Ayodhya Verdict

[Moochad]

On 10/31/2018 at 12:19 PM, Ranvir said:

Yes I agree. Gandhi is not a good role model.

 

Anyone who say to turn the other cheek only wants to breed weak followers who are easier to control and manipulate.

What's worse is this cartoon had the gall to try to send the Hindu and Sikh refugees back to Pakistan after they came to India as refugees  

 

Not to mention he actively recruited soldiers on behalf of the British before as well... Then he suddenly discovers non-violence. 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Moochad

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Moochad said:

Sorry missed this gem, 

 

This is a bold faced lie

 

Please provide evidence that the named Hindu kings were only concerned with their personal jaagirs 

because there is nothing 'national' about the respective king's actions, that shows a recognition of state apparatus. Their actions simply reflect personal gain mixed in with furthering interest for its 'group it identifies with and gives a national tag to it'. 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Moochad said:

 

More like you are desperate for attention, every thread I am atheist blah blah blah using the same tired gif. For someone who spends hours on this forum in every religion related thread, this post is kind of ironic, that speaks volumes of your brain energies, or lack there of in this : you literally spam threads related to religion and then say at the same time that you don't spend brain energy on the matter. 

 

Poor guy is so insecure about it he shares it in every thread 

 

 

the quick reminder that we don't waste our emotions and energies on such issues, but observe it like idle news is actually a very good advertisement on the bonuses of atheism, by almost any objective benchmarks of marketing ideologies. 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Moochad said:

What's worse is this cartoon had the gall to try to send the Hindu and Sikh refugees back to Pakistan after they came to India as refugees  

 

Not to mention he actively recruited soldiers on behalf of the British before as well... Then he suddenly discovers non-violence. 

the bolded part enhances Gandhi's reputation, not diminishes it. It shows he is human, capable of change and especially for the better. 

Kind of hard pill for those who believe in 'born great/born with blahblah/half-god born' etc. nonsense.

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Moochad said:

 

I am not your yaar, anyone who justifies discrimination against Hindus like you did before is no friend of mine.

 

Read the pic again, I guess I will have to spell it out for you: a person is minding his own business taking a piss in an empty restroom, but an Atheist feels it necessary to come up to him in the direct next toilet and share with him that he is an Atheist.   

 

Mulo and you are apparently so desperate for attention or validation that you need to tell people who didn't ask, that you are atheists and bring up the subject when it isn't related. Literally nothing in this thread has anything to do with Atheists, for or against them etc, it was only he who brought it up. That is textbook attention seeking behavior.    

 

Then again, your countryman @Green Monster called you out on doing the same exact thing earlier a long time ago. And you are proving him correct in the Hinduphobic Bollywood thread.  Literally no one on this forum cares if you are Atheist or not, yet you lot need to derail threads unrelated to the topic?

 

And you are the cartoon who accused another poster @Tibarnof planning on killing you with conservative Pakistanis. Pot meet kettle.  

 

FYI, Atheists are some of the biggest murders in history, especially in recent history. Do whatever mental gymnastics you want to justify it, the record is as bad as Islamists in kill counts.   

Nobody denies that. However, atheists don't kill in name of irreleigion either. that is the defining benchmark i'd say that seperates murders specifically due to religious justification versus lack of specific atheist justification for murder. 

[Moochad]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

because there is nothing 'national' about the respective king's actions, that shows a recognition of state apparatus. Their actions simply reflect personal gain mixed in with furthering interest for its 'group it identifies with and gives a national tag to it'. 

 

I asked for evidence not sophistry. 

 

 

[Moochad]

52 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

the quick reminder that we don't waste our emotions and energies on such issues, but observe it like idle news is actually a very good advertisement on the bonuses of atheism, by almost any objective benchmarks of marketing ideologies. 

Nah, it is clearly attention seeking behavior, even in threads where the topic is irrelevant, you feel the need to bring it up and spend significant time on the topic veering the discussion toward it. I would understand the so-called 'marketing' excuse if it was just that, quick marketing, but it's clear that you and he carry on derail the threads eg this one and the Hinduphobic Bollywood thread, etc.

 

 

Try to save face however you want by saying it is marketing or whatever, it clearly isn't.  Your duplicity on this is as clear as day for all to see. I will leave it there.  

 

51 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

the bolded part enhances Gandhi's reputation, not diminishes it. It shows he is human, capable of change and especially for the better. 

Kind of hard pill for those who believe in 'born great/born with blahblah/half-god born' etc. nonsense.

 

Nah, only to people lacking IQ.  Everyone else knows that Gandhi was a politician like all others.

 

49 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Nobody denies that. However, atheists don't kill in name of irreleigion either. that is the defining benchmark i'd say that seperates murders specifically due to religious justification versus lack of specific atheist justification for murder. 

You can shift the goalposts wherever you want, if it makes it easier for you to justify it. I don't really care either way. As I said, I don't care if someone is Atheist or not. I don't think there is anything inherent in Muslims, Atheists, Jains, or anyone else that makes them violent/peaceful. 

 

However, you are showing that you are unaware of history here again:  many of the regimens who were explicitly Atheist, Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cambodia, and iirc North Korea and Albania as well actively persecuted and killed religious people. 

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Moochad

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Moochad said:

I asked for evidence not sophistry. 

 

 

you got it other way round. I see no evidence of any national apparatus ever being a factor for these guys, hence i call them non-nationalists. You have to present evidence that these folks actually knew of or cared for any amount of state machinery to call them nationalists or patriots.

[Muloghonto]

44 minutes ago, Moochad said:

Nah, it is clearly attention seeking behavior, even in threads where the topic is irrelevant, you feel the need to bring it up and spend significant time on the topic veering the discussion toward it. I would understand the so-called 'marketing' excuse if it was just that, quick marketing, but it's clear that you and he carry on derail the threads eg this one and the Hinduphobic Bollywood thread, etc.

Posting a meme takes 5 seconds, so your strawman argument that it is attention-seeking because it spends significant time, is a logical fail. 

The hindu-phobic bollywood thread the discussion is not centered around atheism, so yet again, you are making an allegation that just doesn't add up. 

Quote

 

Try to save face however you want by saying it is marketing or whatever, it clearly isn't.  Your duplicity on this is as clear as day for all to see. I will leave it there.  

There is no duplicity, since I *AM* an atheist and making a 5 second advertisement for it, via a meme, in a context that it specifically enjoys an advantage : we dont worry about nonsense crap like this or hurt people over who's statue or shrine or cresent moon goes where. 

The charge of duplicity, literally makes no sense. Promotion of alternatives != duplicity. 

Quote

 

Nah, only to people lacking IQ.  Everyone else knows that Gandhi was a politician like all others.

No, the people who lack IQ sees this in black and white. He can be a good man and a good politician at the same time. He can be a good man based on the overall impact he's had, even if he has certain shortcommings. These are not mutually exclusive concepts and you display your simple banality by dismissing a man's ability to change as 'oh he was a politician'. Well, some politicians do come to the fore AFTER they alter their views as well, which is the case with Gandhi. 

Quote

You can shift the goalposts wherever you want, if it makes it easier for you to justify it. I don't really care either way. As I said, I don't care if someone is Atheist or not. I don't think there is anything inherent in Muslims, Atheists, Jains, or anyone else that makes them violent/peaceful. 

Ofcourse not, not as people. However, atheists lack the ability to justify a specific crime against a fellow human on the basis of divine or karmic authority. I know this rankles the religious folks, but this is the baggage of having a code that relies on appeal to divine authority - whether it is direct alleged words of God (Abrahamic faiths) or higher authority of sages & preachers on the basis of communion with God or Godly knowledge ( Vedas, Krishna's monologues, etc). 

Quote

 

However, you are showing that you are unaware of history here again:  many of the regimens who were explicitly Atheist, Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cambodia, and iirc North Korea and Albania as well actively persecuted and killed religious people. 

 

 

I can definitely assure you that it is not ignorance of history from my part, but lack of integrity and readership from your part. I specifically stated that no atheist has ever specifically committed crimes on the basis OF Atheism. Soviets and Maoists don't kill, incarcerate, rape, pillage, etc. people specifically because of an atheist commandment against religiosity. We have religious folks from every single religion waging war, prima facie, on the basis of specific religious diction/commandment - whether its Dharm-yuddh or Jihad or whatever. Such an action(in its corollary) has never been cited by atheist entities to justify an action, ergo, 'atheists being biggest killers in history of mankind' is irrelevant to atheism.

Its about as relevant as saying 'biggest killers in humanity has been brunettes'. There are no causal factors associated within the statement, just a lame correlation that is used by jittery religious insecure fools to mask the fact that EVERY RELIGION has had atleast one guy invoke religion to kill people, while atheists have not specifically invoked atheism to kill people en masse - atleast, not yet. 

 

Saying atheists are persecuting Christians or Muslims or have- is a true statement. however, it is not specifically DUE to atheism. Just like a hindu can discriminate against a muslim and still have nothing to do with theism/atheism as its core concept, so too can atheists. Whether i want to discriminate against people who believe in sharia law, has more to do with me liking/not liking the specifics of sharia law, not whether my lack of God belief. Same with a Hindu - if a hindu can hate sharia law regardless of their actual feelings on God, so can an atheist. 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Moochad]

10 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Posting a meme takes 5 seconds, so your strawman argument that it is attention-seeking because it spends significant time, is a logical fail. 

 

Fine, I change my mind, I will channel my inner Green Monster here

 

 

Oh-fo, Apparently you don't know what a strawman is. A strawman is if I misrepresent an argument or statement you make.

 

My analysis of your behavior is not an argument by me or anything to do with an argument/statement you made, and it certainly doesn't reinterpret what you said with the meme for any ulterior motive. It is simply analyzing your behavior in this thread.  At best it is low grade trolling and at worst it is attention seeking behavior. I went with the latter. Either way no strawman.  

 

Quote

The hindu-phobic bollywood thread the discussion is not centered around atheism, so yet again, you are making an allegation that just doesn't add up. 

In fact you made a strawman here

I never said you only derail regarding atheism, especially since the post was addressed to Darr. 

I said, in quoting to Darr 

Quote

Mulo and you are apparently so desperate for attention that you need to tell people who didn't ask, that you are atheists and bring up the subject when noone is talking about it. Literally nothing in this thread has anything to do with Atheists, for or against them etc, it was only he who brought it up. That is textbook attention seeking behavior.    

 

 The bold is true, you brought up your atheism in both this thread and the Sabarimala thread( and used the same exact joke in both) . Only you brought it up, then you both got triggered by my also posting a meme and decided to indulge in ad hominem attacks like I am salty, or pissed off.  If I was salty or pissed off for posting a meme, then so were you, fair's fair after all!  Add to that your attention seeking behavior. 

 

Notice no mention of atheism being the only means of your derailing threads. Having been on this forum, I already know you derail all kinds of threads on all kinds of issues. Who can forget you and your 'brother' Green Monster's constant back and forth.  However Darr does, even in the Bollywood thread he starts evangelizing on atheism. That is as clear as day.   

 

The 2nd was this

Quote

but it's clear that you and he carry on derail the threads eg this one and the Hinduphobic Bollywood thread, etc.

There is no mention of atheism here, just a general comment on how you both keep derailing threads.  Once again, you can read the Bollywood thread again, Darr does start evangelizing on atheism there. That is derailing to me. 

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

No, the people who lack IQ sees this in black and white. He can be a good man and a good politician at the same time. He can be a good man based on the overall impact he's had, even if he has certain shortcommings. These are not mutually exclusive concepts and you display your simple banality by dismissing a man's ability to change as 'oh he was a politician'. Well, some politicians do come to the fore AFTER they alter their views as well, which is the case with Gandhi. 

Strawman again, I never said he was only a politician and didn't have qualities of a good man, or that these are mutually exclusive concepts. Saying someone is a politician, like all the others, doesn't preclude him from having good qualities. Only people with low IQ would read that into the statement.  Stating the obvious, that all people have good or bad qualities is redundant, as no one said otherwise. 

 

Okay, this time I am done for sure, I have made my point. 3 strawmen misrepresenting what I actually said now he is just arguing for the sake of it, 0 integrity

46 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I can definitely assure you that it is not ignorance of history from my part, but lack of integrity and readership from your part. I specifically stated that no atheist has ever specifically committed crimes on the basis OF Atheism. Soviets and Maoists don't kill, incarcerate, rape, pillage, etc. people specifically because of an atheist commandment against religiosity. We have religious folks from every single religion waging war, prima facie, on the basis of specific religious diction/commandment - whether its Dharm-yuddh or Jihad or whatever. Such an action(in its corollary) has never been cited by atheist entities to justify an action, ergo, 'atheists being biggest killers in history of mankind' is irrelevant to atheism.

No, it is ignorance of history, lack of integrity on your part(which I have shown as a trait of yours before where you misquoted scientific papers to push your agenda),  sophistry, and a lack of any reading contrary to your own biases.

 

As I predicted earlier all sorts of mental gymnastics are needed to wipe away the crimes that atheist regimens have indulged in. These regimens specifically had atheism as the state doctrine, and actively persecuted religious groups: Muslims, Christians, Buddhists for following their religions and their goal was to wipe out these religions and usher in some Atheist utopia. This is not different than Islamists where Islam is the state doctrine and Islamists wipe out non-believers. They also think there will be some utopia if the entire world is converted to Islam. 

 

A commandment or book for an atheist to kill for atheism is unnecessary and is a strawman of an argument which no religious person who is against atheists makes (which I am not one). They have shown to be as big of mass murderers in the history of humanity without a book.  A 'no book no fault for crimes done in its name' is a red herring' used here to defend the indefensible. It can also be used for anything that non text based religions do or even specific things done by religious people who don't have specific crimes mentioned in their books. The Koran doesn't mention that Muslims are allowed to highjack airplanes and run them into the Twin Towers, therefore Islam should not be blamed for what the 9/11 hijackers did.  

 

Atheists have no moral grounding in the first place. Assuming they would even have one is in and of itself an assumption. An atheist society necessarily is a moral relativist one.  After all, atheism is only the claim that there is no god or supernatural power. That is pretty cut and dry; nothing more nothing less. There is nothing about atheism which would  tell a Pol Pot that murdering 50k Buddhists is objectively wrong. After all, humans are just like goats, sacks of flesh and bones. If they cause trouble why not kill them?      

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

you got it other way round. I see no evidence of any national apparatus ever being a factor for these guys, hence i call them non-nationalists. You have to present evidence that these folks actually knew of or cared for any amount of state machinery to call them nationalists or patriots.

So now you shifting the burden of proof 

 

You wrote this nonsense so confidently

Quote

This bit, that muslims 'provoked' Shivaji or the Rajputs or Vijayanagar by committing attrocities against the Hindus, is total revisionist history nonsense, not supported by ANY first hand sources of history to exist.

This is simply because, we are NOT talking about nationalists or rulers of a NATION. This is the Maratha King, *NOT* King of England or Emperor of Japan of the last 500 years. These were ALL upper-class lordlings, fighting for *THEIR* Jaagirs and their personal domains. 

As such, they fought the Mughals, the same way ANY ruler fights their rivals or overlords - just like the muslims rulers of Bahmani Sultanate or the Nizams - they sense an opportunity and rebel to seize the moment. Some die in failure, some succeed. 

Great, now you doing a personal incredulity fallacy.  

 

So you say something, provide no evidence for it, and when someone asks for evidence for your statement, you say you see no evidence in the contrary and ask them to prove you wrong?

 

Sorry, that doesn't cut it! You have no authority on the topic that your words hold weight on the intentions of the kings.  

 

I can do the same thing with Sri Tagore

 

Tagore has much more integrity, eg has never been shown to my knowledge of misquoting scientific papers. 

 

Anyway, I fully expect more sophistry from you regarding this , so I will go ahead and disprove that nonsense here and end my participation in another derailed thread, I already know you don't have evidence for what you said.  

 

Start with the idea that the Maratha's were concerned with personal Jagirs shows absolutely 0 historical literacy as Shivaji abolished the Jagir system in circa 1620s itself! Then it was later due to financial difficulties of continues warfare.

From the Death of Shivaji to the Death of Aurangzeb: The Critical Years YG Bhave

 

Here are two snippets of translated letters from the Maratha Empire

Nana Phadnavis's letter sent out

But we are supposed to believe that they were fighting for personal jagir and not nation 

 

In response Govindrao Kale wrote:

 

Further, some pertinent points from a translation of Shivaji's letter to Mirza Jai Singh, who was sent after Shivaji on behalf of the Mughals

Quote

47. This is not the time for fighting between ourselves since a grave danger faces the Hindus.

48. Our children, our country, our wealth, our God, our temples and our holy Worshippers,

49. Are all in danger of existence owing to his machinations and the utmost limit of pain that can be borne, has been reached.

50. If the work goes on like this for some time, there will not remain a vestige of ourselves on earth.

The most strenuous efforts should be made at this time to protect Hindus, Hindusthan, and the Hindu religion…

From Anglo-Maratha Relations 1798-1830

We are fighting for Swarajya and Swadharma

 

From the New History of the Marathas, GS Sardesai

The whole country is ours!

From their own words, the Marathas were fighting for the nation: Swarajya and Swadharma. To say otherwise is historical illiteracy spread by commies.

 

I'm done, wasted too much time on someone who just argues for the sake of it. Sorry to OP for helping derail the thread! This is the last time, I promise. 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, Moochad said:

Fine, I change my mind, I will channel my inner Green Monster here

 

 

Oh-fo, Apparently you don't know what a strawman is. A strawman is if I misrepresent an argument or statement you make.

 

My analysis of your behavior is not an argument by me or anything to do with an argument/statement you made, and it certainly doesn't reinterpret what you said with the meme for any ulterior motive. It is simply analyzing your behavior in this thread.  At best it is low grade trolling and at worst it is attention seeking behavior. I went with the latter. Either way no strawman.  

Your strawman, is representing a 5second meme posted as 'so much effort spent to barge in'. Its not much effort for the advertisement i put out. 

3 minutes ago, Moochad said:

In fact you made a strawman here

I never said you only derail regarding atheism, especially since the post was addressed to Darr. 

I said, in quoting to Darr 

 The bold is true, you brought up your atheism in both this thread and the Sabarimala thread( and used the same exact joke in both) . Only you brought it up, then you both got triggered by my also posting a meme and decided to indulge in ad hominem attacks like I am salty, or pissed off.  If I was salty or pissed off for posting a meme, then so were you, fair's fair after all!  Add to that your attention seeking behavior. 

So you are saying all meme-posters are salty and there are no reasons for meme posting and if i identify your behaviour as salty, then every meme-posting is salty ?

Thats some kamaal-ka lahori-logic from you. 

3 minutes ago, Moochad said:

Notice no mention of atheism being the only means of your derailing threads. Having been on this forum, I already know you derail all kinds of threads on all kinds of issues. Who can forget you and your 'brother' Green Monster's constant back and forth.  However Darr does, even in the Bollywood thread he starts evangelizing on atheism. That is as clear as day.   

Yep, he is more evangelical, i wont contest that, but what he has to do with or not, is irrelevant to what you are directing at me and vice versa. 

3 minutes ago, Moochad said:

 

Strawman again, I never said he was only a politician and didn't have qualities of a good man, or that these are mutually exclusive concepts. Saying someone is a politician, like all the others, doesn't preclude him from having good qualities. Only people with low IQ would read that into the statement.  Stating the obvious, that all people have good or bad qualities is redundant, as no one said otherwise. 

Your comment implied it, as you left it as 'he is a politician' in counter to 'it enhances his image'. If your above statement is true, then your comment 'people with IQ know he is a politician' is made irrelevant as a response to 'it enhances his reputation for growing as a human being'.

3 minutes ago, Moochad said:

 

Okay, this time I am done for sure, I have made my point. 3 strawmen misrepresenting what I actually said now he is just arguing for the sake of it, 0 integrity

No, it is ignorance of history, lack of integrity on your part(which I have shown as a trait of yours before where you misquoted scientific papers to push your agenda),  sophistry, and a lack of any reading contrary to your own biases.

I've not misquoted any papers. 

3 minutes ago, Moochad said:

As I predicted earlier all sorts of mental gymnastics are needed to wipe away the crimes that atheist regimens have indulged in. These regimens specifically had atheism as the state doctrine, and actively persecuted religious groups: Muslims, Christians, Buddhists for following their religions and their goal was to wipe out these religions and usher in some Atheist utopia. This is not different than Islamists where Islam is the state doctrine and Islamists wipe out non-believers. They also think there will be some utopia if the entire world is converted to Islam. 

There is no mental gymnastics. You are arguing a strawman, since atheists never say that there are no atheist criminals or genociders. We say that nobody has been genocided in name of atheism. That, is a fact.

Just like how every guy committing a crime does not make it a religious crime in accordance to their religion, neither does atheists killing people make it an indictment on atheism. You are the one going through mental gymnastics on equating atheism with genocide. 
You simply cannot find a single piece of declaration ever, which states atheism is the reason for killing people, from any major political entity. I can find for each and every religion on the planet at least one leader who killed in the name of their religion 

3 minutes ago, Moochad said:

A commandment or book for an atheist to kill for atheism is unnecessary and is a strawman of an argument which no religious person who is against atheists makes (which I am not one). They have shown to be as big of mass murderers in the history of humanity without a book.  A 'no book no fault for crimes done in its name' is a red herring' used here to defend the indefensible. It can also be used for anything that non text based religions do or even specific things done by religious people who don't have specific crimes mentioned in their books. The Koran doesn't mention that Muslims are allowed to highjack airplanes and run them into the Twin Towers, therefore Islam should not be blamed for what the 9/11 hijackers did.  

Nobody is defending their crimes. we are simply saying, we cannot blame atheism for crimes of the Soviets or Chinese, because their crimes are not cited AS atheist cause. Not all crimes committed by religious people are religious zealotry either - but we CAN find cases where leaders have specifically cited religion to commit crimes. This is what is lacking, from the atheist side so far. 

3 minutes ago, Moochad said:

 

Atheists have no moral grounding in the first place. Assuming they would even have one is in and of itself an assumption. An atheist society necessarily is a moral relativist one.  After all, atheism is only the claim that there is no god or supernatural power. That is pretty cut and dry; nothing more nothing less. There is nothing about atheism which would  tell a Pol Pot that murdering 50k Buddhists is objectively wrong. After all, humans are just like goats, sacks of flesh and bones. If they cause trouble why not kill them?      

This is evidentially proven false, by the simple fact that some of the lowest crimes societies today, are atheists largely. Infact, atheists have superior moral ground, because we cannot be 'held in check' by fear of punishment in afterlife/karmic justice nor can we be bribed by karmic reward/reward in afterlife, for our good deeds. Ergo, it is inherently morally superior. There are also religious figures who've noted this moral advantage atheists enjoy- happy to provide quotes if you wish. 

3 minutes ago, Moochad said:

So now you shifting the burden of proof 

 

You wrote this nonsense so confidently

Great, now you doing a personal incredulity fallacy.  

There is no shifting in burden of proof if the conclusion is based on lack of evidence. I am claiming a position that there is no evidence that these chaps knew or cared of any national apparatus, ergo, not nationalists. 

3 minutes ago, Moochad said:

So you say something, provide no evidence for it, and when someone asks for evidence for your statement, you say you see no evidence in the contrary and ask them to prove you wrong?

Because i am saying these chaps have displayed no evidence of being nationalists. Its the same argument why i dont consider Modi a genocider for Gujju riots- no proof has been provided and i dont need to provide evidnce to say 'he is not a genocider'. Just like i dont need proof to say Shivaji was not a nationalist/patriot. 

3 minutes ago, Moochad said:

Sorry, that doesn't cut it! You have no authority on the topic that your words hold weight on the intentions of the kings.  

 

I can do the same thing with Sri Tagore

 

Tagore has much more integrity, eg has never been shown to my knowledge of misquoting scientific papers. 

 

Anyway, I fully expect more sophistry from you regarding this , so I will go ahead and disprove that nonsense here and end my participation in another derailed thread, I already know you don't have evidence for what you said.  

 

Start with the idea that the Maratha's were concerned with personal Jagirs shows absolutely 0 historical literacy as Shivaji abolished the Jagir system in circa 1620s itself! Then it was later due to financial difficulties of continues warfare.

From the Death of Shivaji to the Death of Aurangzeb: The Critical Years YG Bhave

 

Here are two snippets of translated letters from the Maratha Empire

Nana Phadnavis's letter sent out

But we are supposed to believe that they were fighting for personal jagir and not nation 

 

In response Govindrao Kale wrote:

 

Further, some pertinent points from a translation of Shivaji's letter to Mirza Jai Singh, who was sent after Shivaji on behalf of the Mughals

From Anglo-Maratha Relations 1798-1830

We are fighting for Swarajya and Swadharma

 

From the New History of the Marathas, GS Sardesai

The whole country is ours!

From their own words, the Marathas were fighting for the nation: Swarajya and Swadharma. To say otherwise is historical illiteracy spread by commies.

 

I'm done, wasted too much time on someone who just argues for the sake of it. Sorry to OP for helping derail the thread! This is the last time, I promise. 

 

 

None of this qualifies for being a nationalist or a patriot, where one works for betterment of the NATION as an entity unto itself. I can cite plenty of European monarchies or the Japanese Empire, which shows direct evidence of national apparatus. Same with the Chinese empires. Nationalism is not just choosing X type of people and looking for its betterment, its betterment via a state apparatus. That is what defines a nation. 
As long as India has a state apparatus, it is a nation- regardless of whether its people's religion, color or vocation changes. 

These people you quoted, show no such awareness of a state apparatus process as an entity unto itself. 

 

Fighting for swarajya does not make one a nationalist, otherwise every tribal chief is also a nationalist. You need to educate yourself on what constitutes nationalism and the national/state apparatus. 

[Alam_dar]

On 11/6/2018 at 6:02 PM, Moochad said:

 

I am not your yaar, anyone who justifies discrimination against Hindus like you did before is no friend of mine.

I am sorry if I offended you by using the word Yaar. If you don't like it, then it is ok. 

Quote

Read the pic again, I guess I will have to spell it out for you: a person is minding his own business taking a piss in an empty restroom, but an Atheist feels it necessary to come up to him in the direct next toilet and share with him that he is an Atheist.   

It was only a joke. I know what message you wanted to convey through this joke. But I intentionally changed it to bring my joke by conveying the message that religious people today gather for killing upon non issues, which is not good.  

Quote

Mulo and you are apparently so desperate for attention that you need to tell people who didn't ask, that you are atheists and bring up the subject when noone is talking about it.

I have only one post in this thread, and that too very short one (only one line) and basically it is about the other fears of the Muslim community which are related to Babari masjid issue. 

I don't think I have done anything wrong to offend you so much here by one line comment, and a joke as a reply. 

Quote

Literally nothing in this thread has anything to do with Atheists, for or against them etc, it was only he who brought it up. That is textbook attention seeking behavior.    

We are living is a mixed society. Every issue in the society effects all, and not only the RSS and the Extremist Muslims. Every atheist, every Christian, every Parsi, every Sikh, and every sane Hindu and every sane Muslim have the full right to comment upon all the issues of the society, while ultimately they effect all directly or indirectly. 

 

Quote

Then again, your countryman @Green Monster called you out on doing the same exact thing earlier a long time ago. And you are proving him correct in the Hinduphobic Bollywood thread.  Literally no one on this forum cares if you are Atheist or not, yet you lot need to derail threads unrelated to the topic? 

Ok, it seems you are mainly pissed off due to my arguments in the Hinduphobic Bollywood thread. 

Please tell me why should I have not replied there while:

(1) Firstly, we are on a discussion forum and everyone has the right to comment on any issue of the mixed society. 

(2) Secondly, you people directly attacked and falsely accused the Secularists. And I am an atheist and as well as a Secularist and Humanist. 

What is wrong when I simply brought my arguments and opinion?

If I am wrong, then you have the fully liberty to bring your arguments and opinions. We are here to learn from each other and let others make aware of opinions and thinking. Why do you want to sew my lips in name of lame excuses and personal attacks? 

 

Quote

FYI, Atheists are some of the biggest murders in history, especially in recent history. Do whatever mental gymnastics you want to justify it, the record is as bad as Islamists in kill counts.   

OK. 
But have you ever seen that I am making these killer atheists my hero instead of condemning their killings? 

Contrary to the religious zealots, who take their biggest religious killers as their Heros, I simply condemn any such atheist. 

 

Only and only Atheism has the ability to REFORM itself, while freethinking has no limits in atheism. But religions have only limited freethinking, which stays only the religious boundaries. Therefore, it is not possible for the religions to reform themselves. Thus Hindusim was not able to get rid of evil caste system at it's own. 

 

While it were the western atheists themselves who rejected the communist Stalin, while we are not the cult worshippers and have the full backing of the freethinking. 

 

The atheist, whom I respect, he is Buddah, and not Stalin. 

 

Now could you come out, and kick all your BJP and RSS leaders and Pandits who still believe in the caste system and don't let the Dalits to marry the Brahmins?

 

You accused me of following the Islamists, who consider killers like Ghaznavi as their Hero. I just hope you are able to see the difference that Stalin or any other atheist killer is absolutely not my hero and I am not a cult worshipper.  

 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Alam_dar

[someone]

10 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Now could you come out, and kick all your BJP and RSS leaders and Pandits who still believe in the caste system and don't let the Dalits to marry the Brahmins?

 

You accused me of following the Islamists, who consider killers like Ghaznavi as their Hero. I just hope you are able to see the difference. 

 

So Hindus who are doing the caste fighting are all BJP members? Thats wrong and if anything RSS themselves strive for a casteless society.

 

And caste isnt Hindusism, we have Jati and thats very different. Yet in modern India today, caste is used as number 1 way for exploitation and exploitation itself is a worldwide issue. So its not a easy problem. We dont have discrimination but plain exploitation and important to understand the difference.

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, someone said:

So Hindus who are doing the caste fighting are all BJP members? Thats wrong and if anything RSS themselves strive for a casteless society.

I have not written to kick all the BJP and RSS leaders. But I asked if you are ready to kick those leaders of BJP and RSS out who still believe in caste system? 
Answer should be very simple.
Yes or No? 
Or would you only oppose orally and then again we see you sitting with those same people on the table who still practice this caste system? 

 

BJP and RSS consists of mostly higher caste Hindus.

My feeling is this that RSS is showing it (i.e. it does not believe in caste system) mostly out of political reasons.  

At least the Dalits don't believe in this RSS drama. 

 

1 hour ago, someone said:

And caste isnt Hindusism, we have Jati and thats very different. Yet in modern India today, caste is used as number 1 way for exploitation and exploitation itself is a worldwide issue. So its not a easy problem. We dont have discrimination but plain exploitation and important to understand the difference.

I beg to differ. 

 

Manusmriti + Hindu Scholars who wrote famous commentaries upon it ... all this lead to a very different conclusion. 

 

For example:

 

Killing of low caste Person is equal to killing the animals

Manusmriti (LINK):

मार्जारनकुलौ हत्वा चाषं मण्डूकमेव च । 
श्वगोधौलूककाकांश्च शूद्रहत्याव्रतं चरेत् ॥ १३१ ॥

Translation:

Having killed a cat, an ichneumon, a blue jay, a frog, a dog, an iguana, an owl and a crow,—he shall perform the penance of the ‘Śūdra-killer.’—(131)

 

Comparative notes by various authors (verses 11.131-132):

Gautama (22-19).—‘For injuring a frog, an ichneumon, a crow, a chameleon, a musk-rat, a mouse or a dog (the penance is the same as that for the murder of a Vaiśya).’

Baudhāyana (1.19.6).—‘For killing a flamingo, a Bhāsa bird, a peacock, a Brāhmaṇī duck, a Pracetaka, a crow, an owl, a frog, a musk-rat, a dog, a Babhru, a common ichneumon, and so forth, the offender shall pay the same fine as for the killing of a Śūdra.’

Āpastamba (1.25.13).—‘If a crow, a chameleon, a pea-cock, a Brāhmaṇī duck, a swan, the vulture called Bhāsa, a frog, an ichneumon, a musk-rat, or a dog has been killed, then the offender should perform the same penance as that for killing a Śūdra.’

Vaṣhiṣṭha (21.24).—‘Having slain a dog, a cat, an ichneumon, a snake, a frog, or a rat,—one shall perform the Kṛcchra penance of twelve days’ duration, and also give something to a Brāhmaṇa.’

Viṣṇu (50.30-32).—‘If he has intentionally killed a dog, he should fast for three days. If he has unintentionally killed a mouse, or a cat, or an ichneumon, or a frog, or a Duṇḍubha snake, or a large serpent—he must fast for one day, and on the next day give a dish of milk, sesamum and rice mixed together to a Brāhmaṇa and give him an iron hoe as his fee: If he has unintentionally killed an iguana, or an owl, or a crow, or a fish, he must fast for three days.’

 

Please tell me, what should the world then think about Hinduism? 

 

Hindus got several thousands of years to get rid of caste system, but they didn't. When today you claim opposing it, then world is not going to believe you so easily. 

 

If Hinduism gets itself reformed, and extremism disappears, then I have no problems with Hinduism and BJP, as I have no problems with liberal Christians who try to give equal rights to all people in the West. 

[coffee_rules]

@Alam_dar No modern Hindu has ever read Manu Smriti. Nobody knows what is written and nobody follows it, to bring it up as an issue. The caste system is not celebrated by BJP/RSS. It is done by the Mayawatis, Yadavs and Communists who keep harping on past injustices and justify ulta-discrimination. 

 

We have Smritis and Shrithis. Smritis are re-written and followed as per sensibilities of the time. Shruthis is what sets the beliefs and the sprituality (Vedas and Upanishads) There is a verse in Manu Smrithi which says.,

 

The Smritis (Dharma Shastras) themselves suggest that some of the laws should be changed if they are found offensive to future generation:

"However, discard the desire (kama) and material wealth (artha) if contrary to Dharma; as also, any usage or custom or rules regarded as source of Dharma if at any time they were to lead to unhappiness or arouse people's indignation. (Manu Smriti 4.176)

So, keep your ignorance about Hindu beliefs to yourself.

 

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, someone said:

So Hindus who are doing the caste fighting are all BJP members? Thats wrong and if anything RSS themselves strive for a casteless society.

 

And caste isnt Hindusism, we have Jati and thats very different. Yet in modern India today, caste is used as number 1 way for exploitation and exploitation itself is a worldwide issue. So its not a easy problem. We dont have discrimination but plain exploitation and important to understand the difference.

As someone from a Brahmin family, caste is very much a thing in India. In urban life, it matters for marriage only pretty much, in rural life, it matters in pretty much everything. No need to shy away from the ills of hinduism. 

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

@Alam_dar No modern Hindu has ever read Manu Smriti. Nobody knows what is written and nobody follows it, to bring it up as an issue. The caste system is not celebrated by BJP/RSS. It is done by the Mayawatis, Yadavs and Communists who keep harping on past injustices and justify ulta-discrimination. 

 

We have Smritis and Shrithis. Smritis are re-written and followed as per sensibilities of the time. Shruthis is what sets the beliefs and the sprituality (Vedas and Upanishads) There is a verse in Manu Smrithi which says.,

 

The Smritis (Dharma Shastras) themselves suggest that some of the laws should be changed if they are found offensive to future generation:

"However, discard the desire (kama) and material wealth (artha) if contrary to Dharma; as also, any usage or custom or rules regarded as source of Dharma if at any time they were to lead to unhappiness or arouse people's indignation. (Manu Smriti 4.176)

So, keep your ignorance about Hindu beliefs to yourself.

 

Slight correction- Shurits are not just Vedas and Upanishads, it also includes the Brahmanas and the evil & backwards philosophy of animal sacrifice texts called the Aranyakas. 

[Alam_dar]

6 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

@Alam_dar No modern Hindu has ever read Manu Smriti.

What about the Hindus of last couple of thousands years? 

6 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Nobody knows what is written and nobody follows it, to bring it up as an issue.

Yes, off course it was a long fight against this criminal caste system behaviour, which brought so much humanity in the society that even the modern Hindus were compelled to disassociate themselves from Manusmriti. 

But even today we see the influence of the Manusmriti in the form of caste system. 

6 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

The caste system is not celebrated by BJP/RSS. It is done by the Mayawatis, Yadavs and Communists who keep harping on past injustices and justify ulta-discrimination. 

BJP/RSS are most probably doing the political drama to get the votes. Otherwise if they take pride in their Hindu religion and their Hindu past of several thousands of years, then this caste system with all of it's evils was part of both Hindu religion and the Hindu past. 

6 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

We have Smritis and Shrithis. Smritis are re-written and followed as per sensibilities of the time.

What I found is this that both are considered divine. Difference is this that Shrithis is direct divine words, while Smritis is what the Rishi remembered from the divine words:

 

Manusmriti= “The Remembered Tradition of Manu”

 

You could keep on calling me ignorant, but this definition was given by the Hindu Scholars who wrote commentaries upon it, and we see it's influence upon the Hindu society for the last 2 thousands of years. 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

There is a verse in Manu Smrithi which says.,

 

The Smritis (Dharma Shastras) themselves suggest that some of the laws should be changed if they are found offensive to future generation:

"However, discard the desire (kama) and material wealth (artha) if contrary to Dharma; as also, any usage or custom or rules regarded as source of Dharma if at any time they were to lead to unhappiness or arouse people's indignation. (Manu Smriti 4.176)

So, keep your ignorance about Hindu beliefs to yourself.

 

I am afraid that the translation is intentionally distorted here. 

The actual translation is: 

 

Verse 4.176

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

परित्यजेदर्थकामौ यौ स्यातां धर्मवर्जितौ । 
धर्मं चाप्यसुखोदर्कं लोकसङ्क्रुष्टमेव च ॥ १७६ ॥

parityajedarthakāmau yau syātāṃ dharmavarjitau | 
dharmaṃ cāpyasukhodarkaṃ lokasaṅkruṣṭameva ca || 176 ||

He shall, avoid such wealth and pleasures as are opposed to righteousness, as also righteousness if it be conducive to unhappiness, or disapproved by the people.—(176)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been said above that the ‘group of three’ constitutes the ‘ends of man.’ Some people might think that all the three are equally important, and argue as follows and act accordingly Righteous acts, like the Jyotiṣṭoma, &c., are found to be performed at the cost of wealth and pleasure. Such acts lead to loss of wealth by the giving away of the sacrificial fee and other gifts; and they are opposed to pleasure, inasmuch as it has been laid down that the person initiated for sacrifices shall remain continent, and so forth. Exactly in the same manner, it would be right to have recourse to the acquisition of wealth and pleasure at the cost of righteousness, so that the prohibition, ‘One shall not injure any living beings,’ forbids only such injury as one might inflect upon others simply on account of enmity, and not that which brings to the person wealth or pleasure.”

It is with a view to preclude such ideas that the text declares that—‘He shall avoid such wealth and pleasure’ as involve opposition to righteousness.

Having thus emphasized the superior importance of Righteousness, he proceeds to add that, in some cases, righteous acts also have to be avoided—‘also righteousness if it be conducive to unhappiness.’ ‘Udarka’ means sequence; that whose sequence is unhappy is ‘asukhodarka.’ For instance, some people give away their entire property, and obtain the fame of being an ‘extremely righteous and charitable person;’—or, when, even on solitary river-banks, where many ordinary persons see what is being done, people bathe, not so much for acquiring spiritual merit, but for winning the praise of the populace;—or, again, when large gifts are made to the ‘crows of sacred places’ (the Brāhmaṇas, at these places, who hanker after gifts), for the purpose of advertising their, powers of giving. All such acts are deprecated.

Or, again (one should avoid), such acts as are ‘disapproved by the people,’ as being blameworthy; e.g., the killing (at sacrifices) of the bull, which should not be killed; and the act of eating its flesh is more blameworthy than that of eating other kinds of flesh.

This prohibition is with a view to perceptible results, just like the prohibition of touching a snake. Ordinary men, being ignorant, would not know that the killing of the bull is permitted (under special conditions), and would therefore make it known that the sacrificer of the bull is an unrighteous person; and, as a large majority of men are illiterate, even cultured persons, not caring to investigate the source of the popular opinion, would avoid the person (as unrighteous). This is what has been said in the passage—‘the king being righteous,’ etc., etc..

What we have said above, is in accordance with the explanation provided by older writers. As a matter of fact, however, it can never be right to reject, on the strength of Smṛti, what has been enjoined by the Veda. The right example of the act aimed at by the Text is as follows: The custom of ‘niyoga’ (‘begetting of a child on the widowed sister-in-law’) is sanctioned by Smṛtis; but it is not performed, because it is ‘deprecated by the people;’ or, again, when one is supporting an unprotected young woman, entirely through pity,—if people show their disapproval by giving out that ‘she appeals to hiś generosity because she is a woman,’—then the said righteous act of supporting would be one that is ‘deprecated by the people.’—(176)

 

 

Conclusion:

This stopping of righteous acts is about Optional Righteous Acts like sacrificing an animal. 

But is does not say to change the LAWS. 

 

I find the same problem in Muslims where they are changing the translations of Quranic verses and Islamic traditions in order to defend their religion in one way or another by using every possible lame excuse. And when we show them the right thing, then they blame us of ignorance and not worthy of talking about the religion. 

[Muloghonto]

why are you quoting me, when its not my quote ?!

[coffee_rules]

My last on this subject. Nobody is following the caste system by reading or following Manu smruti. It is not equivalent to the verses in Quran. So GFYS.