.freetheslaves.net/about-slavery/slavery-today/ Who told you not to dream? Of course, there are a lot of people with a lot of different dreams, many directly in conflict, ie a certain group of people you may be familiar with want to wipe out all non-believers from existence! Where did someone say there aren't texts with discrimination? Discrimination written in a book doesn't equal that it was implemented at a scale large enough to claim certain things which were said in this thread. I am not talking about the right to criticize or not criticize others, atheists, Hindus, etc. I am talking assuming some behavior to be true of all. You are assuming 1 text of countless(of various levels of importance) represents the entirety of Hinduism, but are you willing to concede the same if I judge the entirety of atheists for the actions of the most powerful atheists? You are framing your view of Hinduism based on what you know of Islam. You are comparing a mango and a lemon and saying they are the same shape/taste because they are a fruit. Hinduism reforms itself continuously and isn't limited to texts; don't impose your Islamic/Abrahamic interpretation of reality on us. Neither is the Indian constitution "secular" nor is it free of caste. Different people have different rights based on religion and based on caste. By your own logic, you earlier stated, both the Indian constitution and country should be thrown on the scrap heap because it discriminates against people based on religion/caste. The discrimination was that you are assuming things about "nationalism" and "religion" your post You just stated that religion and nationalism are in direct confrontation with humanity, and they are in direct opposition with "science." Unfortunately for you, there are likely numerous people who are actually trained in "science" who are also "nationalists" and "religious." Are you the thekedar of "science" and/or "humanity" to judge what is or isn't in contention with them? This attitude of yours against nationalists and the religious fits the definition of discrimination https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination So it is okay for you to make discriminatory statements, but others can not! When people of a similar ideological background as you actually implement documented mass murders of people, as they have already in the past, why you are not asking for that to be thrown into the dust bin! I asked you to explain to me where exactly is humanity? Do you think everyone believes "humanity" is the same thing, or are you the sole thekedar of what is and isn't "humanity." Do you have some objective, quantifiable measure by which someone can understand "humanity" or do you concede that what you consider "humanity" is just your opinion? If "love" and "humanity" aren't objective/quantifiable/measurable how do you know what you say is "humanity" is correct and not what al-Baghdadi views as "humanity" and "love"? "Secular systems" are themselves derived from religious beliefs, not opposite of them. This is clear to anyone who actually knows their history of the Enlightenment where modern conceptions of human rights were conceived, and Ancient Rome where the religious-secular distinction first came to light. There is no doubt, that is a fact. The Indian constitution gives different rights to different people based on caste and religion, so how can it be based on "equal" human rights? Where do human rights come from? So are you conceding that there are unequal rights in the Indian constitution, yet you aren't willing to abandon the whole thing and making excuses like "exceptional cases" to justify inequality? There is nothing exceptional about constitutionally ordained discrimination against certain castes and religions. It infects many significant parts of India as a society. False, you refused to even have the integrity to provide direct references to what @Moochad asked until your most recent post to him, and now you are pretending that he was avoiding answering! The truth is you bit off far more than you could chew and did not have any reference to back your bold claims! Either way, that is between you and him! As expected, the moment I ask even the most basic, simple question on Hindu philosophy, you refuse to answer. What's funny is you were also "no one" when you first started to evangelize others based on little knowledge, yet only now you are refusing to participate. If you are truly "no one" and have no need to understand even the basics, then do us a favor and stop evangelizing.
  12. Tibarn

    This will break your heart

    Who decides what are Human Rights? Do Human Rights exist outside of agreed upon pieces of paper? What if one country disagrees with what are considered Human Rights: say a country thinks Free Speech is a Human Right, but doesn't think accepting asylum seekers into their country is a Human Right? If opinions differ between people/countries/cultures on what are human rights, then is imposition by some of what they view as "Human Rights" also a violation of human rights of a different people/countries/culture? If these "Human Rights" don't exist outside of a piece of paper, what exactly will happen to the US, for example, if it reneges on all aspects of "Human Rights" that it finds unfavorable and starts to violate Human Rights, in this case rejecting all asylum seekers?
  13. You can hope whatever you want, I am not going to correct you, I don't consider it my business to sway peoples opinions one way or another... As if humanity is in contention with those things. Now you are playing victim, neither me nor Moochad quoted you initially. Only you felt the need to quote either of us and try to evangelize. The reference you used refers to Shudras, (which is what I am, and you are telling me that I and my family have been discriminated against despite no historical evidence of the same). You are again conflating Dalit and Shudra. Should I say, self described atheists and secular organizations are sticking to a philosophies that have murdered/genocided far more people than Hinduism, with actual references which denote the numbers of people/estimates, yet you are propagating that/those? Am I to believe that because when some Atheists seem to come into power they brutally destroy countless human lives and often persecute religious believers or nonbelievers in the Atheists' given philosophy? Should I extrapolate that backwards/outwards and say all atheists are closeted genocidal maniacs who desire to suppress anyone who they view as a detriment to what they view as progress? What's funny is your own posts are discriminating against people who consider themselves nationalists/religious by stating that their focus on humanity is limited by those traits of theirs, while you are fashioning yourself a thekedar of humanity and what is or isn't humane, when in reality there are many countless religious/nationalist people who have contributed far more to the well being of "humanity" than a self described "no one". Vague, meaningless statement. Show me where something called "humanity" resides within a person Definition of humanity http://www.dictionary.com/browse/humanity all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind. the quality or condition of being human; human nature. the quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence. If it is not vague, then you could give some quantifiable measure of what humanity is and some comparative analysis of what benefits humanity, particularly why what you advocate helps humanity and what you are against hurts humanity. You are also assuming humanity is "good", are you sure this is the case? Please prove that the Indian constitution is based on true human and Secular values. Is the Indian constitution Secular if it allows preferential rights to minorities over Hindus (as is the case)? 1 )Moochad already did a point-by-point answer to many of the quotes from the website you copy and pasted from, you are flat out lying now. Neither I, nor I suspect him, are going to answer every giant post you make in this thread until you actually either support your initial claims you made with specific references (as shown by moochad above) or admit that you don't have specific references. 2) you initially didn't quote directly from Manusmriti, you copy and pasted from a propaganda website and got called out for it. (Which is what I was laughing at) 3) If you actually want to play, then I will ask you a series of single questions, 1st one: What is the difference of smriti and shruti texts in Hinduism?
  14. Tibarn

    This will break your heart

    If the US removes itself from any agreement governing asylum seeks, then of course it is okay; in that case, they are free to let whoever they want in and out of their country.
  15. From what we see as fans, he seems way too image conscious and involved in the "extra" stuff related to cricket. He isn't a good enough player yet to be this flamboyant.
  16. Tibarn

    The all-time men's T20I XI

    Interesting, I think it is the opposite, Kohli has such a great average in the WT20, I think his overall numbers underrate him, iirc, the last WT20 he averaged around 100, and we made it to the SF
  17. Tibarn

    The all-time men's T20I XI

    Kohli is not world class in your opinion? guy averages ~51 at a 137 strike rate
  18. ab yeh Dharampal ko joottha ke raha he For anyone who cares, the British accounts show the observations of the British themselves who state that native schools are filled with people of lower castes, and the lower castes themselves are oftentimes teachers in the schools themselves. The book is called the Beautiful Tree
  19. You are wishing that only. Nationalism and Religion are here to stay, in my opinion. The only question is which nations and which religions. And you are going to decide what human beings behave like? Sorry that's not how this works. I didn't discredit your opinion, you did that yourself with your ignorant use of a propaganda site to push your agenda. If you would've used texts right from the beginning, namely the manu smriti, you wouldn't have made yourself look discredited. If you don't even understand the basics of valid and invalid sources in general, forget about sources in the context of Hinduism, your views on Hinduism/its philosophy are useless on any level, in my opinion. You can think whatever you want, no one on here told you that you have to respect either. Only you are evangelizing others, first @Moochad and now me on things you yourself admit you don't know much about ie Hinduism in general and Indian history by extension. Who decides what is based on Humanity? You? Someone else? How do you objectively quantify what is better or worse, based on vague terms like Humanity? Why? Lol, if you are trying to imply I am part of the Sangh Parivaar then you are wrong, but I would any day join them over whoever Pakistanis support. If you think you/your co-travelers are defenders of the Indian constitution that is laughable, especially in comparison to the Sangh Parivaar, which actually fought to restore the constitution the only time it was actually under threat, during the Emergency.
  20. saala Bharat me mera jaisa Sudroid ko reservation nahi mila, aur Amreeka ja kar African banna padega yeh Brahmano ka saajish hai
  21. Yeh sab chodd do, at least now I know that a sudroid like me is African My hair is already curly, maybe I should try to grow an afro now
  22. Don't know that Dar guy, but even some yindoos don't know that smritis aren't the same as shrutis and that smritis are usually with multiple interpretations and written different ways. People acting like smriti are like the Koran as a divine revelation
  23. Tibarn

    Two new balls

    It would help BK to become more of a wicket taker if the old rules come back. He can be dangerous with the new ball in the first 10, with the 2nd new ball after the 30th, and then bowl a couple at the death. Suddenly his wicket taking issue will be gone I think
  24. I wasn't clear, as I meant that purely as a candidate for election, Hilary was worse, as she has so much baggage over the years of her involvement in politics... Hillary would've been a much better president than Bernie in my view.

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×