Muloghonto Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 who is imposing on you anything? I am having a discussion with you. What you take out of it is up to you. The fact that i exercise free speech to rebut your nonsense is not imposing anything on you' date=' but you feel the need to showcase RSS as some evil organization, which i dont agree in. Simple[/quote'] The fact that i cannot eat beef in Karnataka is an imposition on me borne out of hypothetical religious dogma that has no shred of logical thinking or rational evidence towards it. Ie, no different than how Afghans, if you took a poll, would overwhelmingly agree that women who talk to men outside their family should be stoned to death.
FischerTal Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 It does not demolish my point' date=' because my point is, RSS/VHP ibecause it seeks to impose its hypothetical beleifs on the rest of society, which is blatantly obvious. If a Hindu Hitler came around tomorrow, the RSS/VHP would not be the ones defending the rights of people against a monstrous nutbar with hypothetical beleifs, they will join in. And this is why i disdan them and said your example is nothing more than PR stunts. yet you provide no evidence of this and completely assume this to be true. you have your own set of beliefs towards a certain organization but you provide no proof to show any ounce of truth to what you say so easily. learn to debate first coherently.
FischerTal Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 The fact that i cannot eat beef in Karnataka is an imposition on me borne out of hypothetical religious dogma that has no shred of logical thinking or rational evidence towards it. Ie, no different than how Afghans, if you took a poll, would overwhelmingly agree that women who talk to men outside their family should be stoned to death. the fact that people in the state of Karnataka exercised democratic process to elect legislators to enact a certain law does have an effect on the citizens of Karnataka. You yourself are not a single individual upon which the state of Karnataka runs upon. You are an Indian, one out of 120 crore people that have different beliefs.
FischerTal Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 it does make me secular and rational person because: a) i do not believe in imposing hypothetical beleifs on society based on religious considerations b) i do not believe in 'tyranny of the majority', i believe in making laws and social contract on the basis of what is rational and completely bereft of religious texts. Just like how USA/Canada works. no it doesnt. just because you say something over and over again does not make it true. Samjhe, goebbels ke pujari Imposition of beliefs on society are decided by the constituents of that society through democratic process, not by one off anarchists like you. The set of beliefs to which a particular society adheres to corresponds largely to their ideological stances on various issues. If we believed in your nonsense, there would never be a head of state because if rationals like you didnt agree with him/her then he/she should not be in power, despite being elected by a majority of the people.
Desi Cartman Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 the fact that people in the state of Karnataka exercised democratic process to elect legislators to enact a certain law does have an effect on the citizens of Karnataka. You yourself are not a single individual upon which the state of Karnataka runs upon. You are an Indian' date=' one out of 120 crore people that have different beliefs.[/quote'] How does him eating beef affect the other 120 crore ? What next, I will object that people should not name their kid Sachin out of respect for SRT and since he is popular, respected yada yada and if the CM of state declares then it becomes a law. How does that sound ?
FischerTal Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 How does him eating beef affect the other 120 crore ? What next' date=' I will object that people should not name their kid Sachin out of respect for SRT and since he is popular, respected yada yada and if the CM of state declares then it becomes a law. How does that sound ?[/quote'] he can eat horsemeat for all i care. the people of karnataka have decided for a particular law to be enacted. if you dont like it, help electe a government that doesnt have that law. Simple.
FischerTal Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 How does him eating beef affect the other 120 crore ? What next' date=' I will object that people should not name their kid Sachin out of respect for SRT and since he is popular, respected yada yada and if the CM of state declares then it becomes a law. How does that sound ?[/quote'] He can run on the streets naked too if he wants, but does that mean the rest of us have to be forced to watch that? ridiculous argument
Desi Cartman Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 He can run on the streets naked too if he wants' date=' but does that mean the rest of us have to be forced to watch that?[b'] ridiculous argument :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: If he force feeds beef to you then your example can have some merit else yours is a "ridiculous argument". He is not asking you to eat beef, supply it or even see him when he eats it. From tomorrow if Im offended by people who eat rice, how valid will that sound ? well Im against carbs and think its disgusting that people eat rice which is nothing but carbs now what ?
FischerTal Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: If he force feeds beef to you then your example can have some merit else yours is a "ridiculous argument". He is not asking you to eat beef, supply it or even see him when he eats it. From tomorrow if Im offended by people who eat rice, how valid will that sound ? well Im against carbs and think its disgusting that people eat rice which is nothing but carbs now what ? again, you are diverting from my argument that if he wants to eat beef, he should help elect a government that lets him do that. he, just like me and you, comprises of society not the other way around. that same society enacts laws that provide regulations and rules. if you dont like the rules and regulations, simply elect representatives that will change them. This is not rocket science
FischerTal Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: If he force feeds beef to you then your example can have some merit else yours is a "ridiculous argument". He is not asking you to eat beef, supply it or even see him when he eats it. From tomorrow if Im offended by people who eat rice, how valid will that sound ? well Im against carbs and think its disgusting that people eat rice which is nothing but carbs now what ? you still didnt answer my hypothetical of the running naked. he can decide from tommorow that he is offended from wearing clothes, and then go nude everywhere. does that mean the rest of the people, who live in the same state, should tolerate that god-forsaken sight to keep him happy? Unless a majority of the people derive a consensus that this behavior is fine, why should society tolerate him?
Desi Cartman Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 you still didnt answer my hypothetical of the running naked. he can decide from tommorow that he is offended from wearing clothes' date=' and then go nude everywhere. does that mean the rest of the people, who live in the same state, should tolerate that god-forsaken sight to keep him happy? Unless a majority of the people derive a consensus that this behavior is fine, why should society tolerate him?[/quote'] Thats a stupid argument and you know it but still let me ask you using your example, do you have an objection if he takes bath at home naked ? If yes, then there is nothing to discuss and if not then well, cant he eat at home what he likes ?
ganeshran Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 you still didnt answer my hypothetical of the running naked. he can decide from tommorow that he is offended from wearing clothes' date=' and then go nude everywhere. does that mean the rest of the people, who live in the same state, should tolerate that god-forsaken sight to keep him happy? Unless a majority of the people derive a consensus that this behavior is fine, why should society tolerate him?[/quote']
Desi Cartman Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 ^ Im waiting for him to declare being naked illegal. From now on, we all will have to bath in kurta pajamas
FischerTal Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 Thats a stupid argument as and you know it but still let me ask you using your example' date=' do you have an objection if he takes bath at home naked ? If yes, then there is nothing to discuss and if not then well, cant he eat at home what he likes ?[/quote'] this is the most ridiculous argument. what he does in his house is upto him. for him to eat beef, he must procure it from an outside supermarket or grocery stores that supplies it, unless he has his own cows to butcher. this directly brings him into the public sphere.These stores are regulated and supervised by the government, which are in existence due to the mandate given by the people. If these stores dont supply it , then he shouldnt crib that government has imposed this or that on him because then it becomes his responsiblity to procure this food source for himself and not crib about the directives of a democratically elected government. He comes into public contact when wanting food supply, health needs, etc, then he must also comply with the directives of the government of the area he lives in. His anarchy and beliefs are confined to his private quarters, not in the public realm
FischerTal Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 im giving a hypothetical for him to respond to with regards to the rights of privacy he is espousing so dearly. i have also answered the beef question if you care to see.
FischerTal Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 ^ Im waiting for him to declare being naked illegal. From now on' date=' we all will have to bath in kurta pajamas[/quote'] as i have already said before, what you do in your house is upto you. dont jump the gun like your parineeti lover.
Desi Cartman Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 this is the most ridiculous argument. what he does in his house is upto him. for him to eat beef' date=' he must procure it from an outside supermarket or grocery stores that supplies it, unless he has his own cows to butcher. this directly brings him into the public sphere.These stores are regulated and supervised by the government, which are in existence due to the mandate given by the people. If these stores dont supply it , then he shouldnt crib that government has imposed this or that on him because then it becomes his responsiblity to procure this food source for himself and not crib about the directives of a democratically elected government. He comes into public contact when wanting food supply, health needs, etc, then he must also comply with the directives of the government of the area he lives in. His anarchy and beliefs are confined to his private quarters, not in the public realm[/quote'] Well why dont we stop selling buckets and showers as people are taking shower naked at home. As for supplying beef - why do you care how I get it ? I can get my own cows and eat them when I like or sell them or butcher them in closed walls and supply them packed to customer's house, you dont get to see it .. now does it offend you ? I bet it does because your issue is not based on any logic. Jains dont eat onions, many hindus dont eat eggs why dont they get offended when people fry the bloody egg and eat it with tomato sauce ?
FischerTal Posted April 6, 2013 Posted April 6, 2013 Well why dont we stop selling buckets and showers as people are taking shower naked at home. As for supplying beef - why do you care how I get it ? I can get my own cows and eat them when I like or sell them or butcher them in closed walls and supply them packed to customer's house' date= you dont get to see it .. now does it offend you ? I bet it does because your issue is not based on any logic. Jains dont eat onions, many hindus dont eat eggs why dont they get offended when people fry the bloody egg and eat it with tomato sauce ? but the fact is you get beef from an outside source. it is understood that most people, wherever they live, get food supplies from grocery stores. they are not growing it themselves. you require outside sources, away from your own private quarters, to acquire these food supplies. therefore, you come into the public realm and leave your own privacy, in which you cant do whatever u want. in this area, there are rules and regulations made that will not allow you to behave how you would otherwise in your own home. What SachinLara and other anarchists believe is that because a government has such laws that it is somehow unfair to them. If they deem it to be unfair, then they have the capability in a democratic state to bring a government that will change these laws to their liking. Simple. By the way, logic isnt something you of all people should be harping on. :two_thumbs_up:
Muloghonto Posted April 6, 2013 Posted April 6, 2013 ]yet you provide no evidence of this and completely assume this to be true. you have your own set of beliefs towards a certain organization but you provide no proof to show any ounce of truth to what you say so easily. learn to debate first coherently. The thread itself provides evidence for it. To impose a hypothetical beleif on society, without a single shred of proof, is evil. What else is evil, if not being forced to do something because some douchebag thinks this is God's plan but has no proof ?
Recommended Posts