Indian "Liberals" claiming to be Champions of Science

[Muloghonto]

22 minutes ago, HemuChandra said:

To combat Islam you need to be a barbarian for them best examples=Mongols,Crusader States,Chicoms(China).Anyway your opinion dosen't matter.

 

Neither does yours, newbie.

You don't need to be a barbarian to combat islam. You just need to be secular and firm about it.

Hinduvtas are just giving such lame excuses because they are copy-cat oppressors like Islam and is imitating a successful model of oppression.

Will never work, because Hinduvta is not going to steal the Hindu narrative and Islamize it under fake cover of 'oo its only to fight mullahs, i promise once mullahs go away, we will allow women to dress as they want, eat what you want, these are just temporary'. 

 

" Don't gaze too deeply into the void. Because when you gaze into the void, the void gazes into you".

 

[Tibarn]

Ghanta runs away when asked for references and claims others are backward thinking. Poor guy lacks IQ. 

Then this clown has the nerve to commit personal incredulity fallacies. 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/196/Argument-from-Incredulity

 

Quote

Description: Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of the argument from ignorance.

Ghanta just because your IQ is too low to understand evidence doesn't mean it doesn't apply. I can only give you evidence and not understand it for you.  IQ is largely genetic, and it looks like you were screwed from birth in this field. 

 

Quit being a coward and back up your statements. There are 8 pieces of evidence in this thread, you only have to target 1 of them. Even someone of your low caliber can handle that.  

 

He won't even own up to claims he has made, like humans are blank slates. 

 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2017 by Tibarn

[Tibarn]

Let me expose some of Ghanta's low IQ and his lies here. 

 

In this thread, post 37

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/forums/topic/100052-when-will-radical-islamic-terror-end-and-how/#comment-3394143

On 3/25/2017 at 3:16 PM, Muloghonto said:

err , there is plenty of objective data out that that shows humans *ARE* blank slates when we are born and except for a very few concepts, such as 'don't inflict pain for no reason' etc, there is hardly anything that is 'inherent' to us.

 

now he says 

On 6/30/2017 at 1:15 AM, Muloghonto said:

Not my claim, not evidence of my claim either. classic misdirection

Grade A liar this clown is. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next, in the Triple Talaq Thread

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/forums/topic/97751-triple-talaq/#comment-3312488

this idiot says

On 10/26/2016 at 4:57 PM, Muloghonto said:

and the fundamental form of sexual propagation of homo sapiens is various forms of polyandry (or di-andry). 

Now this coward shifted the goalposts to 

 

On 6/30/2017 at 1:15 AM, Muloghonto said:

Again, total nonsense and not addressing the question of sexual partners. Whether woman X has sex with 100 men or 1 man, baby still has genes of 1 man only. So breeding ratios are irrelevant to # of sexual partners, which is totally a social factor.

Nowhere in these studies do authors make any specific claim to # of average sexual partners per female.

Classic failure to provide data about sexual partners. 

This weasel couldn't back up his "scientific" claim that humans were polyandrous and that polyandry was the fundamental form of sexual propagation of homo sapiens, so he shifted the debate to how many sexual partners someone has.    

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ghanta then goes batshit-crazy unable to provide evidence that marriage is oppression, sexual liberation is positive, or that most criminals are right-wing 

 

Poor, inbred Ghanta, he thinks people who mold their beliefs based on evidence are back-ward thinking cavemen, and he thinks some leftist fundoo who doesn't provide evidence for his beliefs is a forward-thinking, progressive person. 

 

LowIQKaSideEffects 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a bonus 

In the Triple Talaq thread

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/forums/topic/97751-triple-talaq/#comment-3312488

Ghanta states

On 10/26/2016 at 7:13 PM, Muloghonto said:

Marriage is actually oppression of both man & woman, in the traditional definition of a monogamous marriage. Just that women are opressed far more in that equation.

While also earlier stating

On 10/26/2016 at 4:26 PM, Muloghonto said:

I am married for over 10 years, have two beautiful girls and my wife is a therapist/counsellor. 

So Ghanta has been oppressing a woman for 10 years, and this guy won't liberate her from oppression.  

[Muloghonto]

42 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Let me expose some of Ghanta's low IQ and his lies here. 

 

In this thread, post 37

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/forums/topic/100052-when-will-radical-islamic-terror-end-and-how/#comment-3394143

 

now he says 

Grade A liar this clown is.

the only grade A liar is you. My comment re: blank slate is to do with morality. Ie, we can have people brought up to be child soldiers, to kill for religion, to love gay people, to be a hippie or be a commie. You misdirected that as if i said everyone has the same personality and we are all droids.

typical hinduvta misdirection.

 

Quote

This weasel couldn't back up his "scientific" claim that humans were polyandrous and that polyandry was the fundamental form of sexual propagation of homo sapiens, so he shifted the debate to how many sexual partners someone has.  

I shifted jack $hit. I said we have archaeological evidence that polyandry was far more prevalent than now. You countered with that evidence being a 'one off' and we have genetic and molecular bilogical evidence of humanity being monogamous predominantly. I asked you for proof and you went MIA and presented a whole bunch of irrelevant nonsense about sex ratios. 

So keep running away some more, kiddo.

 

Quote

 

Poor, inbred Ghanta, he thinks people who mold their beliefs based on evidence are back-ward thinking cavemen, and he thinks some leftist fundoo who doesn't provide evidence for his beliefs is a forward-thinking, progressive person. 

 

so show us evidence that humanity has been predominantly monogamous/polygamous and not polyandrous as archaeology shows.

 

 

[surajmal]

MO of great bong...  (should go as a disclaimer in every thread he/she/he-she craps)

 

 

I see no boob bones... The Victim was a Man.

Edited July 1, 2017 by surajmal

[Tibarn]

18 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

the only grade A liar is you. My comment re: blank slate is to do with morality. Ie, we can have people brought up to be child soldiers, to kill for religion, to love gay people, to be a hippie or be a commie. You misdirected that as if i said everyone has the same personality and we are all droids.

Nice try , you seriously think your English will let you weasel out of this. 

Quote

err , there is plenty of objective data out that that shows humans *ARE* blank slates when we are born and except for a very few concepts, such as 'don't inflict pain for no reason' etc, there is hardly anything that is 'inherent' to us.

let's see the evidence that there is hardly anything inherent to us. 

 

 read the data I produced. I guess I'll have to post the table again, since you apparently can't read. 

 

 

Would you look at that  everything from personality to broad interest categories, to religiosity, intelligence, and even  are inherited to certain degrees. 

Read the top portion of this 2nd table  even social values are inheritable.

 

Here is another table from Hatemi et al 2010 and Hatemi et al 2014. 

It shows the additive genetic values on certain beliefs. 

 

Excerpt

Quote

the heritability of political attitudes and social values skyrockets, being upwards of 85% (74%) for views towards pornography in women (men). The heritability of overall political orientation, when accounting for measurement error, teeters on 100%!

Now , provide evidence for your middle eastern fairy tales like blank slate. 

 

Quote

I shifted jack $hit. I said we have archaeological evidence that polyandry was far more prevalent than now. You countered with that evidence being a 'one off' and we have genetic and molecular bilogical evidence of humanity being monogamous predominantly. I asked you for proof and you went MIA and presented a whole bunch of irrelevant nonsense about sex ratios. 

So keep running away some more, kiddo

 He doesn't think changing an argument about 

 

19 hours ago, Tibarn said:

this idiot says

On 2016-10-27 at 2:27 AM, Muloghonto said:

and the fundamental form of sexual propagation of homo sapiens is various forms of polyandry (or di-andry). 

Now this coward shifted the goalposts to 

 

On 2017-6-30 at 10:45 AM, Muloghonto said:

Again, total nonsense and not addressing the question of sexual partners. Whether woman X has sex with 100 men or 1 man, baby still has genes of 1 man only. So breeding ratios are irrelevant to # of sexual partners, which is totally a social factor.

Nowhere in these studies do authors make any specific claim to # of average sexual partners per female.

Classic failure to provide data about sexual partners. 

The.. literally says " the fundamental form of propagation of homo sapiens is various forms of polyandry"

Translation: The main form of reproduction of humans was polyandry.

 

Then  shifts it to number of sexual partners 

 

Ghanta when you change an argument from propagation/reproduction to the next generation to how many dudes 1 chick has sex with that is called shifting goalposts. I suggest you learn English .

 

Its like  just argues endlessly to feel alive.

 

Earlier excerpt 1

Quote

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) 

 Earlier excerpt 2

Quote

Like many primate species, the mating system of humans
is considered to be moderately polygynous (i.e., males
exhibit a higher variance in reproductive success than
females). As a consequence, males are expected to have a
lower effective population size (Ne) than females, and the
proportion of neutral genetic variation on the X chromosome

Show that humans are any different then other mammals or different than primates. Oh wait, you still think that humans have magic powers because you learned that in your madrasa. 

 

Bring a paper you git that provides credence to your claim. Oh wait, you're too dumb to even do that. Get it through that inbred skull of yours that you repeating bullshit ad nauseam doesn't pass as evidence. Show anything that says humans are evolutionary polyandrous, which is considered in direct contradiction to the evolutionary history of the majority of primates and mammals in general.  

 

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by beetle

[Tibarn]

2 hours ago, surajmal said:

MO of great bong...  (should go as a disclaimer in every thread he/she/he-she craps)

 

 

I see no boob bones... The Victim was a Man.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ghanta thought there was a boob bone. 

[Muloghonto]

15 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Nice try ghanta, you seriously think your shitty English will let you weasel out of this. It's nice watching a pathetic coward like yourself squirm. It sucks to be you. 

Ghanta let's see the evidence that there is hardly anything inherent to us. 

Nowhere does saying 'hardly anything is inherent to us' in the context of morality (which is what the discussion was, which you tried to leave out) imply we have the same personalities.

 

 

Quote

read the data I produced. I guess I'll have to post the table again, since you apparently can't read. 

Excerpt

Now ghanta, provide evidence for your middle eastern fairy tales like blank slate. 

 

Ghanta is pissing his pants now. He doesn't think changing an argument about 

 

The idiot literally says " the fundamental form of propagation of homo sapiens is various forms of polyandry"

Translation: The main form of reproduction of humans was polyandry.

 

Nothing more than pedantry, because humans cannot carry multiple litters concurrently. Whether your wife sleeps with 100 men the night she got pregnant or just you, there is no evidence  of either can be deduced from analyzing data from the descendants. Because her children's DNA will still have 1 male signature and 1 female signature. 

 

Quote

Bring a paper  that provides credence to your claim. Oh wait, Get it through that  skull of yours that you repeating bullshit ad nauseam doesn't pass as evidence. Show anything that says humans are evolutionary polyandrous, which is considered in direct contradiction to the evolutionary history of the majority of primates and mammals in general.  

Majority of mammals or primates is irrelevant, because majority behaviour of species is not an argument towards any species specific behaviour. Bonobos for e.g. are also primates and have multiple sexual partners all their lives, concurrently. 

I said we have evidence of society being polyandrous far more prevalently in the past. I have presented evidence, which is directly in the form of archaeological recollection of polyandrous societies. 

You have presented ZERO evidence of what human sexual habits, in terms of #of partners are to support your misogynistic claims about humanity.

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by beetle

[beetle]

WARNING : POSTS CONTAINING ABUSES OR NAME CALLING WILL BE REMOVED COMPLETELY.

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, sarchasm said:

@Tibarn You are arguing science with a guy who said lack of oxygen affects the lift of an airplane.

dont twist my words. Lack of oxygen affects thrust is what i said. 

 

[Tibarn]

15 minutes ago, sarchasm said:

@Tibarn You are arguing science with a guy who said lack of oxygen affects the lift of an airplane.

I like watching this guy squirm. 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, sarchasm said:

Here is your exact quote. The word thrust does not even find mention.

 

 

You really are a third rate troll/liar. Believe me, I only ever respond to you for the comic factor you bring. Worthless otherwise. 

thrust is what causes lift. this is a message board, not a science journal. Ask for clarification instead of being pedantic. 

 

[Muloghonto]

36 minutes ago, sarchasm said:

All these years basic laws of flight were wrong that lift was caused by pressure differential in air. Keep the gems coming, ghanta ram.

Oh right. Lift is caused by pressure differential. Which has nothing to do with thrust causing airflow in the first place. thats why when your engine cuts out, pressure differential causes planes to stay airborne. 

 

[surajmal]

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, sarchasm said:

 

Ghanta ram, you can't help digging yourself in that hole. It's okay to be wrong ghanta, I don't expect accuracy from third rate wikipedia ninjas such as you.

 

But you also have this sad and shocking propensity to concoct lies that would put a sophomore to shame.

 

Now REPEAT after me.

 

Plane staying airborne DOES NOT EQUAL lift. Lift is but ONE of the FOUR forces that help keep a plane airborne.

 

Now here is your homework. Find me ONE textbook which says thrust causes lift.

 

http://web.mit.edu/16.00/www/aec/flight.html

^

here you go.

 

 

where:	 P = pressure (force exerted divided by area exerted on)
	 rho = density of the fluid
	 V = velocity of the moving object or fluid

 

Note 'v = velocity of moving object or fluid'. i.e., no motion, no pressure differential for a plane. Ie, thrust is what causes lift, as value of thrust, directly yields value of v.

 

Run along now, kiddo. 

[surajmal]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

http://web.mit.edu/16.00/www/aec/flight.html

^

here you go.

 

 

where:	 P = pressure (force exerted divided by area exerted on)
	 rho = density of the fluid
	 V = velocity of the moving object or fluid

 

Note 'v = velocity of moving object or fluid'. i.e., no motion, no pressure differential for a plane. Ie, thrust is what causes lift, as value of thrust, directly yields value of v.

 

Run along now, kiddo. 

 

Now explain how that accounts for newton's third law of motion

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, surajmal said:

Now explain how that accounts for newton's third law of motion

 

clearly, basic physics is beyond your grasp. 

 

A simple question: for an aircraft, where does 'v' for velocity in pressure equation originate from ? 

 

[surajmal]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

 

clearly, basic physics is beyond your grasp. 

 

A simple question: for an aircraft, where does 'v' for velocity in pressure equation originate from ? 

 

I asked you a question. If you don't know the answer, say so. 

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, surajmal said:

I asked you a question. If you don't know the answer, say so. 

your question is irrelevant to the comment of 'thrust causes lift'. 

Hence obfuscation. stick to what was said. 

 

If you had the integrity to answer my question, you'd immediately see, how my comment 'thrust causes lift' is valid. If you don't know the physics behind why taking off from high altitude is harder than sea-level due to O2 availabtility, just say so. 

[surajmal]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

your question is irrelevant to the comment of 'thrust causes lift'. 

Hence obfuscation. stick to what was said. 

 

If you had the integrity to answer my question, you'd immediately see, how my comment 'thrust causes lift' is valid. If you don't know the physics behind why taking off from high altitude is harder than sea-level due to O2 availabtility, just say so. 

I knew you would comeback with this. Because quick Wikipedia mining wouldn't provide the answer. 

You would have had to take an aerodynamics course (even a intro fluid mechanics course would do if you were capable to extrapolate a few things). 

Clearly you have done neither.