West Bengal Government banned Durga Puja immersion on Muharram Day

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

 

That's solely your opinion. Not all societies view the individual as the basis of society. Some societies favor collectivism. Some societies favor individualism. Some societies will exterminate their own populations. Your imposing views that a society should be centered around individual interests is based on your own beliefs.  I didn't mention India, so that is a strawman. India may have signed it and it may remove itself from it later. A point is that you, a non-Indian( by either civilizaitonal or secular standards), are interfering in Indian matters. Unless you want to say your imperialism is liberal, then get off it. 

Nobody said societies do not differ. It is also solely your opinion on whether we should be forced to pray 5 times a day or not. 
I am simply saying that a common set of human rights makes sense on a species level, since your argument relies on assumption of social rights over individual ones. 

And you saying i am not an Indian by civilization standards, is you imposing your theisitc belief on the concept, not party to its definition itself. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

What's funny is that the idea that all humans have value is in itself a religious view. Just like beliefs in blank-slate, this too is derived from religion/are quasi-religious.  The idea of human rights is derived from the concept of natural law, which is law that is derived either from gods/Transcendence or Nature. These rights are considered inalienable. In nature, nothing has inherent value separate from the ecosystem itself. All humans can go extinct tomorrow and nature will move on. In all of human history it is pretty clear that humans themselves have a violent nature and little regard for other human life. This is true even in the recent history of signatories of the HRC.     

Nope, the idea of human rights is derived from the concept that given how opportunity can drastically alter trajectory of any human being and has shown to override natural talent itself (i.e., people with less skills but more opportunity can easily supplant people with more skills), the concept of inalienable human rights is to give a level playing field to as many as possible. Which benefits human society itself. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Communists, who are rabidly anti-religious and atheist by policy, have regularly erased millions of human lives, the lives of their own people and people outside of their political borders. Similar things have happened under religious governments, secular governments, democratic governments, dictatorships, etc. Groups only decide who qualifies for humane treatment and who is expendable.   

Communists are not the only atheist people. So why are you bringing up commie trope ? Does every atheist only every think religious people = islamists ?!

 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

That you think life has value solely based on everyone being human is not based on anything objective. Where is the evidence that any life has value, let alone human life? Where is the evidence that the value of an elephant is greater than that of an ant? Humans are just animals, just like any other animals. Humans aren't magic creatures, no matter how much you want to believe so.  One human on one side of the planet doesn't have inherent value to another human on another side of the planet. I would like to see anything objective that says otherwise.  Too bad you're too foolish to see your own cognitive dissonance.  

Equal rights is based on the objective and empirically verifiable truth, that opportunity overrides meritocracy. You are too young to understand that. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

Prove that unequal rights imply superiority. Oh wait, that is more sophistry by you.

Because unequal rights create unequal access. that you are calling it sophistry, is simple example of your simpleton mind.

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Someone can pass a law that left-handed people can only wear red shoes , that right-handed people can only wear blue shoes., but all people can wear shoes of any other color besides those two.

Those are unequal rights. Which one is superior: those who are given exclusive access to red shoes or those to blue shoes?    

Good example of sophistry. this example is irrelevant to actual inequality of laws created to favor classes/races/religions of people in given history. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Inequality only means inequality. Only someone of your "intellect" could think that something being unequal implies superiority-inferiority. 

Inequal opportunity = de-facto inferior access to opportunity. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

It's not my job to teach someone who believes the Earth is flat that it is in fact spherical...

 

If you want to believe that loyalty to a state, say Gujarat, over a country say India, is nationalism, that is your prerogative. You can try whatever mental gymnastics that you want to convince yourself of the same.  If you put a state's interests above India's interests, you

are not a nationalist. 

the definition of nation/region/state/town are all same class of geo-political definitions and loyalty of these entiites invoke same principle, you moron. Ie, nationalism, regionalism are effectively a matter of defining said region and its legal powers. Very different from theocratic or populism, where the mechanism itself is different. 

And nobody put a states interest over its bigger unit's (nation) so use your straw men elsewhere.

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

 

Lol at 12/100k people and 32/100k people being a small difference.  

Yep, very small difference. you may wish to see what the extreme ranges of regions worldwide are, in terms of simple, intercene crime. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Where did I say people routinely go on rampage? You need to work on your reading comprehension and quit peddling strawmen. Re-read what I actually wrote (or don't)

 

You claimed that people in Gujarat barge into kitchens on some undocumented personal anecdote based on n=1.

I can give (n=1) an example of people being arrested in West Bengal for criticism of the state government. 

I can give (n = 1 )an example of people being arrested for criticizing Mohammed in West Bengal.

I can give  (n =1) an example of how certain people aren't allowed religious freedom in West Bengal.

I can give an (n = >1) of accusations of booth capturing in West Bengal during elections. 

Except none of your scenarios are common peer to peer examples. People get arrested inhereltly less than being heckled/harassed by their neighbours. Not just in India, everywhere in the world. Gujarat is more socially oppressive than Bengal. that is as anecdotal as anything else you've said,so inconsistency of standards won't get you anywhere.

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

On a janitors salary?

I don't draw a salary, kiddo. And even if it was a janitor's salary, a simple janitor for 15 years has a far bigger disposable income than an under-educated university grad in his first year or two of work. But then again, math is not your strong suit. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Wrong, silly rage-boy. There are only two views of Indian nationalism. I didn't say anyone has to follow either one. I only pointed out that you don't fall under either category. 

And those two views are invented by you. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

1) India as a nation-state created post 1947. By this standard, which is the standard most self-declared Secular nationalists, ie the INC, prescribe to, one has to actually be a legal citizen of India. Since you are a citizen of Canada, and India does not allow dual citizenship, you are not legally Indian. No amount of squirming can change that, worm. In this sense anyone with an Indian citizenship can be Indian. (I didn't say Muslims, Jews, etc aren't Indian or can't be nationalist. Another strawman). Anyone without an Indian citizenship, whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Atheist, etc isn't Indian, so long as they don't have citizenship.  

Nowhere did i say or imply i am an Indian citizen, so no squirming has been done. No amount of squirming from YOU will change the fact that PIOs have the legal capacity to interfere in Indian affairs, in the form of economic activity. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

2) "Nationalist" (notice the quotation marks around nationalist which I also used earlier because the BJP uses this definition) This is BJP's Civilizational nationalism where Dharmic people + Indian citizens are part of the civilization.   

too bad, BJP definition is irrelevant.BJP can think what it wishes. So can any other party. 

 

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Neither national party's definition excludes Christians etc. For example, many of the cadre of BJP's Goa wing are Christians who also refer to themselves as Hindu Christians(or Christian Hindus, I forgot which is more common).  

 

You don't fall under either, 

1) You don't have Indian citizenship, a necessary and sufficient condition to be Indian under the Secular nationalist world-view.

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).  

Show me where :

a) political parties get to define the word 'nationalist' for the whole country and not just their party, in a functioning democracy

b) where BJP/Congress specifically exclude atheists from being nationalists. 

 

Quote

Considering how insecure you are on this forum itself, constantly quoting me and begging for my attention in nearly every thread in which I post in this sub-forum, I would say the only person with an inferiority complex is you, and that the inferiority complex you have seems to be relative to me. How else do you explain your psychopathic/pathological need to search out each and every one of my posts in a sub-forum and share your opinion with me? The reverse rarely happens. I rarely quote or even pay attention to your trash posts in any thread, only taking time when they are particularly stupid, to make fun of you.  

Very easily. 

Because i don't care about you, your views, changing your mind. 

I quote your viewpoints, to refute them and expose them as under-educated, chauvinistic, religious garbage. Not for your benefit.but for the benefit of others. 

Kids high on ego like you assume, this is directed at you. It isn't. it is directed at the hundreds of eyes reading this. You could fall off a cliff, change your mind, not change your mind, i wouldn't care for more than 0.01 seconds. 

 

Calling out religious nonsense as such does not fall under the purview of data or research, unless the topic itself merits it. But calling out ideals emanating from idiots 2000+ years ago, is simply pointing out mental regression on the part of religious fools. 

[Tibarn]

I wrote a whole response and then come to this gem. You've just given me enough material to troll you endlessly 

 

Let's focus on this in red.

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I quote your viewpoints, to refute them and expose them as under-educated, chauvinistic, religious garbage. Not for your benefit.but for the benefit of others. 

Who are you kidding?  All that false bravado impresses no-one.

Show me one instance where you provided data or a scientific reference that refuted anything I said.  Just 1.  

 

Or better yet, If you're really so confident in yourself, you can man up and take this bet:

I bet I can provide more instances of me refuting things you have claimed with data and scientific references than you can provide instances of you refuting me with data/scientific references. 

 

Whoever loses leaves ICF permanently. What say you Ghanta? Soiled yourself yet or are you going to man up and take the bet?

 

 

(We can both do ICF and the mods/admins a favor by removing one of us from the forum permanently).

 

It also benefits both of us as the other will be gone forever.  I'm willing, are you?

 

 

Edited September 25, 2017 by Tibarn

[Muloghonto]

12 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

I wrote a whole response and then come to this gem. You've just given me enough material to troll you endlessly 

 

Let's focus on this in red.

Who are you kidding?  All that false bravado impresses no-one.

Show me one instance where you provided data or a scientific reference that refuted anything I said.  Just 1.  

 

Data/scientific reference on ethics and moralisms ?  
You are clearly, lost. 

 

12 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Or better yet, If you're really so confident in yourself, you can man up and take this bet:

I bet I can provide more instances of me refuting things you have claimed with data and scientific references than you can refute what I said. Whoever loses leaves ICF permanently. What say you Ghanta? Soiled yourself yet or are you going to man up and take the bet?

Irrelevant, because you have clearly demonstrated contradiction in terms: one does not provide data/scientific reference in calling out ideological & moral stances espoused by idiot-men of 2000 years ago. Its a matter of logic, consistency, not data. Hence it is clear that your intended parameters are poorly understood by yourself to form a basis of analysis, in the first place. 

 

 

 

[Tibarn]

Phat gaye kya? Everyone knew that you would run away. 

I asked for any instance of you refuting me. 

You couldn't even provide 1 time you refuted me 

 

On 25/09/2017 at 11:26 AM, Muloghonto said:

Data/scientific reference on ethics and moralisms ?  
You are clearly, lost.

 

What's even more hilarious is that you claimed to have refuted someone while saying there can't be data

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/refute

To refute

Quote

prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove

You simultaneously say that one can't provide data on morality yet claim to have disproven something. 

 

Prove that data can't exist on morals and ethics. Just because you're to dumb to research things, doesn't make it that other people can't. That is patently untrue. What does one expect from you. 

 

Here is some right here

 

 

 

Here's some more on morality

On 30/06/2017 at 6:47 AM, Tibarn said:

False. 

Humans aren't blank slates

Evidence #1

Journal: CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Vol 13 #4. 

Author: Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr.

Abstract:

  Hide contents

There is now a large body of evidence that supports the conclusion that individual differences in most, if not all, reliably measured psychological traits, normal and abnormal, are substantively influenced by genetic factors. This fact has important implications for research and theory building in psychology, as evidence of genetic influence unleashes a cascade of questions regarding the sources of variance in such traits. A brief list of those questions is provided, and representative findings regarding genetic and environmental influences are presented for the domains of personality, intelligence, psychological interests, psychiatric illnesses, and social attitudes. These findings are consistent with those reported for the traits of other species and for many human physical traits, suggesting that they may represent a general biological phenomenon.

Table

  Hide contents

 

Conservatism, authoritarianism, religiosity, anti-social behavior, openness to experience, etc all can be researched and have data provided.  

 

Here is some more

[Hatemi et al 2010],

Everything from opinions on Gay rights, immigration, pacifism, and censorship, to views on death penalty, all moral issues are measurable. 

Analysis

Quote

Indeed, when we consider the effect of measurement error (adding it to the heritability estimate and to the somewhat nonsensical negative gene-environment correlation values), 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%!

 

This guy  thinks both psychology and genetics are conspiracies. 

 

Of course, this is the same guy who thought that WebMD was a reputable source of information and has been caught even lying about his identity depending on who he's talking to.

 

Take the bet ?

 

Now let's further delve into this "special" mind.

 

First this genius says this

Quote

I am simply saying that a common set of human rights makes sense on a species level, since your argument relies on assumption of social rights over individual ones. 

Spoiler

Human Rights are an anthropocentric concept not an evolutionary one. I realize you failed remedial biology, but spare me your BS clown.   

 

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with what some uneducated wiki-chor thinks makes sense for a "species" or not. A species isn’t a single functioning unit that some wiki-chor can impose arbitrary rules to on baseless notions of progress. The sole goal of any species is the same: to evolve and reproduce. It’s not to improve the standards of all members of a species. Many members of species die, which drives evolution even faster. If you actually understood evolution and natural selection, you would understand that survival of the fittest isn’t about everyone surviving, but it is about those with the best traits for the environment survive and the failures die.

 

Charles Darwin literally states

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world” 

Nature is brutal and evolution doesn’t care about the feelings of some sad clown who thought he was a scientist. Evolution and nature are not the basis of the concept of human rights.

 fail #1

 

Then this genius says this

Quote

Nope, the idea of human rights is derived from the concept that given how opportunity can drastically alter trajectory of any human being and has shown to override natural talent itself (i.e., people with less skills but more opportunity can easily supplant people with more skills), the concept of inalienable human rights is to give a level playing field to as many as possible. Which benefits human society itself. 

Communists are not the only atheist people. So why are you bringing up commie trope ? Does every atheist only every think religious people = islamists ?!

Spoiler

More prattle. Invent whatever warped sense of history you want. The history of human rights is directly derived from religion and religious philosophers.

 

This essay is an analysis of the theory of human rights based on the writings of Thomas Aquinas, with special reference to the Summa Theologiae. The difference between a jus naturale found in Aquinas and the theory of human rights developed by the sixteenth century scholastic philosophers is articulated. The distinction between objective natural rights—“what is right”—and subjective natural rights—“a right”—is discussed noting that Aquinas held the former position and that later scholastic philosophers beginning with the Salamanca School of the Second Scholasticism developed the latter position. The subjective theory of rights evolved into the modern and contemporary account of individual human rights. The essay ends with an argument suggesting that Aquinas’s theory of objective human rights can serve as the ontological foundation for a robust theory of both positive and negative subjective natural rights

 

A. Lisska Diametros 38 (2013): 134–152

 

Aquinas’s concepts were expanded upon by John Locke.

 

via University of Nebraska’s Department of Human Rights

http://www.unlhumanrights.org/01/0102/0102_04.htm

One of the first and most important of these Enlightenment thinkers was the English philosopher John Locke. Locke was part of the Early Enlightenment. Most of his writings were published in the late 1600s. He was among the first to advocate the view that people have natural rights simply because they are human beings, and that these natural rights should be protected by the government.

 

Locke’s most important piece of political philosophy is his Second Treatise of Civil Government. But in his first treatise, Locke explicitly refuted the idea that kings rule according to divine right (from God), and argued that human beings have natural rights upon which the government may not infringe.

 

http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke/documents/first-treatise-of-government

 

In his first treatise on government he claims that natural rights are derived from God. REad it at the above link.

 

Since nature doesn’t actually give anyone any rights, nature just goes on and has no investment in humans. If all humans died tomorrow then nature would move on.  

Both Aquinas and Locke were Christians. Aquinas was even a Catholic Priest.  

 

 

Let’s see a reference clown. Show us the non-religious origin of human rights.  Poor guy is so bigoted against Christians that he won't even acknowledge that they shaped his world view. 

 

 

 

Spoiler

The point was that communists both proclaim to be atheist and rationalist yet they didn't seem to think humans have inherent rights. Other people who call themselves atheists and rationalists do think humans have inherent rights(although they themselves will also abandon those beliefs when they need to).

 

New flash: the concept of human rights isn't one of science/data. Humans are just a variant of chimpanzees/bags of meat from a materialist perspective. You won’t be able to name which exact European scientist was responsible for the concept of human rights because that is not where it comes from.

 

All you do when you decide to virtue-signal that you are an atheist and “rationalist” is give yourself a false veneer of knowledge. Someone who soils himself whenever another poster asks for data is not a rationalist, he’s just a virtue-signaling clown.   

 

Actually all people are essentially groups of chimpanzees. Every group of chimpanzees is capable of violence. I don't assign magic powers to chimpanzees who call themselves Atheist  which make them peaceful in comparison to chimpanzees which call themselves Islamists. All are violent. That is human nature.  The differences only stem from degrees of violence and what occurs when violence is sanctioned.

 fails #2 and #3

 

Next our guy says this: 

Quote

Equal rights is based on the objective and empirically verifiable truth, that opportunity overrides meritocracy. You are too young to understand that.

Spoiler

This is rich coming from a guy like you

 

Which objective, empirical truth are you going to provide?  Let’s see how you link this so-called objective empirical truth to the formation of equal rights. Let’s see a study.

 

Oh wait, you can’t provide one. Join a circus, your act is getting repetitive.

Equal rights come from the idea that all people are created in God’s image, and therefore they can’t have unequal rights.  

 

For example, the world’s first modern “liberal” democracy was founded in the US with the Declaration of Independence saying

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— United States Declaration of Independence, 1776

 

Eh, you're too ignorant to know that fluid intelligence decreases with age and people mentally peak at around 25, so you were smarter when you in your 20s than now. It looks like you should go back to being a lolbertarian, back when like in your 20s when your IQ was above barbarian levels. 

fail #4

 

This clown continues with this

Quote

the definition of nation/region/state/town are all same class of geo-political definitions and loyalty of these entiites invoke same principle, you moron. Ie, nationalism, regionalism are effectively a matter of defining said region and its legal powers. Very different from theocratic or populism, where the mechanism itself is different. 

And nobody put a states interest over its bigger unit's (nation) so use your straw men elsewhere.

Spoiler

More prattle.

The actual definition of nationalism

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism

 

loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups 

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism

Nationalism, ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.

 

How much BS did your madrasa fill your brain with? 

By definition nationalism excludes sepoys like you who promote adherence/loyalty to supra-national groups such as the UN and it also sidelines clowns like you who identify with and prioritize a region over a nation.

 

Don't give me that nonsense of you not being a regionalist. In this thread itself you have ethnically abused people from one state of India. That is your nature. 

 

Squirm however much you want.  

 

fail #5

 

The journey continues here 

Quote

Nowhere did i say or imply i am an Indian citizen, so no squirming has been done. No amount of squirming from YOU will change the fact that PIOs have the legal capacity to interfere in Indian affairs, in the form of economic activity. 

too bad, BJP definition is irrelevant.BJP can think what it wishes. So can any other party

 

Spoiler

The term Indian denotes one’s country and is a legal term, just like German or American. That you want to use it as an ethnic term is unimportant. No one cares what you want to call yourself while in Canada. The fact is that you are not legally Indian.

 

Person of Indian origin =/=  Indian. Even people of non-Indian origin can interfere in India via economic avenues. India has lax visitor visa laws for many countries, so spare me the wonders of a PIO card.

The fact is you are not Indian. You’re a Canadian of Indian origin. Do whatever mental gymnastics you want to try to prove that PIO = Indian. It doesn't, at least not, legally.

 

I understand some violent goon like you doesn't care about laws, but non-barbarian people do. One day someone will have to civilize you and teach you that. 

 

Also I thought Bangladeshis, weren't allowed PIO cards.

 

The BJP, and the Congress before it, represent Indians and their opinions on such issues. They define who is Indian as they have the mandate of Indian people. Some janitor in Canada can't squirm and change that.

 

 If the BJP or Congress ever gets enough Rajya Sabha +Lok Sabha seats, they can change the constitution to even make it that only midgets are Indian. Spare me your randi-rona.

 fail

he thinks I stated that atheists are excluded from being nationalists. 

Quote

Show me where :

a)      political parties get to define the word 'nationalist' for the whole country and not just their party, in a functioning democracy

b) where BJP/Congress specifically exclude atheists from being nationalists. 

Spoiler

Once again nationalism is:

Nationalism, ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.

Political parties elected by Indian people, to run the Indian government,  get to define what the Indian nation-state entails. It’s as “simple” as changing the constitution to fit those definitions.  These concepts aren’t static you idiot.

The fundamental nature of the Indian constitution and the nation-state was changed during the Emergency era itself. Whether it’s INC, BJP, or some random 3^rd party, if they have the numbers, they can change what they want.  They don’t need the permission of some Canadian sepoy.  

 

The Congress party historically defines the Indian state as a post 1947 entity. Gandhi is the father of the nation. (News flash, if someone is the father of a nation, a nation could not have existed before him). The only people who are actually Indian in this view are those that actually hold citizenship. Regardless of beliefs, as I already said before. This is the standard legal definition of a citizen in most countries. (You actually have to have a German passport to be German.)

This is the sole criteria of being an Indian in the INC view.

 

The BJP has an added layer to what they define the Indian nation-state as. Therefore, they would likely consider more people Indian than the INC would. Along with the standard definition of anyone with a passport/citizenship is an Indian, the BJP believes a mixture of this:

 a Hindu as one who was born of Hindu parents and regarded India as his motherland as well as holy land. The three essentials of Hindutva were said to be the common nation (rashtra), common race (jati) and common culture/civilisation (sanskriti). Hindus thus defined formed a nation that had existed since antiquity, Savarkar claimed, in opposition to the British view that India was just a geographical entity.

This notion of Hindutva formed the foundation for Savarkar's Hindu nationalism, which included in its fold the followers of all Indian religions including Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, but excluded the followers of "foreign religions"

From that the BJP’s patriarch Mukherjee removes the part about followers of “foreign religions” not being involved in Hindutva and instead redefines it to this:  

He wanted to uphold Hindu values but not necessarily to the exclusion of other communities. He asked for the membership of Hindu Mahasabha to be thrown open to all communities. When this was not accepted, he resigned from the party and founded a new political party in collaboration with the RSS. He understood Hinduism as a nationality rather than a community but, realising that this is not the common understanding of the term "Hindu," he chose "Bharatiya" instead of "Hindu" to name the new party, which came to be called the Bharatiya Jana Sangh. Thus, yet another term "Bharatiya" came into parlance with rough resemblance to Hindutva, which continues to be used in the successor party Bharatiya Janata Party to this day

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva

 

The BJP basically believes Dharmic people from around the world are still Indian, even though they don’t own official Indian citizenship and they add that to the normal definition of a citizen which is the sole criteria in INC eyes. This is the idea of a civilizational state. Something an uncivilized barbarian like yourself couldn’t understand.

 fail #7

 

Now watch this guy respond with 0 references.

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by beetle

[Muloghonto]

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Phat gaye kya? Everyone knew that you would run away. 

Everyone knows i am not stupid enough to agree anything on YOUR terms, kiddo. 

 

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Prove that data can't exist on morals and ethics. Just because you're to dumb to research things, doesn't make it that other people can't. That is patently untrue. What does one expect from you. 

Can't prove a negative, kiddo. Prove that said data exists.Prove to me on basis of data, that its better to look after your old parents instead of feeding them to bears.

 

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

H

Conservatism, authoritarianism, religiosity, anti-social behavior, openness to experience, etc all can be researched and have data provided.  

 

Here is some more

Everything from opinions on Gay rights, immigration, pacifism, and censorship, to views on death penalty, all moral issues are measurable. 

Prevalence of opinions is not proving that said opinions are true/false. I just gave you an example of moral choice : taking care of your parents once they are 80+, versus feeding them to bears. 
Prove to me, using data, that one choice is greater than another.

 

 

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Analysis

 

Our circus clown of an uncle thinks both psychology and genetics are conspiracies. 

 

Of course, this is the same uncle who thought that WebMD was a reputable source of information and has been caught even lying about his identity depending on who he's talking to.

Take the bet clown, why are you soiling yourself?

Kiddo, i am a long-time gambler. And first rule of gambling is, don't gamble with the insane. Given that you think calling someone a buddhist and an atheist are incongruous, you've already proven why your terms are laughable and your subjective opinion on your terms of the bet are meaningless.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Then this genius says this

  Reveal hidden contents

More prattle. Invent whatever warped sense of history you want. The history of human rights is directly derived from religion and religious philosophers.

 

This essay is an analysis of the theory of human rights based on the writings of Thomas Aquinas, with special reference to the Summa Theologiae. The difference between a jus naturale found in Aquinas and the theory of human rights developed by the sixteenth century scholastic philosophers is articulated. The distinction between objective natural rights—“what is right”—and subjective natural rights—“a right”—is discussed noting that Aquinas held the former position and that later scholastic philosophers beginning with the Salamanca School of the Second Scholasticism developed the latter position. The subjective theory of rights evolved into the modern and contemporary account of individual human rights. The essay ends with an argument suggesting that Aquinas’s theory of objective human rights can serve as the ontological foundation for a robust theory of both positive and negative subjective natural rights

 

A. Lisska Diametros 38 (2013): 134–152

 

Aquinas’s concepts were expanded upon by John Locke.

 

via University of Nebraska’s Department of Human Rights

http://www.unlhumanrights.org/01/0102/0102_04.htm

One of the first and most important of these Enlightenment thinkers was the English philosopher John Locke. Locke was part of the Early Enlightenment. Most of his writings were published in the late 1600s. He was among the first to advocate the view that people have natural rights simply because they are human beings, and that these natural rights should be protected by the government.

 

Locke’s most important piece of political philosophy is his Second Treatise of Civil Government. But in his first treatise, Locke explicitly refuted the idea that kings rule according to divine right (from God), and argued that human beings have natural rights upon which the government may not infringe.

 

http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke/documents/first-treatise-of-government

 

In his first treatise on government he claims that natural rights are derived from God. REad it at the above link.

 

Since nature doesn’t actually give anyone any rights, nature just goes on and has no investment in humans. If all humans died tomorrow then nature would move on.  

Both Aquinas and Locke were Christians. Aquinas was even a Catholic Priest.  

 

 

Let’s see a reference clown. Show us the non-religious origin of human rights.  Poor guy is so bigoted against Christians that he won't even acknowledge that they shaped his world view. 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The point was that communists both proclaim to be atheist and rationalist yet they didn't seem to think humans have inherent rights. Other people who call themselves atheists and rationalists do think humans have inherent rights(although they themselves will also abandon those beliefs when they need to).

 

New flash: the concept of human rights isn't one of science/data. Humans are just a variant of chimpanzees/bags of meat from a materialist perspective. You won’t be able to name which exact European scientist was responsible for the concept of human rights because that is not where it comes from.

 

All you do when you decide to virtue-signal that you are an atheist and “rationalist” is give yourself a false veneer of knowledge. Someone who soils himself whenever another poster asks for data is not a rationalist, he’s just a virtue-signaling clown.   

 

Actually all people are essentially groups of chimpanzees. Every group of chimpanzees is capable of violence. I don't assign magic powers to chimpanzees who call themselves Atheist  which make them peaceful in comparison to chimpanzees which call themselves Islamists. All are violent. That is human nature.  The differences only stem from degrees of violence and what occurs when violence is sanctioned.

Clown fails #2 and #3

 

Next our colorful clown says this: 

  Reveal hidden contents

This is rich coming from a clown like you

 

Which objective, empirical truth are you going to provide?  Let’s see how you link this so-called objective empirical truth to the formation of equal rights. Let’s see a study.

 

Oh wait, you can’t provide one. Join a circus, your act is getting repetitive.

Equal rights come from the idea that all people are created in God’s image, and therefore they can’t have unequal rights.  

 

For example, the world’s first modern “liberal” democracy was founded in the US with the Declaration of Independence saying

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— United States Declaration of Independence, 1776

 

Eh, you're too ignorant to know that fluid intelligence decreases with age and people mentally peak at around 25, so you were smarter when you in your 20s than now. It looks like you should go back to being a lolbertarian, back when like in your 20s when your IQ was above barbarian levels. 

Clown fail #4

 

This clown continues with this

  Reveal hidden contents

More prattle. Why so inbred bro?

The actual definition of nationalism

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism

 

loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups 

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism

Nationalism, ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.

 

How much BS did your madrasa fill your brain with? 

By definition nationalism excludes sepoys like you who promote adherence/loyalty to supra-national groups such as the UN and it also sidelines clowns like you who identify with and prioritize a region over a nation.

 

Don't give me that nonsense of you not being a regionalist. In this thread itself you have ethnically abused people from one state of India. That is your nature. 

 

Squirm however much you want.  

 

 

Clown fail #5

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Tibarn said:

The journey continues here 

  Reveal hidden contents

The term Indian denotes one’s country and is a legal term, just like German or American. That you want to use it as an ethnic term is unimportant. No one cares what you want to call yourself while in Canada. The fact is that you are not legally Indian.

 

Person of Indian origin =/=  Indian. Even people of non-Indian origin can interfere in India via economic avenues. India has lax visitor visa laws for many countries, so spare me the wonders of a PIO card.

The fact is you are not Indian. You’re a Canadian of Indian origin. Do whatever mental gymnastics you want to try to prove that PIO = Indian. It doesn't, at least not, legally.

 

I understand some violent goon like you doesn't care about laws, but non-barbarian people do. One day someone will have to civilize you and teach you that. 

 

Also I thought Bangladeshis, weren't allowed PIO cards.

 

The BJP, and the Congress before it, represent Indians and their opinions on such issues. They define who is Indian as they have the mandate of Indian people. Some janitor in Canada can't squirm and change that.

 

 If the BJP or Congress ever gets enough Rajya Sabha +Lok Sabha seats, they can change the constitution to even make it that only midgets are Indian. Spare me your randi-rona.

Clown fail #6

Our clown's journey finally ends here with his poor reading comprehension skills and strawmen. 

His reading skills are so poor, that he thinks I stated that atheists are excluded from being nationalists. 

  Reveal hidden contents

Once again nationalism is:

Nationalism, ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.

Political parties elected by Indian people, to run the Indian government,  get to define what the Indian nation-state entails. It’s as “simple” as changing the constitution to fit those definitions.  These concepts aren’t static you idiot.

The fundamental nature of the Indian constitution and the nation-state was changed during the Emergency era itself. Whether it’s INC, BJP, or some random 3^rd party, if they have the numbers, they can change what they want.  They don’t need the permission of some Canadian sepoy.  

 

The Congress party historically defines the Indian state as a post 1947 entity. Gandhi is the father of the nation. (News flash, if someone is the father of a nation, a nation could not have existed before him). The only people who are actually Indian in this view are those that actually hold citizenship. Regardless of beliefs, as I already said before. This is the standard legal definition of a citizen in most countries. (You actually have to have a German passport to be German.)

This is the sole criteria of being an Indian in the INC view.

 

The BJP has an added layer to what they define the Indian nation-state as. Therefore, they would likely consider more people Indian than the INC would. Along with the standard definition of anyone with a passport/citizenship is an Indian, the BJP believes a mixture of this:

 a Hindu as one who was born of Hindu parents and regarded India as his motherland as well as holy land. The three essentials of Hindutva were said to be the common nation (rashtra), common race (jati) and common culture/civilisation (sanskriti). Hindus thus defined formed a nation that had existed since antiquity, Savarkar claimed, in opposition to the British view that India was just a geographical entity.

This notion of Hindutva formed the foundation for Savarkar's Hindu nationalism, which included in its fold the followers of all Indian religions including Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, but excluded the followers of "foreign religions"

From that the BJP’s patriarch Mukherjee removes the part about followers of “foreign religions” not being involved in Hindutva and instead redefines it to this:  

He wanted to uphold Hindu values but not necessarily to the exclusion of other communities. He asked for the membership of Hindu Mahasabha to be thrown open to all communities. When this was not accepted, he resigned from the party and founded a new political party in collaboration with the RSS. He understood Hinduism as a nationality rather than a community but, realising that this is not the common understanding of the term "Hindu," he chose "Bharatiya" instead of "Hindu" to name the new party, which came to be called the Bharatiya Jana Sangh. Thus, yet another term "Bharatiya" came into parlance with rough resemblance to Hindutva, which continues to be used in the successor party Bharatiya Janata Party to this day

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva

 

The BJP basically believes Dharmic people from around the world are still Indian, even though they don’t own official Indian citizenship and they add that to the normal definition of a citizen which is the sole criteria in INC eyes. This is the idea of a civilizational state. Something an uncivilized barbarian like yourself couldn’t understand.

Clown fail #7

 

Now watch this clown respond with 0 references. This guy is high in shamelessness and low in IQ/reading comprehension. 

 

So kiddo, your own definition of Hindu means -jati, rashtra and sanskriti. 

By jat, i am Indian. By sanskriti i am Indian. And last i checked, sanskriti != theism belief in God. 

Ergo, an atheist can be Hindu by your definition.

 

And I never said I am still an Indian. I simply said since i have the ability to become Indian any-time i wish,i have de-facto same rights as you, should i chose to exercise it. Ie, i am fully justified in interfering in India's affairs- just as you are. RoI gives me legal right to do so. 

And what BJP/Congress believe, is irrelevant to the discussion. Because BJP and congress are not entitled to speak on behalf of all Indians on said issue. 

the law of the land, gives me the right to assume Indian citizenship anytime i want. Only thing i can't do, is vote or go to certain restricted zones. Beyond that, I can do whatever another Indian citizen can. infact, i can do more, since India cannot theoretically draft me in the future,but it can draft its own citizen if it so choses. 

So your opinion, on whether i can speak on Indian issues or not, is irrelevant, kiddo.

 

[Tibarn]

Look at this toyger meowing 

 

I called it, didn't I ?

Quote

Now watch this clown respond with 0 references. 

Not a single reference 

 

He also still can't show a single time he refuted me with evidence, and he won't man-up and take the challenge so that one of us is completely removed from the forum.   

 

Come on Gappu, this is your chance to get me axed. Put on your big boy pants and let's do this!!! 

 

This guy thinks saying the opposite of what another person says is sufficient to prove them wrong. 

 

This is the standard of refutation for this guy

Our circus freak of an uncle:  Atheism is true and Jesus isn't God.

Ordinary Christian Fellow:  No it's not and yes Jesus is God

 

^He thinks that is a refutation (and this guy has the nerve to think all religious people are stupid). How much brain power could you possibly have if you think the above works as a refutation of something?

 

Wiki-chor then says

"You can't prove a negative, kiddo"

https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Steven Hales is a Professor of Philosophy at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania.

Quote

A principle of folk logic is that one can’t prove a negative.

...

But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. 

...

Not only that, but any claim can be expressed as a negative, thanks to the rule of double negation. This rule states that any proposition P is logically equivalent to not-not-P. So pick anything you think you can prove. Think you can prove your own existence? At least to your own satisfaction? Then, using the exact same reasoning, plus the little step of double negation you, can prove that you aren’t nonexistent.

...

So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative?I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it.

 

Literally you can prove a negative. Logic is a conspiracy to this clown. Someone who fancies themselves as a rationalist, doesn't know basic rules of logic.  

The part is red nails this guy perfectly. He is so insecure about his own beliefs that he confuses them with facts. Text-book fundamentalist. 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

Look at this toyger meowing 

 

I called it, didn't I ?

Not a single reference 

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!

 

Quote

 

He also still can't show a single time he refuted me with evidence, and he won't man-up and take the challenge so that one of us is completely removed from the forum.   

Because since you've never kept you word, i am not going to assume you will. I don't expect anything but dishonesty from chaddis who support a system that creates rapist gurus. 

 

Quote

Come on Gappu, this is your chance to get me axed. Put on your big boy pants and let's do this!!! 

 

This guy thinks saying the opposite of what another person says is sufficient to prove them wrong. 

 

This is the standard of refutation for this guy

Our circus freak of an uncle:  Atheism is true and Jesus isn't God.

Ordinary Christian Fellow:  No it's not and yes Jesus is God

 

^He thinks that is a refutation (and this guy has the nerve to think all religious people are stupid). How much brain power could you possibly have if you think the above works as a refutation of something?

Onus of poof lies with theists, kiddo. Atheism is the default, standard policy, since we don't have any indisputable evidence of God. So nice try shifting burden of proof. 

 

 

Quote

Wiki-chor then says

"You can't prove a negative, kiddo"

https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Steven Hales is a Professor of Philosophy at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania.

 

Literally you can prove a negative. Logic is a conspiracy to this clown. Someone who fancies themselves as a rationalist, doesn't know basic rules of logic.  

The part is red nails this guy perfectly. He is so insecure about his own beliefs that he confuses them with facts. Text-book fundamentalist. 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Vilander]

:) Partly self defeating endevor on both sides and atleast one side at times,  the primary reason for debate should be a subject that is verifiable and or falsifiable if not true. Dont debate on the other sides intentions choose more absolute verifiable subjects this is just tedious and results in nothing otherwise.

[Vilander]

Hey @Muloghonto what are your thoughts on political islam ? For typical right winger in usa or india political islam is without middle ground. For left leaning liberals it should be at the very least acutely unfavored as they willnnot exist in political islam.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Vilander said:

Hey @Muloghonto what are your thoughts on political islam ? For typical right winger in usa or india political islam is without middle ground. For left leaning liberals it should be at the very least acutely unfavored as they willnnot exist in political islam.

Completely agree 100%

 

[Vilander]

14 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Completely agree 100%

 

This is something you and Tibran can agree on then. 

[Tibarn]

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!

 

 

Spoiler

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,

 

Spoiler

Sure... 

 

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.

 

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.

Spoiler

Umm, nice, the same strawman... 

 

I am wrong if I said that. 

 

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.

  

Spoiler

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 

 

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.  

 

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. 

 

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.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

Quote

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

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.

 

Quote

 

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. 

Again, nice attempt to dodge the fact that your offer is meaningless, because you have never kept your word. We've all seen you proudly proclaim to put me in your ignore list and fail. Its ok kid, kids have impulse control issues.

Admitting is first step to recovery.

 

Quote

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. 

Sophistry. 

The reason i don't agree with Savarkar's label, is because Hindu is a tag that is overwhelmingly religious. hence i call myself 'culturally hindu'- which i an record many times calling myself as such. And as such, an 'atheist cultural hindu' is pretty identical to Savarkar's 'blanket hindu' definition. So there is no de-facto difference between my position and Savarkar's. Hence your childish rant is dismissed.

 

Quote

 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

Nobody is re-writing logic. your education in logic isn't strong enough to understand the notions of existential claim, which is why you utter trash like this:

 

Quote

 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.

By your notion of 'cannot prove lack of existence, ergo, cannot be tested', people can believe whatever they want and you have no basis of claiming right or wrong.

For eg, i can claim,there is an exact, smarter copy of your moronic self, except with 4 vaginas. Orbiting a distant star. See, you can't prove it doesn't exist.
Or that there exists a Bong-dream planet : a planet made of rice, embedded with steamed hilsa cooked in mustard. It too, exists, waiting us Bongs to find it and make trillions of babies on the Hilsa-rice planet. All true, because we don't have to substantiate evidence for a claim of existence. 

Reductio ad absurdum. Last bastion of idiots with religion who follow demented thoughts of idiots who wrote those books thousands of years ago, not fit enough to tie my daughter's shoe-laces. Thats why you spout such garbage.

 

[Tibarn]

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

Spoiler

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.  

 

He is yet to give a single reference to prove that one can't prove a negative, let alone anything else he claimed in this or any thread he vomits in. (This is a side effect of getting all one's knowledge from copy and pasting from wikipedia and vomiting that as knowledge).   

 

Go ahead clown, show a reference that someone can't prove a negative (disprove an existential claim).

 

It's a fact, by the rules of logic, that one can prove a negative, which is the opposite of what you said. 

 

I can prove: there isn't a nuclear bomb in my apartment. (Existential claim).  

 

Newsflash clown, you don't get to make up your own rules.   Provide a reference, or cry to someone else. I have provided two which both state one can prove a negative.  

 

 

Edited October 9, 2017 by Tibarn

[Tibarn]

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.  Seriously how dumb is this guy? 

 

Once again, you may have failed remedial biology, but it's pretty easy to disprove your BS. All one needs to understand is the concept of :  kin selection theory which would be relevant to human parents and the concept of inclusive fitness. 

 

All those theories provide support to the idea that one takes care of elderly parents. 

Just so this dastard doesn't try to squirm by saying these concepts don't have relevance to elderly parents, I'll put there definitions right here. 

 

Inclusive fitness

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inclusive-fitness

Quote

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 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/kin-selection

Quote

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. 

 

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

 

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.  

 

Spoiler

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 

Edited October 9, 2017 by Tibarn

[Muloghonto]

53 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

 

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 : reciprocal altruism, a fundamental concept of evolutionary biology and one to by elder parents, depending on the species of animal.  There is also kin selection theory which is particularly relevant to humans and the concept of inclusive fitness. 

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.

 

 

Quote

 

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. 

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

 

Quote

Everyone is also waiting to see how exactly you are Indian, when constitutionally you aren't.

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.

 

Quote

 You are neither culturally Hindu(what exactly makes you culturally Hindu?

Food,clothing and music. thats what makes me culturally hindu. 

 

Quote

 

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.

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. 

And what is sad, is your typical 'he left the country, he is no true Indian' type of jahilliyat that your type of people propagate. Same jaahils who made Srinivas Ramanujan an outcast for daring to go to England, because no indian alive could even understand his math.

Now, learn from the Chinese - they WORSHIP their overseas Chinese folks. Why ? Because they see the Overseas Chinese as a 'fifth column' and a servant of mother China. Instead, we get jaahil Indians who denigrate the cream of the crop of India.

 

Is it any wonder that morons like you go whine 'oh why oh why does XYZ country not be nice to India, despite Indian population there?' 

Quote

 

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).   

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. 

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. 

Edited October 9, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Tibarn]

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 

Data means

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/data

Quote

1.

a plural of datum.

2.

(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.

3.

(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  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  

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  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,

Lol 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Quote

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. 

 

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

 

Lol at you being the cream of the crop. Considering your spelling/grammar and your thinking that WebMD is a scientific source, the evidence is to the contrary. 

 

Also lol, I don't have a problem with overseas Indian-origin people,(ie posters like Zen, etc). I only don't like C-grade coolies like you who support invaders over Indians. The Chinese diaspora would never support invaders over Indians. They consider foreign rule over China a period of shame. You aren't fit to tie Chinese shoes, only good enough to chaat when Brits thook. 

 

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. 

 

Spoiler

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.  

 

That something is difficult to prove/disprove doesn't absolve someone of the burden of proof. That is only something an idiot like you would think.  

 

By this clown's logic: two parallel situations:

 

Radical Muslim: Allah is the creator, all the universe was created by Him.

Idiot: Allah is a myth

Radical Muslim: Prove your claim

Idiot: I don't have to prove my claim because it is too hard to prove something exists/doesn't exist in the universe. 

 

Radical Muslim: Allah is the creator, all the universe was created by Him.

Idiot: Prove that Allah created the universe

Radical Muslim: I don't have to prove my claim because it is an existential claim and it is too hard to prove something exists in the universe. 

 

One more fine piece of logic  ^

The Muslim and this Idiot in this example use the same logic, only this idiot thinks only his application of the logic is valid and the Muslim's isn't.  

 

This idiot is a mirror image of this theoretical radical Muslim, who both don't feel the need to prove his claim because it is too hard, yet he wants to pass himself off as rational while he would smear this Muslim as irrational. 

 

Useless Wiki-chor wants to change the rules of logic so he can be right all the time. 

 

Quote

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.  I don't take the opinion of inbred wikipedia chors as fact.

 

Give me a logician who claims that one can't proof a negative or quit vomiting.  

 

This idiot is also making up his own definition of existential claim.  

 

Existential only means 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existential

Quote

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). Once again making your own rules. 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

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

Data means

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/data

Seriously, you are so dumb that you don't understand that facts count as data  Your stupidity should have limits. 

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. 

 

 

Quote

Now you're going to say kin selection and inclusive fitness aren't facts, because F*** evolution. This useless worm is squirming  

Prove it coward, give an example of me not keeping my word. You are just deflecting like the coward you are. The only one who doesn't keep their word is you, all for a few eyeballs. 

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

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. 

 

Quote

 

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. 

It equals de-facto Indian for people born as Indian, because we have the option to re-claim the citizenship status ANYTIME WE WANT. 

I never said I am Indian citizen, retard.  I said that I am an Indian by birth. Which, no matter how many citizenships i take, won't become false. I also said that by Hinduvta definition itself, i am a 'Hindu', even though *I* personally don't use that label. So GTFO with your nonsense.

 

Quote

 

More prattle,

Lol 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

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

I said the British were better rulers than the Marathas. Race is your invented crap in this discussion, because of your inferiority complex ridden chip on your shoulder. 

Your entire POV against the British is because they are foreigners. That is, by default, a racist position. You cannot justify why the British were bad rulers, because you are afraid, using same benchmark,we can demonstrate the Marathas to be even more inferior rulers. 

 

Quote

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

As soon as you show data for your morality belief systems. 

 

Quote

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. 

All NRIs/PIOs who send money back to India are cream of the crop compared to mamma's boy like you who is yet to pay off the debt to society, kiddo. 

 

Quote

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. 

I support better people. Doesn't matter if they are invaders, not invaders, white, black or blue. Brits did far more for India than the rotten, jaahil Marathas. 

 

Quote

 

  Reveal hidden contents

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.  

There is no burden of proof being shifted, moron. The entire point is, in the scale of universal existence, you either prove a claim of existence to be true, or accept any random claim to be true, because you do not have access to the entirety of the super-set data. 

Ergo, if you don't want proof of God to believe in God, you should not require proof of Dhokla planet around Dandia sun- just believe it!

 

 

Quote

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.  

The burden of proof on any existential claim, is on the person claiming existence, in the first place. Only religious morons with rotting brains, listening to half-wit fools who wrote those half-witted books thousands of years ago, would shift the burden of proof on those who are not making any claim- atheism rests on not making the claim God doesnt exist, it rests on the principle that nobody has proven a claim of God in the first place and its as silly as believing in Superman claim. 

 

Quote

 

Useless Wiki-chor wants to change the rules of logic so he can be right all the time. 

You have no idea on existential logic, which is why you defend your inferior way of thinking, made by inferior men (religion), by shifting the burden of proof to those who are waiting evidence of your existential claim. 

 

Quote

Demonstrated because you say so.  I don't take the opinion of inbred wikipedia chors as fact.

 

Give me a logician who claims that one can't proof a negative or quit vomiting.  

 

This idiot is also making up his own definition of existential claim.  

All the squirming cannot erase the fact that its religious morons who are making a claim of existence with zero proof and the ones who are waiting for proof to accept an existential claim, do not have the burden of proof on them.

 

 

Quote

 

Existential only means 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existential

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

 

 

 

Because you silly, silly kiddo, the entire universe is the super-set of any conceivable existential claim IN THE UNIVERSE! 

 

Edited October 9, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Tibarn]

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

Quote

 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.  

 

Make up your mind instead of shifting goalposts: if you want the sociobiological perspective or a general perspective. 

 

As I said, from a sociobiological perspective, keeping parents is beneficial through the concepts inclusive fitness and kin selection. 

 

A tiger eating your parents isn't within the field of sociobiology. Sociobiology only includes

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sociobiology

Quote

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. 

 

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 

 

I've said that you were on the ignore list regarding getting your posts quoting me/mentioning me in my notifications. I've always seen your posts, I just don't get notifications.    After all, you seem to continuously stalk my profile page, that's how desperate you are for my attention.

From today itself

 

 

 

Now pick an admin/mod or multiple of them and let's do this. 

 

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

 

 

Also, Considering how 

 

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

9

 

Hell, I'll offer again, provide a source, it can even be something like a website, no scientific paper or anything required, that says

 

Here, I'll post 2 more links that one can prove a negative:

Wikipedia, the only source you ever use

Quote

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]

http://factmyth.com/factoids/you-cant-prove-a-negative/

Quote

MYTH

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.  

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by beetle

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, Tibarn said:

When I said this 

 

This sub 50 IQ moron, first said

 

asking me to explain why keeping parents alive then I give him the sociobiologal reasons of inclusive fitness and and he starts pissing his pants like this afterwards

 

Reasons are not data, kiddo. 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. 

 

Quote

Newsflash idiot, 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.  

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. 

 

Quote

 

Cool story,  don't blame me that you have an Oedipus complex and wish to continue your family's tradition of inbreeding while thinking you are the cream of the crop. No one with your low IQ is the cream of any crop except being the dumbest person in a room full of retards. 

Talk about being cream of the crop or bottom of the barrel when you've paid off your 20 years of debt to human society. Till then, you are less important and less consequential than even a drug dealer. So piss off, kid. 

 

Quote

Also, Considering how cancerous you are to society, your debt is yet to be repaid and you won't repay it for several centuries  After all, stupid people like you always drag everything down to your pathetic level.  The only way you could possibly repay your debt to society is if you removed yourself and your inferior genes from the gene pool. Feel free to remove yourself at anytime. 

Again, all talk of a kid who is still to pay back the basic social debt of being supported by society. hey fool, you are the one batting at a negative social capital. Not people like me, who's taxes go to educating morons like you. 

 

Quote

Source please. Your soiling yourself doesn't change that you are shifting the burden of proof. No amount of your sophistry will change that. You can't weasel your way out of this idiot, give a source and end this "debate". 

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. So show us evidence or be on equal footing as dhokla planet around dandia-shaped sun. 

 

 

Quote

Hell, I'll offer again, provide a source, it can even be something like a website, no scientific paper or anything required, that says

 

Here, I'll post 2 more links that one can prove a negative:

Wikipedia, the only source you ever use

http://factmyth.com/factoids/you-cant-prove-a-negative/

 

 

Pro-tip: I already know I can't prove a Dhokla planet doesn't exist. I, like anyone else who is trained in the scientific method would say it is exceedingly improbable, but not out of the realm of possibility and is nothing that is testable, so I wouldn't make a claim on it either way. I  already know that I can't know everything. Unlike circus clowns like 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 rejected circus clowns like 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.  

Ergo, you are a self-contradictory fool to believe in a religion and the concept of Gods or such. Thank you for proving my point. 

Only kids like yourself lacking basic education think that the burden of proof does not rest on someone making a claim. 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Muloghonto