Jump to content


Members L2
  • Content count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Time Online

    49d 17h 11m 49s

Posts posted by Tibarn

  1. 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

    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. 



    Now your pet word is "empirical data", one more of the numerous words/phrases you don't know the meaning of. :phehe:



    Many theories themselves are observational, too bad you didn't know that. Kin selection and inclusive fitness are such. 

    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


    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.


    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.  

    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. 




    individual facts, statistics, or items of information



    Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method.


    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



    1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

    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. 



    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) :laugh:

    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. :laugh: 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": 



    a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly :one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

    Which is basically what I already said earlier


    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.

    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:



    a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    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. :laugh: 


    To further expose you, here is the dictionary definition of a claim  



    to assert or maintain as a fact:

    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. :hysterical:


    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. :laugh: 


    Guy still won't take the bet. Watch how he continues to pussy-foot around this.  :hysterical:




  2. 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 







    I think that would make our batting really deep, enough to ensure good scores, but Ishant may be preferred for his bounce. 

  3. 18 hours ago, surajmal said:

    That asura Harshvardhan deleted his tweets after getting mauled by annoyed hindus. faack, this BJP has been a disappointment. Hindus need to turn towards sympathetic (or our own) advocacy groups, forget political parties. Get the temples freed first and use to funds to fight for remaining hindu causes. 


    I'm done with shouting equal application of unjust laws. I want freedom to live my life the way I wish. If desert cultists like their barbarian ways, go nuts. Just leave me the * alone. Libtards are itching for a confrontation and they will get it. 



    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...  

  4. 11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

    Empiric data are not words, kiddo. All you got, is empty theories with empty words. Not data. Show us the data that not feeding 80 year old grandparents is better for humanity. Show us what data is affected if we do. So stop squirming when you got exposed with your nonsense that morality can be empirically objective

    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. :phehe:



    Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method. 


    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) :hysterical:  



    You are the same guy who hides behind the fact that we have objective, empirical evidence of polyandrous propagation of humanity and regardless of how many men a woman slept with, you or I will only have two sets of genes (from mother and actual biological father), thus your lame-misdirection about genetics is completely irrelevant to nature of human sexuality. 

    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. :hysterical:


    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. 



    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


    For mammals, it is well known that females and males do not
    exhibit symmetrical behavior with respect to mating and dispersal
    practices. For instance, the typical mammalian system is
    characterized by polygyny (a mating practice in which a minority
    of males sire offspring with multiple females)
     and female philopatry
    (the tendency for females to breed at or near their place of origin)
    [2]. The development of sex-specific markers in humans has been
    instrumental in providing insights into the effects of sex-specific
    demographic processes. Contrasting patterns of diversity on the
    mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and non-recombining portion of
    the Y chromosome (NRY) have been interpreted to reflect sexspecificity in the rate and scale of migration and in effective
    population size [3–5]. However, these patterns could also reflect
    different molecular properties of these two haploid systems

    11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

    So ergo, i have just as much reason to believe in BS hindu religion- or any such BS religion- without evidence. Marvel comics are better written than those BS books. And i don't believe in Marvel comics. So ergo, if you don't believe in Gods, then Krishna, Rama, Sita- are not Gods or avatars or any such.Indra is not God, Krishna is not God, neither is Vishnu or Shiva or any such unsubstantiated hypothesis. Lets see you put your money where your mouth is and state that all these claims of Gods in hinduism are unsubstantiated claims. 

    Irrelevent, when the super-set is the entire universe. Negative proof of existential question, is sophistry from religious bigots, because since we do not know the entire super-set of data in the universe, we can say anything 'could be'.And that 'could be' nonsense is what religious people use to hide their God-nonsense behind. 

    Its because of you, that engineers care way more about de-facto status, than de-jure status of logical conclusions. Your God hypothesis, is as sound as any and all imaginary ideas. because by the same logic, any imaginary idea is possible in the universe, so any amount of garbage can be believed.

    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. :hysterical: 


    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. :hysterical: 


    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) :laugh:





    The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition.  Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made.  The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. 


    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! :agree: 


    We're all counting on you Gappu! Banish this Badmash Bacchu :angel:


  5. 5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

    Reasons are not data, fool. you said you can show empiricism for your ethics. So show us data. Not propaganda. You have presented zero amount of data. Thus proving my point, that ethics is not about empiricism. 

    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.


    5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

    You made the claim that ethics is about data. When i made a statement relating to ethics, you wanted objective, empirical proof. So show us your objective, empirical proof for not feeding 80+ people to the pigs. Still waiting for your data-driven conclusion.

    More sophistry. The data was provided read harder


    9 hours ago, Tibarn said:

    Data means


    a plural of datum.
    (used with a plural verb) individual facts, statistics, or items ofinformation:
    These data represent the results of our analyses. Data are entered byterminal for immediate processing by the computer.
    (used with a singular verb) a body of facts; information:
    Additional data is available from the president of the firm.



    Let me guess, you don't know the definition of theory in scientific terms, not unexpected...


    The AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), the world's largest scientific society, has this explanation of what scientists mean when they use the word "theory":
    " A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."


    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 .


    5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:




    5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

    no amount of sophistry will change the fact that it is the person making an existential claim, who has to provide evidence for it. I didn't claim there is a God. You did.

    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



    I know the myth of "you can't prove a negative" circulates throughout the nontheist community, and it is good to dispel myths whenever we can. As it happens, there really isn't such a thing as a "purely" negative statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa. Thus, "there are no crows in this box" entails "this box contains something other than crows" (in the sense that even "no things" is something, e.g. a vacuum). "Something" is here a set restricted only by excluding crows, such that for every set S there is a set Not-S, and vice versa, so every negative entails a positive and vice versa. And to test the negative proposition one merely has to look in the box: since crows being in the box (p) entails that we would see crows when we look in the box (q), if we find q false, we know that p is false. Thus, we have proved a negative.


    5 sources that say one can prove a negative, 1 anonymous guy who says otherwise

  6. When I said this 

    On 28/09/2017 at 9:37 PM, Tibarn said:

    If you understood sociobiology, he would realize how dumb his example was.


    Oh well, what can one do. You can't learn that from Wikipedia.


    This sub 50 IQ moron, first said


     Show us data on your so-called 'socio-biology


    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

    9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

    You have shown no data on WHY it is preferable to not turn our 80+ grandparents into manure. Facts and figures kiddo. You have presented nada. Just your propaganda. When you have data, which are facts and figures, come back. Till then your squirming means zilch. 


    Kin selection, inclusive fitness - show us the facts. Show us the precise data on feeding/not feeding your kin to wild animals. Not propaganda words, facts, figures, numbers. Show us.


    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. :hysterical: 


    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



    the scientific study of the biological (especially ecological and evolutionary) aspects of social behavior in animals and humans.

    The tiger situation falls out of the realm of sociobiology by definition. Useless duffer can only shift goalposts when he's caught soiling himself. :facepalm:


    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. 



    9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

    You have said multiple times i am on your ignore list. Auto-proven that you don't keep your word. 


    Show me the bold in whatever thread and I will leave the forum forever :angel:


    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.   :facepalm: 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. 


    9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:




    Also, Considering how 


    9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:




    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


    Proving a negative[edit]

    A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. Saying "You cannot prove a negative" is a pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

    A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.[11][12]



    One can’t prove a negative.


    Proving Negatives and Dealing With Absence of Evidence and Evidence of Absence

    The saying “you can’t prove a negative” isn’t accurate. Proving negatives is a foundational aspect of logic (ex. the law of contradiction).[1][2][3]

    An Example of Proving a Negative in the Sense that People Mean it When they Say the Phrase

    Putting aside negatives we can prove with certainty for a second, consider the following:

    To “prove” a something we simply have to provide sufficient evidence that a proposition (statement or claim) is true. In other words, we have to show that it is very likely the case, we don’t have to show it is true with absolute certainty.

    Thus, to prove a negative, we only have to show that it is very likely the case. To do this, there must not be compelling evidence that it is the case and there must instead be compelling evidence that it is not the case.

    We DO NOT have to observe empirically that which cannot be observed (for example, we don’t have to see a Unicorn not existing to know it doesn’t exist, we just have to show compelling evidence of its non-existence).

    Thus, proving a negative in this sense can be accomplished by providing evidence of absence (not argument from ignorance, but scientific evidence of absence gathered from scientific research). For example, a strong argument that proves that it is very likely Unicorns don’t exist involves showing that there is no evidence of Unicorns existing (no fossils, no eye witness accounts, no hoofprints, nothing).

    If we did a serious scientific inquiry, searching for Unicorn fossils, and turned up nothing, it would be a type of evidence for the non-existence of Unicorns. If no one could show scientific data pointing toward unicorns to combat this, then at a point it would become a good theory and we could put forth a scientific theory, based on empirical data, that says “Unicorns don’t exist.”

    At that point, the burden of proof would be on those who believe in Unicorns to prove that Unicorns do in fact exist (the burden would be on them to prove the theory of non-existent Unicorns false by providing a better theory).

    This is just one of many ways to prove a negative, below we list others including using the law of contradiction and using double negatives.

    TIP: Science can’t actually prove anything with 100% certainty. Essentially “all we know for sure is that we know nothing for sure.” This is because all testing of the outside world involves inductive reasoning(comparing specific observations to other specific observations). Meanwhile, logically certain truths are generally pure analytic a priori (they are generally tautologically redundant and necessarily true facts like “since A is A” therefore “A is not B.”)



    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. :facepalm: 










  7. 10 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

    That is not data, kiddo. You said, morality can be empirically supported. So show us this so-called data of altruism. Game, set, match kiddo. I used your own field to demonstrate the idiocy of your position that morality has 'data'. So us this data or STFU.

    Seriously how dumb are you? You use words without even knowing what they mean :facepalm:

    Data means


    a plural of datum.
    (used with a plural verb) individual facts, statistics, or items ofinformation:
    These data represent the results of our analyses. Data are entered byterminal for immediate processing by the computer.
    (used with a singular verb) a body of facts; information:
    Additional data is available from the president of the firm.

    Seriously, you are so dumb that you don't understand that facts count as data :facepalm: 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 :hysterical: 

    15 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

    The mods/admin are irrelevant when YOU yourself are a liar and won't keep your word.

    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.


    21 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

    Constitutionally, i am a PIO, kiddo. a PIO is a former Indian, with an option to become Indian again. Thats exactly what i claimed to be.

    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:

    On 9/23/2017 at 2:51 PM, Muloghonto said:

    Rest of us Indians are not

    That doesn't say PIO, now does it? Watch this worm squirm :hysterical: Even I called you a PIO earlier. 


    33 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

    No matter how much racism you display, you won't be able to re-write history that the British were better rulers of India than the Maratha jaahils. 

    More prattle,




    prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior

    Show me where I have said Marathas are racially superior to British, or Indians being racially superior than British for that matter. :angel:


    Also please prove with data that British rule was better than Maratha rule for India. Thanks. :angel:


    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.:finger: 


    46 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

    I have already proven my claim, kiddo. With basic logic, which is why you keep running away from it.

    Existential claim, needs positive evidence to substantiate itself. Because by your crooked logic of 'if no falsifiable evidence is present, it could be true' can be taken and made into any number of absurdities of existence.

    As i said, there is a Dhokla planet, with a dandia wobble, around a Kofta star. Prove it doesn't exist, fool. 

    This is the logic you run the heck away from and can't live up to, because it exposes your belief system for what it is: a faulty, moronic belief system, written by inferior men who are not fit to tie the shoe-laces of a middle schooler. That is the status of your authors of Ramayana/Gita/Mahabharata/Vedas/Upanishads. 



    This idiot has proven a claim by saying it while also not providing a reference.


    Idiot: You can't prove a negative

    Logicians, Scientists: Yes you can.

    Idiot: Nope you guys are wrong. 


    ^ 1 more "genius" refutation.

    Actual logicians are wrong because this idiot says so. Scientists are wrong because this idiot says so. 

    Basically this idiot is so insecure about his beliefs that he needs them to be true, even if he doesn't have to prove them.  

    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. :hysterical: 


    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  ^:hysterical:

    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. :hysterical:



    PS: Fool, existential claim means a claim of existence. which means whether it exists in this universe or not. In any uncatalouged super-set (universe), a negative proof requirement, implies any number of absurdities are possible. This is the fundamental illogic of religious morons and demonstrated, why so.

    Demonstrated because you say so. :hysterical: 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 



    Definition of existential

    1:of, relating to, or affirming existence 
    • existential propositions
    2a :grounded in existence or the experience of existence :empirical
    b :having being in time and space

    The entire universe is what you are inserting into this, (useless idiot). :facepalm:Once again making your own rules. 




  8. On 10/5/2017 at 1:54 AM, Muloghonto said:

    Quit hiding behind hidden comments/spoilers, kiddo. Show us data on your so-called 'socio-biology' that shows the empirical validity of caring for your 80+ relatives than turning them to manure. Data- c'mon kiddo.

    This idiot has a problem with me conserving space by putting comments in spoilers, as if no one can see the comments. :hysterical: 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



    the fitness of an individual organism as measured in terms of thesurvival and reproductive success of its kin, each relative beingvalued according to the probability of shared genetic information, anoffspring or sibling having a value of 50 percent and a cousin 25percent.

    Kin selection 



    a form of natural selection that favors altruistic behavior toward closerelatives resulting in an increase in the altruistic individual's geneticcontribution to the next generation.


    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. :laugh:


    This idiot now wants to feed his parents to tigers. :hysterical: Of course their inbreeding led to his low IQ, so I kind of understand it from his perspective. :phehe: 


    On 10/5/2017 at 1:54 AM, Muloghonto said:

    Again, nice attempt to dodge the fact that your offer is meaningless, because you have never kept your word.

    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.  



    Everyone is also waiting to see how exactly you are Indian, when constitutionally you aren't. Vomit however much you want. You are neither culturally Hindu(what exactly makes you culturally Hindu? your crypto-Marxism? your hatred for knowledge?, your desire to feed your elder parents to tigers?, your wikipedia chori?), nor are you Indian: for someone who claims to value a secular constitution, you sure don't respect the Indian one and how it considers only people with Indian citizenship as Indian. Squirm as much as you want worm.     


    You are just a sad old, degenerate clown who thinks he is a nationalist when he took the first donkey to Canada and threw away his Indian citizenship the first chance he got and writes about how he was happy the British took over India. Now you vomit about how Indian you are when the country itself wasn't good enough for you and you took the first chance to leave it. Spare me your inbred prattle. 

    Yeh lo, ek aur spolier :finger:

  9. 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.  

  10. 6 minutes ago, surajmal said:

    If Namo doesn't come with an ordinance , I am done with bjp. 

    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. 


  11. As I said, logic is a conspiracy to this guy.


    It's also funny that he worked up the courage to respond to my post 7 days after it was posted.


    I wonder if he was waiting until he knew I was away from the forum or


    it took all 50 of his IQ points a week to write that gem of a response. 


    As I said, this uncle is an insecure narcissist who just argues with people to feel a testosterone rush through his old bones.  :phehe:


    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.  :hysterical: Provide a reference, or cry to someone else. I have provided two which both state one can prove a negative.  



  12. On 10/2/2017 at 6:47 AM, mishra said:

    Lol at thos doubting Pujara and his credential.

    I think people have short memory. The series which probably is responsible for Pujara as a weaklink, People need to check scorecard too. Allmost everytime he walked in there was a carnage in progression. Every game our openers had failed to see off new ball.



    So I am going t

    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. 

  13.  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



    The Mangaluru police have released 72 of the 98 activists who were arrested on Tuesday in connection with laying siege to the Police Commissioner’s office. However, the remaining 26, who allegedly attacked women police personnel as well, including Assistant Commissioner of Police (South) Shruthi, have been remanded in judicial custody, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime and Traffic) Sanjeev M. Patil said.

    The police are issuing notices to the 72 released activists asking them to furnish bonds for good conduct, the DCP added.

    Around 500 People’s Front of India (PFI) activists, protesting alleged police atrocity on Ahmed Qureshi, an attempt to murder accused, tried to lay siege to the Police Commissioner’s office on Tuesday. When they did not heed to police direction to disperse and began pelting stones, the police resorted to lathi-charge. In the melee, 12 policemen and five activists were injured.


  14. 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. 



  15. He has a poor average overseas, but he does play a lot of balls when he bats. 


    Career summary
    GroupingAscending 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 view innings
    in England 2014-2014 5 10 0 222 55 22.20 510 43.52 0 1 1 32 0 view innings
    in India 2010-2017 30 50 6 2797 206* 63.56 5537 50.51 9 12 1 334 7 view innings
    in New Zealand 2014-2014 2 4 0 60 23 15.00 183 32.78 0 0 0 6 1 view innings
    in South Africa 2010-2013 4 7 0 311 153 44.42 715 43.49 1 1 0 40 0 view innings
    in Sri Lanka 2015-2017 4 6 1 454 153 90.80 856 53.03 3 0 1 40 1 view innings
    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. 


  16. On 9/26/2017 at 8:48 PM, Muloghonto said:

    Just like i didn't get a single piece of data on why it is better to look after you parents than feeding them to tigers when they tun 80.

    You called it- it being there is no 'data' to produce on ethical choices. Bravo!





    If ICf's crazy uncle understood sociobiology, he would realize how dumb his example was.


    Oh well, what can one do. You can't learn that from Wikipedia.



    On 9/26/2017 at 8:48 PM, Muloghonto said:

    Because since you've never kept you word,





    This guy's a narcissist who needs the 300 odd views some ICF chit chat threads achieve to feed his fragile ego and need for attention. :rotfl:


    On 9/26/2017 at 8:48 PM, Muloghonto said:

    PS: Also waiting for you to back up your claim that an atheist is not a nationalist according to BJP, as you made my religion(or lack of it) a criteria. Ironic you googled Savarkar, as Savarkar is specifically in favour of atheists identifying as Hindu.


    Umm, nice, the same strawman... 


    I am wrong if I said that. :angel:


    I'm pretty sure this guy just has poor reading comprehension skills.


    I already know Savarkar called himself an atheist-rationalist, but he also called himself a Hindu. Hinduism includes schools which are are Atheist, Agnostic, Polytheist, and other things. Only a goofball like this uncle doesn't know that...


    I specifically criticize this uncle for not identifying himself as a Hindu-atheist, instead removing all ties to Dharmic culture, instead identifying as just an atheist,  not an Atheist-Hindu or Hindu-Atheist see below.


    Either way it doesn't matter. Everyone can read to determine which is true: whether I was wrong or whether you have poor reading comprehension. 



    On 9/24/2017 at 8:02 PM, Tibarn said:

    2) You don't have Indian citizenship and you don't identify with Hindu/Dharmic civilization. (For example, you self claim you are an Atheist and not a Hindu. You purposefully desire to distance yourself from Hindu society. You are too uneducated on Hinduism to even know that there are schools of Hinduism that are also Atheist/Agnostic).

    ^ That is why you shouldn't be a rage-boy and instead work on your reading comprehension skills. 


    On 9/26/2017 at 8:48 PM, Muloghonto said:

    He is wrong in a material case, that is pretty self-evident. But again, nice try kiddo. He is correct in a conceptual case. In any material case, proving something doesnt exist involves confirmation of all material as not it, ergo, proving something does not exist, involves going through all material in the universe as not it and only then can it be proven to not exist.

    A reductio ad absurdum argument in de-facto scenario: tibarn can't prove that i am not talking to his mummy right now. Modi can't prove that i am not God...ie, everything exists, in de-facto application, as nothing can be said to 'not exist' in entire inventory of the universe. 

    this is the kind of BS ideology people hide behind when they get it in their heads that half-naked men from stone ages get to tell us, people who are more educated than Valmiki or Mohammed could even conceive of, how to lead their lives.




    What a load of BS. This guy tries to rewrite the laws of logic and scientific inquiry because he wants to. And this guy wants to debate people. Basically, he doesn't like the rules of logic, so he wants to change them so that he can be right. ICF's crazy uncle :hysterical:


    Brick walls aren't meant to reason with... 


    What's funny is that religious fundoos also use the same argument that you can't prove a negative.


    Ghanta: God doesn't exist.

    Catholic Priest: You can't prove a negative.


    Catholic Priest: God exists. 

    Ghanta:  You're wrong, God does not exist.

    Catholic Priest: Prove God doesn't exist

    Ghanta: You can't prove a negative. 


    Newsflash: people actually trained in science know that science is about testable hypotheses.  Science involves only what is specific, what is testable, and that which produces data. If you can't test a claim and prove if it is true or false, then it isn't a scientific (read objective) argument. There is no point in arguing about non-testable topics. Let people believe what they believe.


    Only insecure uncles feel the need to evangelize on everything that they can't prove. They are a mirror images of evangelical missionaries and radical Islamists who are so arrogant about what they "know" and feel the need to give gyaan to people on everything, without providing compelling evidence supporting the same.   It's like these people think blindly arguing with other people and repeating the same stuff over and over again will convince people to come over to their side.  :facepalm:


    A positive hypothesis 

    If drug A is given to a 40 year old male who suffers from narcissism , it will reduce the  experience of traits of narcissism.


    A negative hypothesis 

    If the drug A is given to a 40 year old male who suffers from narcissism , it will not reduce the experience of traits of narcissism. 


    Negative hypotheses, ie proving a negative, are literally how you disprove blind beliefs/superstitions like XYZ curing cancer and humans being blank-slates. :whack2:


    Here is one of the fathers of American skepticism speaking on the same thing



    In conclusion: believe what you want Ghanta. If you want to make up your own rules for everything, just so you can be right, feel free. I promise, I'll laugh.



Guest, sign in to access all features.