f.b.m Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 My opinion is probably completely opposed to the general 'Ahh kids these days.. why cant we all just get along...' sentiment that seems to be here. On a somewhat contrarian note, I'd say that its worse to have genuine hatred being masked as just a disagreement. The internet provides some anonymity so that the hatred/contempt for others is more visible which would otherwise be buried under a carpet of forced civility. This quote is more true that most people will be willing to admit: The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. How corrupting is it to say that me and my clan deserve nothing but infinite bliss while people not in this esteemed club deserve the most suffering one could imagine for ever? Or to say that someone who doesnt a government program can be shot for disagreeing with me? Is it really all that good or healthy to 'respectfully disagree' on these matters? The anonymity that the internet provides isnt suddenly creating the hatred out of thin air but rather showing up the hate that was previously buried under the guise of tolerance and getting along. If we want to get anywhere as a society its not going to be through denying the hateful nature of many of the core beliefs that people hold but rather by bringing them out in the open and resolving them.. Obviously this post has nothing to do with Sachin or Lady Gaga ... I dont know enough about the Nehru/Vajpayee example although it sounds like a good example of what I mean on the surface.
bulbul Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 So I post mainly on SRT related threads implies that I have told you or anyone else to not post anything against Tendulkar (and I will consider it as abuse ) ? Is this your understanding of what I'am trying to convey ? yes yes generally too. but those are the 2 posters relevant to this discussion in this thread that have issues with me and I dont see you lecturing them ... why is that ?. because i didnt saw them preaching...you always claim before a abusing They should have done that this etc... Again Nothing personal...
Khalpat Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 because i didnt saw them preaching...you always claim before a abusing They should have done that this etc... What? are you sure they do not preach,let me give example in one of the recent thread in chit chat, one of the poster was discussing with Maryam both had a totally different view, the discussion was related to religion and they both would have surely reached to conclusion but suddenly the secular champion jumped(one of the two) into it and started abusing the poster as to how dare he said these sentences in secular country. End Result: the hatred for each other increased between posters and ofcourse not to tell between secular champion and poster increased many fold, if only he wouldnt have jumped Maryam and that poster would have agreed on few points. So its not only BB be a true secular not psuedo and criticize both.
bulbul Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 What? are you sure they do not preach' date='let me give example in one of the recent thread in chit chat, one of the poster was discussing with Maryam both had a totally different view, the discussion was related to religion and they both would have surely reached to conclusion but suddenly the secular champion jumped(one of the two) into it and started abusing the poster as to how dare he said these sentences in secular country. End Result: the hatred for each other increased between posters and ofcourse not to tell between secular champion and poster increased many fold, if only he wouldnt have jumped Maryam and that poster would have agreed on few points. So its not only BB be a true secular not psuedo and criticize both.[/quote'] Preaching i mean , you dont tell others Not to do something which you are going to do after some time ... BB is not a secular guy neither me...thats Different case :winky:
Ram Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Lurker' date=' BB, Ram I think I got the answer. Even though you guys dont know personally each other but then also look hatred for each other has replaced disagreement on a topic for you. The world is changing into "Either you are with me or go to hell" atitude[/quote'] Firstly - If you think the random to-and-fro that goes in a message board can be classifed as 'HATE', then I am afraid we dont have much to work with here. Second of all - I think you should stop speaking on behalf of other people. Dont assume for a second you can second guess what's going on other people's minds. I dont hate on anyone even in the real world, let alone some random stranger in the internet that i do not even know.
Khalpat Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 Firstly - If you think the random to-and-fro that goes in a message board can be classifed as 'HATE', then I am afraid we dont have much to work with here. Second of all - I think you should stop speaking on behalf of other people. Dont assume for a second you can second guess what's going on other people's minds. I dont hate on anyone even in the real world, let alone some random stranger in the internet that i do not even know. Ram I have very much respect for you as a poster and beleive me I would have never put you in the same league as rest of them it was just that you were at wrong place at wrong time but seriously are you sure you do not hate any one in real world oh come on man how can that be possible. Not even your Boss, your colleague in office, the road side majnus in India who pass on cheap remarks on woman, Kasab, Ponting, Afridi, China, arey aur kutch nahi to Sir Johns Thread, Ponka rant there should be something man come on or else you are really Ram of Kalyug. Charan kahan hai aapke Prabhu...
Mariyam Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 Saar...kala badalada aage naavu munde hogtha irbeku.. Appa hakida alad marakee ivag yaru hagga hakalla.. Dumdum saar, ikkada baludgi addipandage jogtha kolaveri da? Appam eatakidya hunger istha da.
Mariyam Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 How corrupting is it to say that me and my clan deserve nothing but infinite bliss while people not in this esteemed club deserve the most suffering one could imagine for ever? Or to say that someone who doesnt a government program can be shot for disagreeing with me? @ f.b.m and vijay Yes, that is quite a telling quotation. Not mine though. Some time back I picked up a book called "Thus spake Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche from a library. The book in itself was quite heavy/thought provoking and hence a put off, but it had many profound one liners (also by the same author) at the end of each chapter. The one you quoted was one of them. Is it really all that good or healthy to 'respectfully disagree' on these matters? The anonymity that the internet provides isnt suddenly creating the hatred out of thin air but rather showing up the hate that was previously buried under the guise of tolerance and getting along. If we want to get anywhere as a society its not going to be through denying the hateful nature of many of the core beliefs that people hold but rather by bringing them out in the open and resolving them.. You lost me here. Either I haven't understood or your point, or you've misunderstood the OP. The OP doesn't say that you should bury disagreements/hate. The post talks about the various degrees of disagreement right from arguing over opposing viewpoints to actual hate that people harbours for those who have a different viewpoint. And how people are getting intolerant by starting to react extremely to situations that don't warrant such over reaction. Case in point, some days back I read about a school kid who pushed another kid into a well over who would sit at a specified seat in a class. etc
Vijay.Sharma Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 Here is a relevant question for this thread... At what point in time was there ever a healthy disagreement among peoples and not hatred? Being a student of History I have never known such a time period existing in humanity's various adventures even given the regular rant about "the good old days". I am not sure disagreement being equated to hate is a new phenomenon. I think this is how it has always been and it would take a great spiritual awakening for humankind to change that.
f.b.m Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 @Mariyam: Err... It seems like we're speaking in completely different universes here. I'm not talking about kids pushing each other into wells or beating each other up (that's anecdotal anyway.. from my observation they're far more civil and intelligent than me or anyone I studied with at that age. But there's no way to verify). What I'm talking about is the hatred and resentment that's built into two core beliefs that people generally hold: religion and statism. There are no better examples of that quote in action than in christianity and islam: how hateful is it to tell someone that they deserve to go to hell? Not many people bring this up but these are the governing beliefs of a large proportion of the world's population. I dont see how someone can 'respectfully disagree' when either they think that the other person deserves eternal hell-fire. Obviously you can make a very similar case about statist arguments: The whole premise of statism is based on solving disagreements with violence (or with threats of violence). And I didnt think that the OP meant to say 'bury your hatred' but rather my point was people hate each other a lot more than they think they do. And now I hate you for lumping me with Vijay Sharma :(
Vijay.Sharma Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 And now I hate you for lumping me with Vijay Sharma :(LOL! To be honest I never thought you woulda thought me important enough to be not associated with. O well, we learn new things everyday I guess.
Mariyam Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 @Mariyam: There are no better examples of that quote in action than in christianity and islam: how hateful is it to tell someone that they deserve to go to hell? Not many people bring this up but these are the governing beliefs of a large proportion of the world's population. I dont see how someone can 'respectfully disagree' when either they think that the other person deserves eternal hell-fire. My bad. Agree with you on all counts. You can't respectfully disagree with a belief system and not be reprimanded by the scriptures of that system in one way or another. Nietzsche's critique of Christianity is based exactly on the points you raise here. You should read his works if you can get your hands on them. This link is by no means exhaustive, but you'll find more online and in libraries, I'm sure. Another topic that he touches is our concept of God. Where he questions our belief in a God who needs to be praised all the time. Obviously you can make a very similar case about statist arguments: The whole premise of statism is based on solving disagreements with violence (or with threats of violence). And I didnt think that the OP meant to say 'bury your hatred' but rather my point was people hate each other a lot more than they think they do. Here is where I disagree. The state intervenes only when you act in a way that harms or adversely affects an organized way of life and/or revenue. A belief system on the other hands castigates a person for merely having another belief/thought. Therein lies the difference. And now I hate you for lumping me with Vijay Sharma :( Sowwies :P
Yoda-esque Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 @Mariyam: And now I hate you for lumping me with Vijay Sharma :( Sometimes I cannot understand the amount of hate and ridicule Vijay Sharma faces on this board. Granted that some of his theories are wild but they are no more arbitrary than say,one's belief in God
akshayxyz Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 Sometimes I cannot understand the amount of hate and ridicule Vijay Sharma faces on this board. Granted that some of his theories are wild but they are no more arbitrary that say,one's belief in God man-love is as difficult to understand as woman-logic.
Vijay.Sharma Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 Sometimes I cannot understand the amount of hate and ridicule Vijay Sharma faces on this board. Granted that some of his theories are wild but they are no more arbitrary than say,one's belief in GodBeing the most immodest chap on the forum I guess I deserve my fair share. But like Thomas Kuhn said that all new theories (actually scientific paradigms) are first ridiculed, then ignored, then accepted as obvious :winky:
Vijay.Sharma Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 man-love is as difficult to understand as woman-logic.aww come on now Akki, just coz he is defending me under one context dunn mean yo gotta corrupt the act
f.b.m Posted February 3, 2012 Posted February 3, 2012 Sometimes I cannot understand the amount of hate and ridicule Vijay Sharma faces on this board. Granted that some of his theories are wild but they are no more arbitrary than say,one's belief in God Well he has been introducing new intellectual and scientific paradigms which us vegetable brains have a hard time understanding and so end up ridiculing him because we are intellectually unworthy. Having said that his posts on average make more sense these days. @Mariyam: Shall answer a bit later.
bulbul Posted February 3, 2012 Posted February 3, 2012 Ill take Vijay Sharma's theories over Mari ammans essays any day :winky:
bulbul Posted February 3, 2012 Posted February 3, 2012 I will deal with such people in exactly the same way that rett got dealt with. If you think what I am doing is not right then you need to conduct this lecturing session with such people not me. i dont mind these stuffs i jus putting my interpratation You know nothing .... absolutely nothing about the history of all this riff raff and they have got nothing to do with Tendulkar or cricket. As far as preaching goes look at Lurkers first post on this very thread. Now the reason why you decided that does not constitute preaching is best known to you and unlikely that it is based on any logic. i am not talking about general preaching thats fine... The preaching you do is Telling some one else they have to keep quite and then start abuse every time...one or 2 time its fine... afterwards why you have state the obvious...just start abuse and run with it :dontknow:
Recommended Posts