zen Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: LOL. I've proven your entire fantasy story to be a fallacy. as·sump·tion əˈsəm(p)SH(ə)n/ noun 1. a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. "they made certain assumptions about the market" synonyms: Check-mate to you, mate. If that helps you to lick your wounds .... please read the story again and understand .... or bite your nails .... until next time Edited January 13, 2017 by zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, zen said: If that helps you to leak your wounds but you have only yourself to blame for sticking to uni dimensional methods .... please read the story again and understand .... or bite your nails .... until next time The only thing apparent in the story is 1 person doesnt believe in things without proof, the other two do not exhibit any difference between believing a delusional and facts. Your methods have been demonstrated flawed, even by the dictionary. But all you are doing, is giving rational people a clinic in irrational religious behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asim Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 On 12/27/2016 at 11:48 PM, Vilander said: Pro : Hindu warrior king = awesome burn for liberals and padosis. ... Thanks remembering... p.s. damn care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: The only thing apparent in the story is 1 person doesnt believe in things without proof, the other two do not exhibit any difference between believing a delusional and facts. Your methods have been demonstrated flawed, even by the dictionary. But all you are doing, is giving rational people a clinic in irrational religious behaviour. you still want to play? .... ok, one more chance Ctrl + V: "How is Zeno, a simpleton on surface but actually a much learned person, going to prove in Mulo's specified uni-dimensional method with faulty assumptions that God exists? (And when the proof is not even required to be given to Mulo) Edited January 13, 2017 by zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 19 minutes ago, Asim said: Thanks remembering... p.s. damn care Actually, i do wonder- what do you Pakistanis think of the great Hindu, Sanskrit-derived language speaking ancestors/inhabitants of Kabul, Gandhara, Punjab regions ? Do you guys read much about them/ know of them/care or do not care ? Like what about Ashoka, Nagabhata, Hindu-Shahis, Aparakarajas (its their name that became Afghan actually)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 31 minutes ago, Asim said: Thanks remembering... p.s. damn care we remember you when ever we remember our lib-retards, it takes two to tango. For instance Karan Johar or SRK they would love to come and make movies in Pakistan i am sure, nice chaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 12 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Actually, i do wonder- what do you Pakistanis think of the great Hindu, Sanskrit-derived language speaking ancestors/inhabitants of Kabul, Gandhara, Punjab regions ? Do you guys read much about them/ know of them/care or do not care ? Like what about Ashoka, Nagabhata, Hindu-Shahis, Aparakarajas (its their name that became Afghan actually)? what are you talking about there is no such thing, its says so in mulla madrassa history text page 297..Pakistanis came from Turkey via Iran in 2000 bc they came they saw and they conquered and established Indus Islamic civilization and the evil Hindoos ran back to Hindooostan. sandeep 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asim Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, Vilander said: we remember you when ever we remember our lib-retards, it takes two to tango. For instance Karan Johar or SRK they would love to come and make movies in Pakistan i am sure, nice chaps. yeah too bad those "lib-retards" damaging seculolar hindustani image which otherwise doing great under RSS govt... Edited January 14, 2017 by Asim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 On 1/12/2017 at 0:44 PM, Muloghonto said: This critique you have, is of an ACTUAL historian. As i said, ACTUAL historians will always give precedence to archaeological evidence over 2nd hand sources. 'Assuming based on rock edicts' >> 'assuming based on 2nd hand books'. because rock edicts are first hand accounts. I need a source otherwise it is just your opinion. Even if it were the case, there isn't really any contradictions between the rock edicts and the three books. They both can be true at the same time. I don't like Wikipedia, but I will use it anyway in this case: Historical method(the history version of the scientific method): Quote Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating the qualities of an information source, such as its validity, reliability, and relevance to the subject under investigation. Gilbert J Garraghan divides source criticism into six inquiries:[1] When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)? Where was it produced (localization)? By whom was it produced (authorship)? From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)? In what original form was it produced (integrity)? What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)? The edicts can be criticized by both 3) and 6), one can easily say that because it was authored by Ashoka, it is biased, as he will want to promote propaganda for himself. 6) Can be applied as well, as none of his claims in the edicts can be corroborated. Quote Procedures for contradictory sources[edit] Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history:[3] If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense. Pretty much this method destroys all criticism of the three textual sources on Ashoka. There are three sources that all agree essentially on the events, such as his murdering his brothers, etc. There is no reason to doubt any of them unless someone has a vested interest. The fourth source, the edicts, don't directly contradict the first three, so there is no basis with which to dismiss the first three. Quote Core principles for determining reliability[edit] The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[4] Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives. Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened. An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on. If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations. If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased. By this method, the rock edicts are equally prone to rejection. The edicts aren't a purely archaeological source, as the rock nature of the source is more of a medium, ie paper, rather than anything that inherently lends credibility. The pertinent part of the rocks are the writing, thus they are liable to the same standards as if the edicts were written on paper. The rocks were just used to spread whatever narrative he wanted. The rock edicts also aren't an independent source, as Ashoka had them made himself. This is also known as POV, point of view, when analyzing sources. If Rahul Gandhi wrote a book on himself, one would obviously take it with a bag of salt. The fact that the edicts weren't written on paper, but instead rock, doesn't lend credibility. In short, the rock edicts are open to just as much skepticism as the three texts. Actual historians use all four as the basis of information to write Ashokan history. To doubt one part of one source, but accept another part of another, if there is no contradictory evidence, is based on personal bias and agendas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 On 1/13/2017 at 11:52 PM, Vilander said: we remember you when ever we remember our lib-retards, it takes two to tango. For instance Karan Johar or SRK they would love to come and make movies in Pakistan i am sure, nice chaps. Karan Johar has been in the movie making business for the last 20 odd years. He is yet to shoot a movie in Pakistan. During the same time, many other Indian directors/producer however have had their movies shot in Pakistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 21 minutes ago, Mariyam said: Karan Johar has been in the movie making business for the last 20 odd years. He is yet to shoot a movie in Pakistan. During the same time, many other Indian directors/producer however have had their movies shot in Pakistan. Alrite add the other loonies like mahesh bhat tonthe list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 23 hours ago, Asim said: yeah too bad those "lib-retards" damaging seculolar hindustani image which otherwise doing great under RSS govt... Lol coming from a pakistani. Your scum country treats minorities like dirt and you are here talking about india a secular republic yours a religious one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 On 1/14/2017 at 0:28 AM, Asim said: yeah too bad those "lib-retards" damaging seculolar hindustani image which otherwise doing great under RSS govt... https://thewire.in/99522/pakistan-minorities-girls/ What a scum of a nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panther Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 On 13/01/2017 at 6:10 PM, Muloghonto said: Actually, i do wonder- what do you Pakistanis think of the great Hindu, Sanskrit-derived language speaking ancestors/inhabitants of Kabul, Gandhara, Punjab regions ? Do you guys read much about them/ know of them/care or do not care ? Like what about Ashoka, Nagabhata, Hindu-Shahis, Aparakarajas (its their name that became Afghan actually)? We don't care about them, few have read about them. Vilander 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chewy Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 6 hours ago, Vilander said: https://thewire.in/99522/pakistan-minorities-girls/ What a scum of a nation. It's a sick nation and depraved society, no wonder Pakistanis who moved abroad take this sick mentality with them, I.e one has to just look at the Pakistan men involved in a pedophile rings in UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda-esque Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 Request mods to rename this thread to "How to distort history to suit your biases". Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asim Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 10 hours ago, Vilander said: Lol coming from a pakistani. Your scum country treats minorities like dirt and you are here talking about india a secular republic yours a religious one. lol that's the Best Defence u got As Always... "secular republic" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 4 hours ago, panther said: We don't care about them, few have read about them. As a pashtun, you should atleast care a little bit about the Hepthalites & Aparacas (also known as Aparaca Rajas). its because Hepthalites (they called themselves Yeopthal, Iranians called them Abdal) + Aparacas ( Iranians called them Afarag) = Afghans. Thats called knowing your roots. Vilander 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 37 minutes ago, Asim said: lol that's the Best Defence u got As Always... "secular republic" Its ok, we know you are too scared to admit the truth because your homeland kills people who can question their beliefs. Vilander 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panther Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: As a pashtun, you should atleast care a little bit about the Hepthalites & Aparacas (also known as Aparaca Rajas). its because Hepthalites (they called themselves Yeopthal, Iranians called them Abdal) + Aparacas ( Iranians called them Afarag) = Afghans. Thats called knowing your roots. White Huns are same as hepthalites or are they different tribes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts