Crookbond Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Kalia and Pandu Merlyn, Both of you are complicating matters than necessary and just running on the wheel. There are two aspects to the problem - (1) Is it allowed by law and (2) Should it be allowed by law? The answer to (1) is straightforward and our law ALLOWS it - simple as that. Kalia has quoted cases; there are many more. In terms of (2), it should NOT be allowed. For this, you need to do a lot of reading on community divisions and how they harm the overall fabric of society. They ultimately turn in ghettos which are a huge issue in terms of soci-economic progress and law & order. There are some countries like Singapore which actively prevent ghettos with something called as Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 The key operating word being "other non-vegetarians" which changes the tenor of the sentence. I banned Texan, Sabby and other trolls from ICF. --> This statement doesn't mean that I banned because you were Texan but I banned you for being a troll. Don't just literally threadbare statements for the sake of it. It is OK to sometimes misinterpret and being wrong. All of us make mistakes. Wrong analogy yet again. If you had a policy against non vegetarians you would simply state that "all non vegetarians are not allowed". By specifically saying that Maharashtrians, Muslims and other non vegetarians are not allowed, you are including all Maharashtrians and Muslims irrespective of their dietary preference. It does not appear like his dietary preference was even asked. NO majority of Maharashtrians aren't vegetarians - go do your research. I have lived 20+ years of my life in Maharashtra and probable 1/10 of Maharashtrians who are Brahmins are vegetarian. It's got nothing to do with Maharashtrian but more of Brahmin-ism that are vegetarians. Maharashtra encompasses the Konkan coast and the coast is always non-vegetarian because their staple diet is fish. The coastal regions (not just in MH but around the world) are also most populated. The article also states that the person was denied because his approach was "suspicious". So, there is NO "prima facie" here. Now lets not indulge in this d!ck measuring contests that you love to participate in here. I have lived 30+ years among Maharashtrians in Maharashtra and I know Brahminism is the primary reason for being vegetarian. Did you even know of the different castes that are prevalent in Maharashtra and their dietary preferences? Did you know there are castes that live in coastal Maharashtra that practice strictly vegetarian diets? So, lets not start this d!ck measuring contest to gain internet brownie points to judge who knows Maharashtra better. The prima facie part here is the allegation of the alleged victim. The prima facie evidence of the prior article that was posted about the Muslim lady rejected was also contended by the housing society saying that they did not have any such rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalia_Test Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Kalia and Pandu Merlyn, Both of you are complicating matters than necessary and just running on the wheel. There are two aspects to the problem - (1) Is it allowed by law and (2) Should it be allowed by law? The answer to (1) is straightforward and our law ALLOWS it - simple as that. Kalia has quoted cases; there are many more. In terms of (2), it should NOT be allowed. For this, you need to do a lot of reading on community divisions and how they harm the overall fabric of society. They ultimately turn in ghettos which are a huge issue in terms of soci-economic progress and law & order. There are some countries like Singapore which actively prevent ghettos with something called as Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP). :two_thumbs_up: In my defense, I will humbly state that I only said no law ( as it stands today) can deny me the right to promote my community or way of life. Other stuff is only quotes to strengthen my point. On your second point that it should NOT be allowed, I don't agree - maybe some more restrictions can be brought in but communities,sections of society, ways of life promoters need a Constitutional shield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Merlyn Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 http://www.business-standard.com/article/finance/co-op-banks-can-t-use-sarfaesi-for-debt-recovery-gujarat-hc-113042300027_1.html Courts will...The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act ( SARFESI) is NOT overriding on Societies and Co-operatives . Case by case evaluation might be done ( as is case with anything I suppose ) My only humble POINT in this is - Societies and Co-Operatives have their place in the Constitution - There is nothing violating any Fundamental Right or anything if I am a member of a society that promotes vegetarianism ( and I have signed up for the membership of an approved Society under full conscience and under no coersion) . I am bloody damn entitled to not sell/rent my flat to a non-vegetarian and the society is bloody damn entitled to force me not to do it ( If I indeed choose to rent out/sell to a non-vegetarian ). Bhai you are talking about co operative socities. There are building where societies are formed by residents after they buy flats.Even these societies impose certain rules which are in contravention to the laws of the land. Secondly the society act is not overriding and a case by case evaluation is done.I know someone who mortagaged his flat in a society and then deliberately defaulted and had the flat auctioned by the bank under SARFESI act.The society tried its utmost but the court ruled that that under The right to property the man was within his rights to mortgage his property and since he defaulted the property has now passed on to the ownership of the bank and they are within their rights to auction it.The society though has the right to match the bid:giggle: Pay off the debt and get the flat:giggle: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Merlyn Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Kalia and Pandu Merlyn, Both of you are complicating matters than necessary and just running on the wheel. There are two aspects to the problem - (1) Is it allowed by law and (2) Should it be allowed by law? The answer to (1) is straightforward and our law ALLOWS it - simple as that. Kalia has quoted cases; there are many more. In terms of (2), it should NOT be allowed. For this, you need to do a lot of reading on community divisions and how they harm the overall fabric of society. They ultimately turn in ghettos which are a huge issue in terms of soci-economic progress and law & order. There are some countries like Singapore which actively prevent ghettos with something called as Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP). Pandu kisko bola be? :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalia_Test Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Pandu kisko bola be? :mad: He dint call me anything :fishing: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Wrong analogy yet again. If you had a policy against non vegetarians you would simply state that "all non vegetarians are not allowed". By specifically saying that Maharashtrians, Muslims and other non vegetarians are not allowed, you are including all Maharashtrians and Muslims irrespective of their dietary preference. It does not appear like his dietary preference was even asked. You literally are incorrigible, aren't you? Why would they use the word "other" if they wanted to excluded Maharastrians? They would have said "MH, Muslims and non vegetarians are not allowed". Other means it qualifies as an adjective. But, I wouldn't expect you to accept it or even correct yourself. Now lets not indulge in this d!ck measuring contests that you love to participate in here. I have lived 30+ years among Maharashtrians in Maharashtra and I know Brahminism is the primary reason for being vegetarian. Did you even know of the different castes that are prevalent in Maharashtra and their dietary preferences? Did you know there are castes that live in coastal Maharashtra that practice strictly vegetarian diets? So, lets not start this d!ck measuring contest to gain internet brownie points to judge who knows Maharashtra better. Waah, khud karo and then blame others. Cherry picking at it's best. Just like you said most people in MH are vegetarians I said NO they are not. I don't give a sh!t about WHY they are, that's not the point. In fact, I even gave you a reason why they are non-vegetarian. So, I don't care about dietary preferences of an anamolous caste. The point was about average cases not best cases. The ONLY internet brownie scoring point master here is YOU. Threadbare simple statements to prove I am right. The same in every thread - Texan is ALWAYS right. The moment you are caught short; either shift the goal post or do reductio ad absurdum. The prima facie part here is the allegation of the alleged victim. The prima facie evidence of the prior article that was posted about the Muslim lady rejected was also contended by the housing society saying that they did not have any such rule. So why should the allegation be believed over the response? Because, "well suits mah secular narrative. Brachia Dutt do the progamz, I izz sit in Murica." Should be done with folks like you here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 :two_thumbs_up: In my defense, I will humbly state that I only said no law ( as it stands today) can deny me the right to promote my community or way of life. Other stuff is only quotes to strengthen my point. On your second point that it should NOT be allowed, I don't agree - maybe some more restrictions can be brought in but communities,sections of society, ways of life promoters need a Constitutional shield. Of course mate, I totally understand your point. In fact, I agree with you that the law does allow one so. On the second point, you need to read it from a socioeconomic progress perspective. I can't remember a single historical instance where passive approach to discourage intermingling of race has helped. I can show you counter examples though. Pandu kisko bola be? :mad: :phehehe: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 You literally are incorrigible, aren't you? Why would they use the word "other" if they wanted to excluded Maharastrians? They would have said "MH, Muslims and non vegetarians are not allowed". Other means it qualifies as an adjective. But, I wouldn't expect you to accept it or even correct yourself. Let me use the same analogy that you used so that hopefully you will understand. If I say Ra's Al Ghul, Dexter Morgan and other such trolls are banned, it means that Ra's Al Ghul and Dexter Morgan are banned. Whether they are trolls or not is immaterial at this point since they are being directly referenced. As I pointed out earlier too, there is no mention in the article suggesting that his dietary preferences were even asked. Waah, khud karo and then blame others. Cherry picking at it's best. Just like you said most people in MH are vegetarians I said NO they are not. I don't give a sh!t about WHY they are, that's not the point. In fact, I even gave you a reason why they are non-vegetarian. So, I don't care about dietary preferences of an anamolous caste. The point was about average cases not best cases. The ONLY internet brownie scoring point master here is YOU. Threadbare simple statements to prove I am right. The same in every thread - Texan is ALWAYS right. The moment you are caught short; either shift the goal post or do reductio ad absurdum. On the contrary, I would think that is the case with you because I have seen you indulge in "d!ck measuring contests" with other posters as well. And so convenient of you to first say "Hey! I have 20+ years of experience in Maharashtra, so I am an expert in their dietary preferences" and then when I ask specifics, you say "Hey! I don't care about dietary preferences of castes in Maharashtra". So why should the allegation be believed over the response? Because, "well suits mah secular narrative. Brachia Dutt do the progamz, I izz sit in Murica." Should be done with folks like you here. You never questioned the discrimination meted out to the Muslim lady when she was rejected accommodation. So, I will take it that you assumed she was discriminated on the basis of religion. However, you started questioning the alleged victim when he says he was discriminated because he was Maharashtrian. You even used arguments that said he was "suspicious". This is a very vague argument. I can be suspicious of anybody based solely on their name, their attire or any physical attribute. The rejecting party did not even mention what they were suspicious about. Of course I expect this kind of argument from you because it goes with your whole agenda of "Hey, only Muslims are victims in India. Hindus can be oppressors, not victims." So, you conveniently never questioned anything about the alleged Muslim victim, but found ways to twist the argument to suit your needs when a Hindu victim came into the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Texan you are ALWAYS right; you are right here too. I concede because I can't right a wall of text and indulge in gish gallop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Sanghis would want you to believe that it's a veg/non-veg issue. After house hunting in Bombay, let me tell you it's only part of the issue. There are societies which allow meat, but do not allow Muslims to rent/buy. Pretty much the same societies, ones which allow Muslims versus ones that don't next door to each other have a 10-15% differential in pricing. I got fooled listening to Sanghis that it's a meat issue, it's not it is simply a Muslim discrimination issue. Major jaahil concentration in Makaimum Shitty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 ^Probably some of these landlords exhibit similar core intolerant and prejudiced sensibilities that you do. For some people with contrary opinions are sanghis, for others all Muslims are terrorists or UP Biharis are jaahil So, as someone who has lived in mumbai all my life, there is absolute discrimination across various lines. Meat, Caste, religion, native village, second name etc. For instance, as a non South Indian non marwari, it will be impossible one to get rental in Bangur Nagar in Goregaon. You also have Sindhi Colony, Parsi colony where no Hindu can get an accommodation. For Muslims to get accommodation without reference, it is impossible. Landlords do not allow non married couples, or even working bachelors are co- occupy the room I don't see any reason to be touchy about this topic. This is an aspect which offers a mirror to us about our apprehension and prejudice of the other. More fundamental question is where is the line between discretion and discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 ^Sindhi? I thought they are Hindu's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkt.india Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Isnt it the choice of the owner who they want to rent their house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Merlyn Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Isnt it the choice of the owner who they want to rent their house?A basic point everyone forgets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulbul Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Isnt it the choice of the owner who they want to rent their house?Not if they are deny opportunity to minorities,especially special ones. Laaloo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Isnt it the choice of the owner who they want to rent their house?An owner can rent their house to anyone but if an entire building starts differentiating on religion; it forms ghettos - the religion doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulbul Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 An owner can rent their house to anyone but if an entire building starts differentiating on religion; it forms ghettos - the religion doesn't matter.That just shows entire building owners have similar views.End of day it's their property,their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 That just shows entire building owners have similar views.End of day it's their property,their money.I didn't say that they don't have "similar view" or it isn't their money or their property - I said it forms ghettos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulbul Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I didn't say that they don't have "similar view" or it isn't their money or their property - I said it forms ghettos. But then what's your meaning of ghetto?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts