someone Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Dm getting trolled big time. +1, another day and another meltdown.
rkt.india Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 MP's apology that he did not know that the guy was on fast does not cut it or free him from criticism or punishment. It does not matter if he was on fast or not. The act was sheer audacity and arrogant shown by that MP, trying to take advantage of his position. No one has the right to behave like that with anyone. It was downright disgusting.
Detonator Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 +1' date=' another day and another meltdown.[/quote'] :haha:
Crookbond Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 I did not "make it up" as you alleged. It had appeared in the media. Passing something as a fact when it was an allegation, is "making up".
seedhi Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Passing something as a fact when it was an allegation' date=' is "making up".[/quote']No it isn't. The source of the allegation is, by definition, the entity who made it up. For example, if I state the Riemann Hypothesis (which has not been proved) as a fact, I cannot be accused of making up the statement of the Riemann Hypothesis.
Crookbond Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 No it isn't. The source of the allegation is' date=' by definition, the entity who made it up. For example, if I state the Riemann Hypothesis (which has not been proved) as a fact, I cannot be accused of making up the statement of the Riemann Hypothesis.[/quote'] It is if you build an argument in the lines of "by the Riemann hypothesis I say X" because the basis itself is unproven. You build your argument on something which wasn't proved. You should've added that it was an allegation. Since you didn't, you were making it up.
randomGuy Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 No it isn't. The source of the allegation is' date=' by definition, the entity who made it up. For example, if I state the Riemann Hypothesis (which has not been proved) as a fact, I cannot be accused of making up the statement of the Riemann Hypothesis.[/quote'] Hypothesis itself means proposed explanation...proposition or suggestion. What exactly in your 'allegation' against the esteemed former law minister of Delhi ascertains that you are stating an allegation and not a fact?
seedhi Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 It is if you build an argument in the lines of "by the Riemann hypothesis I say X" because the basis itself is unproven. You build your argument on something which wasn't proved. You should've added that it was an allegation. Since you didn't' date= you were making it up.Making what up ? The allegation was already made by someone else and had appeared in the media. I just reiterated it. Not everything has to be appended with a caveat that it is an allegation, it is implicit many a time. For example, it is frequently claimed that Congress was involved in 1984 riots, which has never been formally proved in courts either. If someone writes that "George Bush is a war criminal" - it is obviously an allegation. If everything which has not been proved in a court of law has to be appended with caveats, then all conversations on this message board will become extremely pedantic and tedious. The title of this very thread is also an allegation, as it has not been proved in a court of law.
Detonator Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 It is if you build an argument in the lines of "by the Riemann hypothesis I say X" because the basis itself is unproven. You build your argument on something which wasn't proved. You should've added that it was an allegation. Since you didn't' date=' you were making it up.[/quote'] Absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. You cannot say something as lie if u don't know the truth. I m sure seedhi will take back his words if the incident us not proved. you do know that what u say can be used against u. Same can be said for nist of the discussions. pls take it lightly.
asterix Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Indian MP force-feeds Muslim man on fast If Kejriwal accuses Modi, Ambani, Adani as corrupt, so are they corrupt or "allegedly" corrupt? So when he does a press conference, does he adds "allegedly" or directly pronounces them guilty? Does anybody cares if Kejriwal adds "allegedly" to his charges? No.... Except maybe Gadhkari who sues him regularly... :cantstop: I think the "honourable former law minister of Delhi" should file a defamation case on anyone who blames him of the Nigerian Lady incident...
Raghav_12 Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Of course' date=' everything that a prosecution lawyer says is true. Why do we even have judges?[/quote'] All these stories were planted and carried out just to discredit AAP. They think if they say same thing 100 times it will become true.
randomGuy Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. You cannot say something as lie if u don't know the truth. I m sure seedhi will take back his words if the incident us not proved. you do know that what u say can be used against u. Same can be said for nist of the discussions. pls take it lightly. chill detonator. dont be offended.
asterix Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 All these stories were planted and carried out just to discredit AAP. They think if they say same thing 100 times it will become true. Just like AAP plants stories to discredit other parties?
Detonator Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 All these stories were planted and carried out just to discredit AAP. They think if they say same thing 100 times it will become true. i ll take it as a sarcastic post :giggle:
Detonator Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 chill detonator. dont be offended. i got heavy cold man, so more chill will be harmful. tomorrow I ll receive ghost pepper to make me hot. :icflove:
Filandering Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 Why doesn't Indian govt force feed the 400 mio population dying out of hunger in India. Instead they force feed to break somebody's fast. India under Modi.
Recommended Posts