India recriminalizes homosexuality

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Epicurus
Don't know if this thread has been done already, but in recent times the Indian Supreme Court took a step back in time and and overruled the Delhi High Court's 5-year old verdict which decriminalized homosexuality.

Full Story:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/prerna-lal/indias-supreme-court-gay-sex_b_4425457.html

Shakyamunison
Homophobia seems to be on the rise in the world.

Astner
Ideology: Heterocentrism

System: Heterosexuality

Manifestation: Homophobia

Firefly218
Why do people care? I just don't understand.

There are so many more important issues to worry about.

Astner
Originally posted by Firefly218
Why do people care? I just don't understand.

There are so many more important issues to worry about.
In a forum where the ones in power are wrong it's dangerous to be right.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Astner
In a forum where the ones in power are wrong it's dangerous to be right.

What forum are you talking about?

dadudemon
My hope is that, one day, we can make babies completely external of a woman.

Then, a country of nothing but homosexuals could be created and all homosexuals would go there (and bis if they want). Education and social infrastructure in that country would be among the best in the, imo.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by dadudemon
My hope is that, one day, we can make babies completely external of a woman.

Then, a country of nothing but homosexuals could be created and all homosexuals would go there (and bis if they want). Education and social infrastructure in that country would be among the best in the, imo.

Would you then also want a separate nation for black people?

Firefly218
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Would you then also want a separate nation for black people?

Or highschool dropouts?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Firefly218
Or highschool dropouts?

We already have that. Its called the USA. laughing out loud jk

Firefly218
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We already have that. Its called the USA. laughing out loud jk

How dare you insult this perfect country!

2guns

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Firefly218
How dare you insult this perfect country!

2guns

Should I expect a drone soon?

Epicurus
Colossus-Big C should shift to India or China for now.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Should I expect a drone soon?

tomcat

Stealth Moose
dadudeman's homophobia is thinly veiled. The fashionably sensible Gaystapo will be around shortly to sort him out.

Also, I love that India is focusing its legislation on the epidemic of homosexuality instead of the massive gang rapes that take place there or the human rights denials of untouchables. Or the pollution of the Ganges, the rat temples, and the stampedes caused by cows allowed to run amok. India is still third world in many ways despite being a population hotspot.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Would you then also want a separate nation for black people?

There is a whole continent for that. big grin


Originally posted by Stealth Moose
dadudeman's homophobia is thinly veiled. The fashionably sensible Gaystapo will be around shortly to sort him out.

I was thinking more like a utopia where homosexuals can life freely without fear of countries like India and all the Middle Eastern countries. It was an idea about a sanctuary, not a "lepers colony."

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by dadudemon
There is a whole continent for that. big grin

Monrovia?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Monrovia?

I was thinking Africa.

Stealth Moose
Separate but equal has bad connotations, dadudeman. Also, the idea that gays can't be in society is troubling. What next? Drawn borders based on political party?

Cinemaholic
Why can't people just be with who they want to be with?

Astner
Originally posted by Cinemaholic
Why can't people just be with who they want to be with?
You're encouraging pedophilia?

Shakyamunison
edit

Cinemaholic
Originally posted by Astner
You're encouraging pedophilia? No, I mean they must be consenting adults.

NemeBro
Originally posted by Astner
You're encouraging pedophilia? With a frail boyish body like yours, pedophilia being legalized world-wide would probably be highly beneficial to your sex life Astner.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Separate but equal has bad connotations, dadudeman.

It would not be equal, at all. It would be far better.


Unless you think being able to form relationships with the people you love is equal to a death penalty or prison sentence?


Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Also, the idea that gays can't be in society is troubling.

There are millions in India and millions more in the middle east who are not "allowed" to be gay under the actual law. Pretty serious. There needs to exist a country that would take all of those people in and allow them to be part of productive group. Did you know gay men, in some cultures in India, have to get castrated?




I say we call my hypothetical country "Fabuland."

NemeBro
We could just forcibly annex India and such places and force them to live our ways of life, starting with the public executions of their leaders.

Nephthys
Originally posted by NemeBro
We could just forcibly annex India and such places and force them to live our ways of life, starting with the public executions of their leaders.

thumb up

Firefly218
Originally posted by NemeBro
We could just forcibly annex India and such places and force them to live our ways of life, starting with the public executions of their leaders.

Talk about imperialism.

Nephthys
About how there wouldn't be an India without it?

Sure, we can talk about Imperialism. awepedo

Firefly218
Originally posted by Nephthys
About how there wouldn't be an India without it?

Sure, we can talk about Imperialism. awepedo

Actually there was an India before Great Britain came along. Get your history right, then come and talk to me.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Firefly218
then come and talk to me.

About what?

Nephthys
No, we taught them how to build roads and sewers and shit like that. We were basically the cool version of the Romans, only way hotter.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Nephthys
No, we taught them how to build roads and sewers and shit like that. We were basically the cool version of the Romans, only way hotter.

The British got their ass's kicked out of India through NONVIOLENCE. More like the lame version of Romans.

BTW, Societies indigenous to the Indian sub-continent were building roads and sewers way way before Europeans.

come back later

Nephthys
No they weren't. Before us they were living in caves and eating dogs. We uplifted them with our great cultural swag.

AND we taught them the missionary position. You're ****ing welcome India.

Stealth Moose
India birthed Hinduism, one of the most repressive continuous religions in the world, and Buddhism, probably the most progressive and lenient. But the majority still favor the former and people have lived and died under it for centuries.

Also, dadudeman: why do gays need a country that's exclusive? Wouldn't they better acclimate in countries where they already have families and ties? Or should minorities be removed instead of politely integrated, like the Native Americans and Australian Aborigines?

Firefly218
Originally posted by Nephthys
No they weren't. Before us they were living in caves and eating dogs. We uplifted them with our great cultural swag.

AND we taught them the missionary position. You're ****ing welcome India.

Living in caves and eating dogs? Are you phucking stupid?

Before British imperialism, India had a rich cultural history of the worlds greatest empires. India and Han China were leaders in cultural, medical, mathematical and technological innovation.

Britain became prosperous because they accidentally found the Americas, and once they did, the British leached America for its rich raw materials and natural resources.

Shock me, say something intelligent.

dadudemon
Originally posted by NemeBro
We could just forcibly annex India and such places and force them to live our ways of life, starting with the public executions of their leaders.

I had no idea George W. Bush posted with NemeBro's account on KMC.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Also, dadudeman: why do gays need a country that's exclusive?

Why wouldn't they want to go to a place away from the legal imprisonment and murder of their kind?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Wouldn't they better acclimate in countries where they already have families and ties?

Can you enjoy your families when you're dead or in prison?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Or should minorities be removed instead of politely integrated, like the Native Americans and Australian Aborigines?

You're clearly joking, here.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Firefly218
...Shock me, say something intelligent.

thumb up laughing out loud

dadudemon
Originally posted by Firefly218
Britain became prosperous because they accidentally found the Americas, and once they did, the British leached America for its rich raw materials and natural resources.

Do you have a source for this?

Rage.Of.Olympus
Originally posted by Firefly218
Why do people care? I just don't understand.

There are so many more important issues to worry about.

Yup, it's boggling that people give THAT much of a shit over who f*cks who. Like, really? I can better understand such discrimination in some backward tribe living in some shit hole cave because they don't know any better but these are educated people and they have no excuse.

Sure, back in Middle School, me and some of my friends made fun of a kid for being Gay which was wrong but we were douche-bag kids who criticized everything. Eventually a well adjusted human being should stop being 10 years old and grow up.

Edit: In reflection, that is also an issue. Schools need to be more vigilant for such poor behavior. We definitely deserved a hard talking to for being such nasty little f*cks but I guess it speaks better of us that we realized ourselves it was inappropriate. But still, many don't and the attitude follows them into adulthood.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Yup, it's boggling that people give THAT much of a shit over who f*cks who. Like, really? I can better understand such discrimination in some backward tribe living in some shit hole cave because they don't know any better but these are educated people and they have no excuse.

Sure, back in Middle School, me and some of my friends made fun of a kid for being Gay which was wrong but we were douche-bag kids who criticized everything. Eventually a well adjusted human being should stop being 10 years old and grow up.

thumb up

The world needs more people like this

Nephthys
Originally posted by Firefly218
Living in caves and eating dogs? Are you phucking stupid?

Before British imperialism, India had a rich cultural history of the worlds greatest empires. India and Han China were leaders in cultural, medical, mathematical and technological innovation.

Britain became prosperous because they accidentally found the Americas, and once they did, the British leached America for its rich raw materials and natural resources.

Shock me, say something intelligent.

laughing

(psst: I'm joking)

Tzeentch
Using the democratic system to oppress people is the sign of a first-world country.

I approve, India. thumb up

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why wouldn't they want to go to a place away from the legal imprisonment and murder of their kind?

I'm assuming you mean that there should be an Avalon hideaway for gay people in repressive backwards countries like India, Russia, and the Southern US? Otherwise, this makes no sense. Europeans generally don't have issues with people being gay. I don't get why most first-world countries couldn't integrate gay people that already exist instead of sending them off to Fabuisland?



I shouldn't be threatened with either. But if I am, there should be pre-existing countries to flee to, worse case scenario. There should definitely not be an exclusive gay-only island that I am forced to live on because others might oppress me.



I'm hoping you're the one joking all this time. Otherwise, you are quite the self-deluded bigot.

NemeBro
I am pretty sure that dadudemon is saying that Fabuland would be a refuge for homosexuals that previously lived in oppressive countries like India, not someplace that doesn't oppress them.

NemeBro
Originally posted by dadudemon
I had no idea George W. Bush posted with NemeBro's account on KMC. George W. Bush is my greatest student.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by NemeBro
I am pretty sure that dadudemon is saying that Fabuland would be a refuge for homosexuals that previously lived in oppressive countries like India, not someplace that doesn't oppress them.

He wasn't clear on the point. I had assumed as much earlier, but he hasn't made any effort to clarify.

NemeBro
Well no, he was clear on his point, you're just stupid.

Stealth Moose
I reread it again, and you're right.

I am wrong, but ur stupid bro.

EDIT: This doesn't sound strong enough. You're right and I'm wrong.

This may be the only time. RELISH.

dadudemon
I don't know what all that other stuff was about...

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I'm assuming you mean that there should be an Avalon hideaway for gay people in repressive backwards countries like India, Russia, and the Southern US?

Sort of. I called it a "Utopia." And it wouldn't be a hideaway: it was be a sanctuary and they could be as open as they want. It's a pretendo-land where I can pretend that the military of Fabuland swoops down into oppressive countries, rescues people, and brings them to Fabuland to live freely.

Stealth Moose
Just curious, but do Atheists get one too?

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Just curious, but do Atheists get one too?

Yes, they do. Then, years later, DDM's master plan is revealed as he peppers Fabuland and Nogodland with H-bombs.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Nephthys
laughing

(psst: I'm joking)

Well gee its hard to tell when you don't leave any phuckin hints.

I despise you no

Nephthys
I said that we taught them the missionary position. no expression

Firefly218
.

Epicurus
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
India birthed Hinduism, one of the most repressive continuous religions in the world, and Buddhism, probably the most progressive and lenient. But the majority still favor the former and people have lived and died under it for centuries.

Also, dadudeman: why do gays need a country that's exclusive? Wouldn't they better acclimate in countries where they already have families and ties? Or should minorities be removed instead of politely integrated, like the Native Americans and Australian Aborigines?
Hinduism is no more repressive than any of the Abrahamic religions. You can pinpoint as much towards casteism and the (now defunct) sati movement, but truth is that most of the original vedic tenets from which modern day hinduism is derived are at a level of philosophical and intellectual sophistication which western religions would only dream of ever being.

As strange as this p.o.v of ddm's sounds, I actually agree with it. Although, this brings forth another question; would the creation of such a gay-majority state result in another Israel which is constantly at war with neighboring, bigoted nations?

Epicurus
Originally posted by Nephthys
No they weren't. Before us they were living in caves and eating dogs. We uplifted them with our great cultural swag.

Lawl.
Originally posted by Nephthys

AND we taught them the missionary position. You're ****ing welcome India.
Double Lawl.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Just curious, but do Atheists get one too?

Are they imprisoned, beaten, and murdered as much as the LGBT community, around the world?


If so, then, yeah, we should probably make preparations to save the Atheists, too.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yes, they do. Then, years later, DDM's master plan is revealed as he peppers Fabuland and Nogodland with H-bombs.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/011/548/3059_135068129530.jpg

Epicurus
^DDM: Be a good little girl and answer my question stated in the above posts.

dadudemon
No because the gays would have a real and functional gay bomb that they would not hesitate to use. Many nations will be glad to "get rid of" their LGBT population, as well.


Edit - And it should be called "The Fire Nation" because of all the flamers that live there. WEEEEE!

Astner
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Using the democratic system to oppress people is the sign of a first-world country.
http://i.imgur.com/vDyK9.jpg

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Epicurus
Hinduism is no more repressive than any of the Abrahamic religions. You can pinpoint as much towards casteism and the (now defunct) sati movement, but truth is that most of the original vedic tenets from which modern day hinduism is derived are at a level of philosophical and intellectual sophistication which western religions would only dream of ever being.

As strange as this p.o.v of ddm's sounds, I actually agree with it. Although, this brings forth another question; would the creation of such a gay-majority state result in another Israel which is constantly at war with neighboring, bigoted nations?

Eh, I'm not so sure I want to give those laurels to ancient Vedic texts. There's a great deal of subjectivity that comes into play when you just start considering the mystical esoteric blah blah that comes with some spiritual beliefs and I'm not inclined to debate one over the other at this point. Suffice to say that Buddhism has, for the most part, been a huge improvement over the pre-existing Hindu religion and in fact seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to some of the latter's worse tenets.

Also, the issue of the Dalit is what I had in mind when I considered repression. While you could argue that Abrahamic religions repress women and nonbelievers, the extent to which they do so is often limited and in many places did not stand the test of time. India, despite legal rulings to the contrary, still victimizes the Dalit. I've seen videos of small children, living and playing in filth, being forced to scrap feces out from under toilets that non-Dalit use on a daily basis.

I'm not sure an equivalent social standing exists in the Abrahamic world.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are they imprisoned, beaten, and murdered as much as the LGBT community, around the world?


If so, then, yeah, we should probably make preparations to save the Atheists, too.


As much? Perhaps not. But they are subject to death, imprisonment, or worse in some religious fundamentalist countries, and even in America are viewed with suspicion. More Americans voted to have a Muslim in the White House than an Atheist, which says a great deal.

Astner
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
More Americans voted to have a Muslim in the White House than an Atheist, which says a great deal.
No. Because Obama's religious affiliations had nothing to do with the outcome of the election.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
As much? Perhaps not. But they are subject to death, imprisonment, or worse in some religious fundamentalist countries, and even in America are viewed with suspicion.

Do you have numbers? I'm actually very interested in those numbers since I identify, primarily, as agnostic (specifically, "agnostic theist" which means I have a theistic belief system but "I really don't ***kin' know" at the end of the day).


Originally posted by Stealth Moose
More Americans voted to have a Muslim in the White House than an Atheist, which says a great deal.

lol

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Astner
No. Because Obama's religious affiliations had nothing to do with the outcome of the election.

http://www.troll.me/images/pissed-off-obama/sir-you-just-got-trolled-thumb.jpg

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you have numbers? I'm actually very interested in those numbers since I identify, primarily, as agnostic (specifically, "agnostic theist" which means I have a theistic belief system but "I really don't ***kin' know" at the end of the day).

I had a good one in particular, but it's saved at home and I'm stuck at work.

Here's one I found through Google that wasn't an atheist or Christian blog.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Here's one I found through Google that wasn't an atheist or Christian blog.


That did not address my question at all. I'm looking for imprisonment and murder numbers, brah.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by dadudemon
That did not address my question at all. I'm looking for imprisonment and murder numbers, brah.

I thought the trust issue was what you most took issue with. Now it seems I must defend the idea that atheists are equally or more persecuted than gays, which was not my intended argument.

In any case, This is more about the views of Atheism worldwide, legal or otherwise. The point I was making is that Atheists are also a persecuted and mistrusted group, like homosexuals, and since you were handing out fantasy islands I figure you'd oblige. I didn't realize you had to provide proof of death to get in.

To quote:

The IHEU - which links over 120 humanist, atheist and secular organizations in more than 40 countries - said it was issuing the report to mark the U.N.'s Human Rights Day on Monday.

According to its survey of some 60 countries, the seven where expression of atheist views or defection from the official religion can bring capital punishment are Afghanistan, Iran, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Sudan.

--

In a range of other countries - such as Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Kuwait and Jordan - publication of atheist or humanist views on religion are totally banned or strictly limited under laws prohibiting "blasphemy".

In many of these countries, and others like Malaysia, citizens have to register as adherents of a small number officially-recognized religions -- which normally include no more than Christianity and Judaism as well as Islam.

Atheists and humanists are thereby forced to lie to obtain their official documents without which it is impossible to go to university, receive medical treatment, travel abroad or drive.

--

In at least seven U.S. states, constitutional provisions are in place that bar atheists from public office and one state, Arkansas, has a law that bars an atheist from testifying as a witness at a trial, the report said.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I thought the trust issue was what you most took issue with. Now it seems I must defend the idea that atheists are equally or more persecuted than gays, which was not my intended argument.

In any case, This is more about the views of Atheism worldwide, legal or otherwise. The point I was making is that Atheists are also a persecuted and mistrusted group, like homosexuals, and since you were handing out fantasy islands I figure you'd oblige. I didn't realize you had to provide proof of death to get in.

To quote:

The IHEU - which links over 120 humanist, atheist and secular organizations in more than 40 countries - said it was issuing the report to mark the U.N.'s Human Rights Day on Monday.

According to its survey of some 60 countries, the seven where expression of atheist views or defection from the official religion can bring capital punishment are Afghanistan, Iran, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Sudan.

--

In a range of other countries - such as Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Kuwait and Jordan - publication of atheist or humanist views on religion are totally banned or strictly limited under laws prohibiting "blasphemy".

In many of these countries, and others like Malaysia, citizens have to register as adherents of a small number officially-recognized religions -- which normally include no more than Christianity and Judaism as well as Islam.

Atheists and humanists are thereby forced to lie to obtain their official documents without which it is impossible to go to university, receive medical treatment, travel abroad or drive.

--

In at least seven U.S. states, constitutional provisions are in place that bar atheists from public office and one state, Arkansas, has a law that bars an atheist from testifying as a witness at a trial, the report said.

Thank you, that's much better.


However, it does not give me any numbers. Those could be benign laws (like the US Laws which are unconstitutional and not enforced).

Epicurus
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Eh, I'm not so sure I want to give those laurels to ancient Vedic texts. There's a great deal of subjectivity that comes into play when you just start considering the mystical esoteric blah blah that comes with some spiritual beliefs and I'm not inclined to debate one over the other at this point. Suffice to say that Buddhism has, for the most part, been a huge improvement over the pre-existing Hindu religion and in fact seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to some of the latter's worse tenets.

Also, the issue of the Dalit is what I had in mind when I considered repression. While you could argue that Abrahamic religions repress women and nonbelievers, the extent to which they do so is often limited and in many places did not stand the test of time. India, despite legal rulings to the contrary, still victimizes the Dalit. I've seen videos of small children, living and playing in filth, being forced to scrap feces out from under toilets that non-Dalit use on a daily basis.

I'm not sure an equivalent social standing exists in the Abrahamic world.
I am not talking about mytical, esoteric beliefs as much as I am referring to the philosophical and intellectual sophistry which was pioneered by ancient Vedas. Same could be said of Jainism, but upon closer inspection, one realizes that these are pretty much the same brand of spiritual line of thinking as Hinduism, without all of its negatives(idol-worship, casteism, the now defunct sati etc).

That is largely relegated to rural areas, or the underdeveloped regions of urban settlements. The government has been systematically developing policies across the decades aimed at the upliftment of Dalits. Lawl at women's repression being limited in Abrahamic countries as compared to Dailts treatment in India. At least India itself has actively made an effort to improve the lives of these minorities, as opposed to countries like Afghanistan And Saudi Arabia which still live in a 14th century time freeze as far as women and religious minorities go. Lol, children from both Dalit and non-Dalit background live in filthy conditions in India and are often the victim of child labor. That's not a specific issue of casteism which can be blamed squarely on religion, that's a more generic social problem which third world countries in South Asia and Africa seem to suffer from in general.

There are far too many examples in far too many muslim-majority states, that I am surprised you would even make such a statement.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Epicurus
I am not talking about mytical, esoteric beliefs as much as I am referring to the philosophical and intellectual sophistry which was pioneered by ancient Vedas. Same could be said of Jainism, but upon closer inspection, one realizes that these are pretty much the same brand of spiritual line of thinking as Hinduism, without all of its negatives(idol-worship, casteism, the now defunct sati etc).

So I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I noted that Hinduism is pretty repressive and backwards, and that Buddhism, by comparison, wasn't. If you want to say "Hinduism in its pure state, without all the bad stuff, is good", then well... awesome for you. That wasn't relevant to my point and is kind of leading into a debate I don't care to entertain. My statement was general, and my desire to fight for it is simply not there.



Most of India is rural, and Dalits account for almost 18% of its population. While I'm sure in the cities they don't all have to chip shit away from under latrines, the point was the exposure I had to their plight was as bad as I've ever seen it. And I called it like I saw it.



It is. Unless you're considering "Abrahamic countries" to include only fundamentalist strongholds, in which case, awesome for you again. Abrahamic religions are the foundation for Western civilization, yet most Western countries are not forcing women to live as they did two thousand years ago. If you want to refine your intent as "the Middle-East", then okay. I agree that the Middle-East is backwards in time. This doesn't preclude India having tons of social issues.



Specifically, they've made it illegal to discriminate (although the level of its effectiveness is debatable) and they have made it a priority in urban areas to get Dalits jobs. Whup dee ****ing do. I don't see how this makes those with 'jobs' of scrapping shit any less repressed. Education is also a huge issue for these people, and many of them are forced to live in rural areas because their ancestors were 'unclean'.



Right, but the situation I referred to was specifically because they were Untouchables. It had nothing to do with their status as simply 'dirt poor'. Even though it is largely illegal to do so, in rural communities they still suffer because of old superstitions and so on. Which was my point.



Originally posted by Stealth Moose
India birthed Hinduism, one of the most repressive continuous religions in the world, and Buddhism, probably the most progressive and lenient. But the majority still favor the former and people have lived and died under it for centuries.


Emphasis mine.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I've seen videos of small children, living and playing in filth, being forced to scrap feces out from under toilets that non-Dalit use on a daily basis.

I'm not sure an equivalent social standing exists in the Abrahamic world.


Again, emphasis mine.

Before you go strawmanning and pretending like I said Hinduism was far far worse than Abrahamic religions and so on, reference what I said. Specifically, that Hinduism is ONE of the most repressive religions in the world and that if a social status equivalent to the shit scrappers that I referenced existed, I didn't know about it. This wasn't something they did for fun; they were forced to do it per their social status. If you are so certain that one exists in Muslim words, by all means, educate me. I'm not stating it can't exist, so your surprise is rather unwarranted.

wilco
My niece is a Lesbian and a Police officer. In Australia, I'm not fond of Indian Taxi (cab) drivers.

They will scam you, if you're not drunk or mainly Male...you're alright. Young ladies get scammed all the time. One of my nieces, was drunk at a nightclub and her friends put her into a cab.......it was $80!!! Usually, would have been $45, though she went to sleep.

My brother payed it. They're scammers...plain and simple. There's not much money in India, but, they get visa's here for 1-2 years while being a cab driver. So, they get at much money before the visa runs out.

roughrider
Liberal types have been beating on Russia for a couple of years now, for the perceived persucution of Gays. But I don't hear them speaking up about the kooky cuddly bear country of tandoori and funny accents, India. stick out tongue

Epicurus
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
So I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I noted that Hinduism is pretty repressive and backwards, and that Buddhism, by comparison, wasn't. If you want to say "Hinduism in its pure state, without all the bad stuff, is good", then well... awesome for you. That wasn't relevant to my point and is kind of leading into a debate I don't care to entertain. My statement was general, and my desire to fight for it is simply not there.

Most of India is rural, and Dalits account for almost 18% of its population. While I'm sure in the cities they don't all have to chip shit away from under latrines, the point was the exposure I had to their plight was as bad as I've ever seen it. And I called it like I saw it.

It is. Unless you're considering "Abrahamic countries" to include only fundamentalist strongholds, in which case, awesome for you again. Abrahamic religions are the foundation for Western civilization, yet most Western countries are not forcing women to live as they did two thousand years ago. If you want to refine your intent as "the Middle-East", then okay. I agree that the Middle-East is backwards in time. This doesn't preclude India having tons of social issues.

Specifically, they've made it illegal to discriminate (although the level of its effectiveness is debatable) and they have made it a priority in urban areas to get Dalits jobs. Whup dee ****ing do. I don't see how this makes those with 'jobs' of scrapping shit any less repressed. Education is also a huge issue for these people, and many of them are forced to live in rural areas because their ancestors were 'unclean'.

Right, but the situation I referred to was specifically because they were Untouchables. It had nothing to do with their status as simply 'dirt poor'. Even though it is largely illegal to do so, in rural communities they still suffer because of old superstitions and so on. Which was my point.

Emphasis mine.

Again, emphasis mine.

Before you go strawmanning and pretending like I said Hinduism was far far worse than Abrahamic religions and so on, reference what I said. Specifically, that Hinduism is ONE of the most repressive religions in the world and that if a social status equivalent to the shit scrappers that I referenced existed, I didn't know about it. This wasn't something they did for fun; they were forced to do it per their social status. If you are so certain that one exists in Muslim words, by all means, educate me. I'm not stating it can't exist, so your surprise is rather unwarranted.
I am pointing out that claiming that Hinduism is a repressive religion in a world which is dominated by repressive religions, is redundant to say the least. I am also pointing out that Buddhism(and Jainism by extension) is pretty much the same religion as Hinduism when one doesn't take into account the bad stuff which is overemphasized in modern-day media.

It is bad, but let's not go ahead and claim that the treatment meted out to women and and minority religions under most states that aren't treated as bad. Plus, big as India's rural portion of the population might be, it is rapidly shrinking, and by this decade the country would likely be a mostly urban state.

Islam is an Abrahamic religion and a pretty major one seeing how more than a fifth of the world population is muslim andhow the muslim population of the world is rapidly increasing to the point where it will overtake Christianity within a few decades. So yes, when I claim the bad treatment meted out to women and minority religions, I largely(or loosely, depending on the way you want to interpret it) refer to Islamic countries. Though there are some cases of blatant misogyny and sexism in the more backward parts of Israel which I can cite, that would put the much criticized Khap movement in India to shame.

Where exactly is your proof that these jobs are largely relegated to "scrapping shit"? On a sidenote, I was unaware that over 20% reservation of seats in the IITs, or reservation in Parliament, or quotas provided via government schemes in various decent jobs somehow equated to "scrapping shit". Honest to god question; are your claims based on a select few examples like wiki or random articles/stories the BBC(or some other international news agency, the sources of which can arguably be accused of publication bias) has covered?

Again, a big lawl at education being a huge problem for them, and thanks for stating the obvious; that their caste is relegated to the Untouchable status. I am guessing your education claim is based on some random article where overdramatic sympathizers point out how these people aren't allowed to study the Vedas in a local rural community or allowed to become priests in temples. To quote a buddy of mine,"whup dee ****ing do"!

Did you even properly interpret what that statement of mine meant? These are my words; "There are far too many examples in far too many muslim-majority states, that I am surprised you would even make such a statement". Which were directly penned down in response to your ( somewhat ridiculous imo) claim that "I'm not sure an equivalent social standing exists in the Abrahamic world". What does emphasizing a point which has nothing to do with what I am addressing here got to do anything...with anything?

Again, read above para.

I know exactly what you said, but nice way to deflect from the argument and accuse me of strawmanning(pot, is that you screaming the word "black"wink, despite going off on non-sequiters, and missing the point that I try to make when addressing you in the previous post.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Epicurus
... I am also pointing out that Buddhism(and Jainism by extension) is pretty much the same religion as Hinduism when one doesn't take into account the bad stuff which is overemphasized in modern-day media...

BS! That is like saying that Judaism and Christianity are "pretty much the same religion". Just wrong.

Robtard
India is a crappy country that has an extremely long history of oppressing its people /fact

Can't wait until the gay bashing right wingers in the US start applauding India for being "progressive".

Edit: food's pretty good, so they still have that

Firefly218
Originally posted by Robtard
India is a crappy country that has an extremely long history of oppressing its people /fact


That's just wrong. Caste system and hinduism are mutually exclusive.

But it is nice to see racism still runs rampant thumb up

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Epicurus
I am pointing out that claiming that Hinduism is a repressive religion in a world which is dominated by repressive religions, is redundant to say the least.

Noted. But irrelevant from my POV, since the topic discusses India, and it's social problems. I had compared Hinduism and Buddhism, with the former being on the far repressive side of the scale. Both religions originated from the same country, and yet one is not like the others. I was calling attention to the fact. You chose to make it a crusade of whether or not Hinduism is 'just another repressive religion' or some such and to be quite frank, I'm uninterested in fighting this trivial point with you. If you want to pretend like you've 'won' and gain XP, by all means.



This is simply not true.



Specify if this is your stance.



Perhaps. But I'm not speculating on urban development; I made a judgment call based on things I had seen as of recently.



Then enlighten us. You appear to have your thumb on the truth. Bring it to the table.



This was never my argument. I referenced a specific example, and used it as a direct comparison, saying I was not aware of a similarl status quo elsewhere.

In your zeal to white knight Hinduism, you committed a:

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/strawman2.jpg



http://loveforlife.com.au/files/strawman2.jpg

Read slower. It might help you.



Actually, on a few documentaries on the ills of Hinduism that I watched perhaps two years ago. Not a news article.



Which is part of the problem of the Dalit; especially in rural areas, they can't aspire to something better because they don't have the opportunities. This problem isn't exclusive to the Dalit, but it affects how they are treated and it shapes the prejudices of the equally ignorant surrounding them, who still cling to their traditions. There's a correlation between availability of education and the ability to shape your country.



http://loveforlife.com.au/files/strawman2.jpg

LOLNOPE. Arguing against tone much?



It's pretty simple, but I'll use small words this time:

I didn't know of a similar situation in the Abrahamic world to the poor children forced to clean latrines in rural India because they were Untouchables

I even asked you if you had some examples to educate me. Way to avoid that responsibility and continue to argue as if you're an authority with generalizations to counter my general statement.



Actually, you need to tighten up your reading skills here. At no point did I make exclusive or absolute statements comparing Hinduism to Abrahamic religions; this was your interpretation of what you thought I said, and I attempted to clear this up by reminding you of the openness of my words. "ONE of the most repressive religions" is not the same as "THE worst religion ever, etc.". Furthermore, I said in a nutshell I could not think of a comparative social status. I did NOT say "A comparative social status DOES NOT EXIST."

So your argument, which you have derived from misreading my words or assuming my intent without asking for clarification (RE: "Is this your argument, sir?"wink lead to a whole lot of strawmanning and hot air over nothing.

Originally posted by Firefly218
That's just wrong. Caste system and hinduism are mutually exclusive.

But it is nice to see racism still runs rampant thumb up

While the caste system is not Hinduism per se, it is based on Vedic texts, even in its 'modern' form. So they are not 'mutually exclusive'; they are interrelated concepts as they have been for hundreds of years, and pretty much indistinguishable to most outsiders. While I concede that non-Hindus in India have caste systems in place, they did not originate these systems and they came from Hindu traditions in place before these religions became popular in the region.

Here's some documents on recent crimes tied to the system, despite its illegal status. To further my point, the caste system is a bad thing, and it still exists in the minds of the people, if not 'legal' on paper. This is similar to why racially motivated hate crimes still exist in America, even though they are illegal. Legislation does not render motives and history obsolete.

dadudemon
I swear upon my last icrecream sandwich in my freezer, Stealth Moose is not my sock account.

no expression

NemeBro
Obviously.

He is far more handsome.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by dadudemon
I swear upon my last icrecream sandwich in my freezer, Stealth Moose is not my sock account.

no expression

WOW! That's big time. But why are you two never in the same... never mind.

Stealth Moose
I'm clearly Nemebro. Why else would Ihe compliment me so?

Epicurus
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Noted. But irrelevant from my POV, since the topic discusses India, and it's social problems. I had compared Hinduism and Buddhism, with the former being on the far repressive side of the scale. Both religions originated from the same country, and yet one is not like the others. I was calling attention to the fact. You chose to make it a crusade of whether or not Hinduism is 'just another repressive religion' or some such and to be quite frank, I'm uninterested in fighting this trivial point with you. If you want to pretend like you've 'won' and gain XP, by all means.

Nope, the topic discusses the dickish move on the part of India's Supreme Court, and the discrimination faced by homosexuals in countries like India in general. You talking about how repressive the Hindu religion is, and then trying to claim that no minority in Abrahamic religions faces that type of conversation is derailing/going off-topic.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

This is simply not true.

It's a subjective opinion. In response to another poster on the previous page, I'd say that I regard even Judaism, Christianity and(to a slightly lesser extent) Islam in a similar manner as I do buddhism/jainism in retrospect to Hinduism.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Specify if this is your stance.

It's your stance. I am merely pointing out the hilarious double standard of your pretending that the treatment meted out to Dalits in India is somehow worse than what women suffer in states where majority are of an Abrahamic faith.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Perhaps. But I'm not speculating on urban development; I made a judgment call based on things I had seen as of recently.

There is no perhaps here. All the hard data points out to the growing migration of people from rural to urban settlements. This much is not up for debate.

You make judgement calls based off anecdotal evidence?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Then enlighten us. You appear to have your thumb on the truth. Bring it to the table.

http://goo.gl/xln9G4
http://goo.gl/fwqu96

Google is everybody's friend. smile

You of all people should know that, considering the amount of anecdotal evidence(which is clearly not subject to publication bias) you rely upon to "validate" your points.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

This was never my argument. I referenced a specific example, and used it as a direct comparison, saying I was not aware of a similarl status quo elsewhere.

In your zeal to white knight Hinduism, you committed a:

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/strawman2.jpg

Your words, letter for letter were; " I don't see how this makes those with 'jobs' of scrapping shit any less repressed"

But nice attempt to once again deny your own words and deflect from your own point.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/strawman2.jpg

Read slower. It might help you.

I did. I re-read it. Neither of which magically changed its meaning from what it was clearly intended to be; that you think that the Indian Government's efforts are largely directed at uplifting Dalits by providing them with glorified toiler washer careers.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Actually, on a few documentaries on the ills of Hinduism that I watched perhaps two years ago. Not a news article.

On BBC or National Geographic?
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Which is part of the problem of the Dalit; especially in rural areas, they can't aspire to something better because they don't have the opportunities. This problem isn't exclusive to the Dalit, but it affects how they are treated and it shapes the prejudices of the equally ignorant surrounding them, who still cling to their traditions. There's a correlation between availability of education and the ability to shape your country.

That's a millennia old problem though, and it was far worse during older times. Things are changing and gradually improving in the modern century, and seeing how a Dalit woman(Mayawati) is currently a state Chief Minister, and has even been considered as a likely future Prime Ministerial candidate, it is far from as bad as you make it out to be.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/strawman2.jpg

LOLNOPE. Arguing against tone much?

Your piss-poor attempts at trollish humor by spamming this image over and over again hasn't fazed me in the least bit. I am somewhat intrigued though, tell me; what does this scarecrow signify?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

It's pretty simple, but I'll use small words this time:

I didn't know of a similar situation in the Abrahamic world to the poor children forced to clean latrines in rural India because they were Untouchables

I even asked you if you had some examples to educate me. Way to avoid that responsibility and continue to argue as if you're an authority with generalizations to counter my general statement.

How about poor children being forced to become child soldiers? Or suicide bombers?

I already did, and in case you hadn't been partaking in non-sequiters, continuous deflection, and strawmanning, you might have noticed. Although I am willing to wager you already know much of what I know, but simply for the sake of this argument you choose to ignore that evidence, simply to vindicate your misplaced idea that Hinduism is the stuff of evulz.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Actually, you need to tighten up your reading skills here. At no point did I make exclusive or absolute statements comparing Hinduism to Abrahamic religions; this was your interpretation of what you thought I said, and I attempted to clear this up by reminding you of the openness of my words. "ONE of the most repressive religions" is not the same as "THE worst religion ever, etc.". Furthermore, I said in a nutshell I could not think of a comparative social status. I did NOT say "A comparative social status DOES NOT EXIST."

So your argument, which you have derived from misreading my words or assuming my intent without asking for clarification (RE: "Is this your argument, sir?"wink lead to a whole lot of strawmanning and hot air over nothing.

Nah, my reading skills are just fine. Though I do call into question your debating tactics of flip-flopping from claiming one thing and then one post later saying you didn't say it. Maybe I am being too harsh, and you have some short term memory loss problem, but who am I to judge? I already pointed out that I believe that calling Hinduism as one of the most repressive religions in a world dominated by repressive religions is something I have issue with, not that I mindlessly assumed you were proclaiming it as the Devil's worship.

Lawl, again with the projection of strawmanning on me, when, between the 2 of us, we both know who's actually strawmanning here. thumb up

Supra
Originally posted by dadudemon
I swear upon my last icrecream sandwich in my freezer, Stealth Moose is not my sock account.

no expression

He has a few I have them all on ignore. The life of a sock troll. Just hit the ignore button.

NemeBro
lol

Stealth Moose
Wow, Epicurus, I have to give you credit for re-strawmanning. That takes some serious forum-blinders. But hey, I'll honor you with a line-by-line rebuttal tomorrow. Maybe you can reread my posts and tell me again where I said the Dalit were 'more repressed than woman in Muslim countries".

It should be right between Jimmy Hoffa and a unicorn. Kudos to your long and tiresome effort of doing a line-by-line and then completely ignoring what I've been saying in plain English. At least when I was wrong about dadudeman's post, I admitted it. You're just stubbornly reasserting something I didn't say, reaching for victory.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/421/458/6ca.gif

Epicurus
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Wow, Epicurus, I have to give you credit for re-strawmanning. That takes some serious forum-blinders. But hey, I'll honor you with a line-by-line rebuttal tomorrow. Maybe you can reread my posts and tell me again where I said the Dalit were 'more repressed than woman in Muslim countries".
What is it with you and projecting? Btw, you can't even remember what you said a page ago, so keep the honors to yourself:
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
While you could argue that Abrahamic religions repress women and nonbelievers, the extent to which they do so is often limited and in many places did not stand the test of time. India, despite legal rulings to the contrary, still victimizes the Dalit. I've seen videos of small children, living and playing in filth, being forced to scrap feces out from under toilets that non-Dalit use on a daily basis.

I'm not sure an equivalent social standing exists in the Abrahamic world.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
It should be right between Jimmy Hoffa and a unicorn. Kudos to your long and tiresome effort of doing a line-by-line and then completely ignoring what I've been saying in plain English. At least when I was wrong about dadudeman's post, I admitted it. You're just stubbornly reasserting something I didn't say, reaching for victory.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/421/458/6ca.gif
Between repeated derailing of the thread with childish gifs/memes and projection of your enormous e-butthurt onto me, there is literally no way I can't see this as a blatant concession. smile

Bardock42
You two go well together. Moar plz!

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Epicurus
What is it with you and projecting? Btw, you can't even remember what you said a page ago, so keep the honors to yourself:


Between repeated derailing of the thread with childish gifs/memes and projection of your enormous e-butthurt onto me, there is literally no way I can't see this as a blatant concession. smile

What is it with you and not reading? Let's go over this again:

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
India birthed Hinduism, ONE of the most repressive continuous religions in the world, and Buddhism, probably the most progressive and lenient. But the majority still favor the former and people have lived and died under it for centuries.

Initial statement basically says: India spawned two religions, one of which is one of the most repressive continuous religions in the world, and the majority still favor it.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Hinduism is no more repressive than any of the Abrahamic religions. You can pinpoint as much towards casteism and the (now defunct) sati movement, but truth is that most of the original vedic tenets from which modern day hinduism is derived are at a level of philosophical and intellectual sophistication which western religions would only dream of ever being.


Your reply states this: Hindu is no more repressive than any of the Abrahamic religions. You downplay the bad parts and talk up the 'philosophical good parts'.

Underlying assumption here: You think Hinduism is being unjustly reviewed and consider it to have more merit because it has good parts if you just totally ignore the bad parts which are the whole reason it's a repressive religion.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Eh, I'm not so sure I want to give those laurels to ancient Vedic texts. There's a great deal of subjectivity that comes into play when you just start considering the mystical esoteric blah blah that comes with some spiritual beliefs and I'm not inclined to debate one over the other at this point. Suffice to say that Buddhism has, for the most part, been a huge improvement over the pre-existing Hindu religion and in fact seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to some of the latter's worse tenets.

I reiterate my point regarding contrasting Hinduism and Buddhism. I make it rather clear that I'm not inclined to debate subjective merits of Hinduism when it comes to its 'philosophical strengths', because my statement is reflective of the whole of Hinduism. To make this more relevant, you find it okay to characterize Islam by its worst offenses, but when Hinduism comes under the microscope, you attempt to dismiss or downplay its faults.



^ This statement is key to the largest misunderstanding between us. Either through careless words or tone, you've come to the conclusion that I have stated "The plight of the Dalit is worse than women in Muslim countries". The problem with this manyfold:

1. Abrahamic religions comprise of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other related sects. It is a large group of people, and the majority of those people do not oppress on the same scale or level as what I had seen of the Untouchables.

2. I noted you could argue for Abrahamic oppression, but I noted that I 'wasn't sure an equivalent social standing exists in the Abrahamic world'. This is DIRECT CONTRAST to my previous statement of "I've seen videos of small children, living and playing in filth, being forced to scrap feces out from under toilets that non-Dalit use on a daily basis." To reaffirm yet again, at no point did I make an absolute argument. I left room open for debate.

3. If you really intended to argue that women in Muslim countries (which is not the whole of Abrahamic religious bodies) suffer worse than children living and working with latrines, by all means... make your case. I never argued absolutely to the contrary and your insistence that I did just reaffirms your need to be heard and "E-WIN DEM FIGHTS", both of which are adorable adult behaviors.

In your attempt to secure e-dignitas and pretend to be a powerhouse intellectual, you just come off as a boor who thinks he is awesome because he strawmans and goes 'lawl' when people say things he doesn't quite agree with.

But your amusement is cheap and therefore I encourage you to continue. You might even learn a few things.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/365/220/658.jpg

Robtard
Originally posted by Firefly218
That's just wrong. Caste system and hinduism are mutually exclusive.

But it is nice to see racism still runs rampant thumb up

I did not mention Hinduism. I did not mention race.

I just bent over and assraped your strawman with those two facts smile

Epicurus
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
What is it with you and not reading? Let's go over this again:



Initial statement basically says: India spawned two religions, one of which is one of the most repressive continuous religions in the world, and the majority still favor it.

Oh, I perfectly understood what you were saying several posts ago. It's you who has a problem even remembering what you say a few posts back.

Not to mention that this statement that India spawned two statements is partially incorrect; India actually birthed at least 4 major religions that I know of(Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism), and a shit ton of other religions which are no longer practiced today, like Din-e-Ilahi.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Your reply states this: Hindu is no more repressive than any of the Abrahamic religions. You downplay the bad parts and talk up the 'philosophical good parts'.

Underlying assumption here: You think Hinduism is being unjustly reviewed and consider it to have more merit because it has good parts if you just totally ignore the bad parts which are the whole reason it's a repressive religion.

Which is absolutely correct. Saying that Hinduism is no more repressive than the major Abrahamic faiths of the world isn't a biased statement which somehow downplays all of Hinduism's negatives. Is the English language so hard for you to grasp?

Nope, I told you before and I'll say it again; I don't consider your claims regarding the Hindu religion as some disingenuous falsehoods or that you're representing a biased review. I clearly mentioned that I find it totally redundant to bring up religion in a thread which discusses the parochial and backward approach of the Indian judicial system, and then go on to claim that it is among the most repressive religions in a world dominated (by and large) by repressive religions.

Get it now?
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

I reiterate my point regarding contrasting Hinduism and Buddhism. I make it rather clear that I'm not inclined to debate subjective merits of Hinduism when it comes to its 'philosophical strengths', because my statement is reflective of the whole of Hinduism. To make this more relevant, you find it okay to characterize Islam by its worst offenses, but when Hinduism comes under the microscope, you attempt to dismiss or downplay its faults.

Nope, I don't. Though there is indeed a sharp contrast between the 2, as Islam has historically been defined by the offenses that it committed against non-muslims, while Hinduism, for all its lows, does have a rich cultural history of being the heart of a society that was at the forefront of its time in terms of maths, astronomy, philosophy, trade, commerce etc. Instead of having to leech off such traits from well-established, and more culturally well-refined civilizations like Islam did during most of the early periods of its expansion.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

^ This statement is key to the largest misunderstanding between us. Either through careless words or tone, you've come to the conclusion that I have stated "The plight of the Dalit is worse than women in Muslim countries". The problem with this manyfold:

1. Abrahamic religions comprise of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other related sects. It is a large group of people, and the majority of those people do not oppress on the same scale or level as what I had seen of the Untouchables.

2. I noted you could argue for Abrahamic oppression, but I noted that I 'wasn't sure an equivalent social standing exists in the Abrahamic world'. This is DIRECT CONTRAST to my previous statement of "I've seen videos of small children, living and playing in filth, being forced to scrap feces out from under toilets that non-Dalit use on a daily basis." To reaffirm yet again, at no point did I make an absolute argument. I left room open for debate.

3. If you really intended to argue that women in Muslim countries (which is not the whole of Abrahamic religious bodies) suffer worse than children living and working with latrines, by all means... make your case. I never argued absolutely to the contrary and your insistence that I did just reaffirms your need to be heard and "E-WIN DEM FIGHTS", both of which are adorable adult behaviors.

In your attempt to secure e-dignitas and pretend to be a powerhouse intellectual, you just come off as a boor who thinks he is awesome because he strawmans and goes 'lawl' when people say things he doesn't quite agree with.

But your amusement is cheap and therefore I encourage you to continue. You might even learn a few things.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/365/220/658.jpg
There is no misunderstanding at all, just you trying to twist your words when backed into a corner after I pointed out how you claimed that Dalits are treated worse than women in muslim countries.

1. I know that, and currently muslims comprise the largest single religion in terms of the number of people which adhere to it. All the current stats show that before 2050 is over, they'll surpass Christianity as the largest religion in the world. Not to mention that majority of the Christian population of the world doesn't reside in the West, which is where track record for human rights is the best both on paper and in real life.

2. Yes, which is exactly what I have issue. The fact that you think there is even room for debate as far as the Abrahamic oppression of women is considered, is downright horrendous, and a case of blatantly ignoring a real-life fact, which is all too well-documented for any "room for debate" to be left open. Relying on anecdotal evidence(which you're yet to cite properly) to claim how horrid the plight of the Indian Dalit is, and not even knowing for sure whether those are actual Dalit children, or just some random poor kids(hint; India has one of the largest population of children that are stricken with poverty, and a pretty bad track record when it comes to child labor), all the while claiming that there can be "room for debate" when discussing Abrahamic oppression, clearly reeks of bias.

3. I can argue the same for women in third-world, Christian majority nations. Like some African nations, where things like child labor, women's oppression, communal disharmony etc. are every bit as bad as in India or any of the various Middle-Eastern states. Try having acid thrown in your face just for going to school, or honor killings, being subjected to medieval era punishment for being a rape victim, or apartheid-lite sex segregation. And the truly scary part is, all that is just the tip of the iceberg.

I think you should change your username to KingofProjection, seeing how every one of those things is what you're been doing ever since our little spat started on this thread.

For some reason, I can't view this latest image that you spammed. For curiosity's sake, tell me, what does it showcase?

Stealth Moose

Stealth Moose
http://i.myniceprofile.com/1458/145855.gif

That one is animated at least, but the Joseph Gordan-Leavitt one was priceless.

Epicurus
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
snip:{for post length reasons}
Wow. Talk about penning down heinously obvious red herrings.

All these cherry-picked examples of how Dalits, minorities and women are treated awfully in India notwithstanding(and most of these aren't even half as bad as the stuff which goes in parts of Africa and the Middle East, not to mention that similar treatment is meted out to women in the more undeveloped parts of Israel as well), tell me again what's so relevant about all this? Especially when I never, not once denied that the group known as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is still subject to discrimination despite the legislature officiating fully functional laws, or the Parliament passing numerous Bills etc.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Let's cover what you said again:
So let me make sure I understand you entirely..

1. You are championing Hinduism because of its achievements in antiquity, which are unrelated to the moral benefit it has on the present. Also, Islam introduced a lot of concepts to the West and had achievements in poetry, mathematics, the compass, the very concept of chivalry, etc. Then I could go on about Christian this and Jewish that, but it's besides the point. What you accomplish as a religious body does not in any way negate repressive traditions, end of.

2. You are further strawmanning that I am dead-set on defending this position of "Dalit have it worse than Muslim women", which is still as false now as it was last time I pointed it out, and the time before. I said I couldn't think of a similar situation to the one I specifically mentioned, and left it entirely open. But you know, it would hurt your e-dignitas to admit as much. Also, I love the CYA approach of 'all too well-documented for any "room for debate" to be left open'. This is utterly adorable, when you consider that at no point did I make this absolute statement you are implying.

3. You are attempting to say that Hinduism is on equal footing with repressive religious communites around the world, but then you accuse me of bias because I singled out Hinduisms flaws in a thread about... India?

4. Ultimately, what is your point, is what I am asking. I mean, I heard you twice on the "redundancy" of calling Hinduism repressive. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but that's precisely what I think of the religion, and that's why I said it. Then you say I am projecting and misleading and twisting etc. etc. but when I made a general observation, and then left the floor open, you chose not to accept the burden of proof for your counter views. Instead, your views are seemingly evident and mind are flawed, horrendous, depraved, what-have-you, and then you must attack my person.

Bottom line is, you took an argumentative, aggressive posture, and then you didn't deliver. You just focused on me instead of what I was saying, and you let it derail the thread (even accusing me of such) and you refuse to back down.

Keep reaching, bro.
You clearly don't. Because pointing out that claiming how Hinduism is one of the most repressive religions in a world dominated by repressive is redundant, or explaining how treatment meted out to females in Abrahamic religion majority states is in many cases worse than the Dalit conditions in India somehow equates to championing Hinduism.

1. As pointed out before to you, and as you so colorfully ignored said point, Islam's so called "contributions" to the West is such a hilariously false statement, that I don't know whether to laugh at your or pity you. Islam's "contributions" are a result of it leeching stuff from the better cultures that it plundered during the early phase of its conquest and expansion. I am willing to bet that you already knew this, yet you make this retarded claim simply for the sake of arguing with me. Yes, in modern times people from Judeo-Christian background have certainly surpassed the achievements of prehistoric Vedic intellectuals, though it is certainly not to such a large extent that scientists of Indian background become a footnote compared to them, as is evidenced by the modern day examples of C.V Raman, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Homi Bhabha etc.

2. You made that claim and have so far flip-flopped from first denying altogether that those were your words, then reiterating it like a bumbling moron.

3. Oh how generous of you to notice that this is a thread about India. Now I can only hope that you make some further progress by noticing the fact that the topic of this thread is the parochial attitude of the Indian judiciary regarding the rights of the LGBT brigade, instead of it being about how repressive and awful the Hindu religion is towards the minority Dalits of the nation. I should know, after all I created this thread. smile

4. I could ask the same of you. Because proclaiming the Hindu religion as one of the modern evils that plague Indian society(and I am not arguing here that such isn't the case) isn't at all related to the dickish move that Indian Supreme Court pulled off recently by repealing the law which granted non-heterosexual people the same rights as straight folk. Oh please, don't flatter yourself by claiming that negative criticism of religion hurts my feelings. I am one of the first people who will slap down your ugly mug and tell you what a blatant lie you're stating if you try to argue that religion hasn't brought far more ills upon humanity than it has any actual, long-term benefits. With that being said, I do find your argument with respect to Hinduism as fairly nonsensical, disingenuous and off-topic.

So thoroughly deconstructing each and every one of your claims on a point-by-point basis such that you're reduced to projecting, red herrings, image-spamming the thread and flip-flopping from post to post, is equitable to "not delivering"? Then fine, I didn't deliver. Happy?

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Epicurus
Wow. Talk about penning down heinously obvious red herrings.

Well, since you seemed to be talking about the all progressive changes India was making on behalf of the scheduled castes and comparing it strongly with evil Muslim strongholds (which was never my intent or my expressed point) and then fellating their ancient traditions and the stuff they didn't 'leech' from other cultures (because we should always fellate cultures that develop things in isolation, regardless of how they treat their own people, lawl) I figured all these very recent cases of human rights abuses and backwards traditions needed airing. If you dismiss them out of hand, whatever. I'm sure other people reading this probably don't do as much, because they don't have a hard-on for all things ancient Hindu.



See above. Also, lol @ cherry picked. These were top 20 stories from the sites above. I barely took any time in finding them. Clearly, the progressiveness and philosophical foundation of Hinduism has made India not only a bad place for gays, but a bastion of poverty, a dangerous place to be a woman, and a shitty place to be if you happen to be born the wrong parents.

Tell me more about this ancient woo woo mystical originality and how it translates into all these obvious social issues.



Right, but you took exception to my statement where I couldn't think of an equivocal social status to the specific situation I had in mind. You then took this specific statement and ran with it, because you didn't like the non-love I was expressing towards Hinduism, which is why you've harped on the redundancy and its great ancient virtues and innovations.

I get that you have a knee-jerk reaction to Abrahamic religions. I got it when you shoe-horned in the idea about the omnipotence paradox disproving God in another thread (as if this was some kind of philosophical revelation). Pretty sure a guy previously called 'Godkiller' has a chip on his shoulder when it comes to religion. Got it. But I'm not white knighting Islam or Abrahamic religions here. You repeatedly fail to realize this is the case. And you furthermore seem to be avoiding the responsibility of educating me in social statuses worse than the one I had related, since that is so keenly your point.



The more you say this, the more true it becomes!



Well, I wouldn't have suspected as much if you hadn't had such a big visceral reaction to my rather blah comment in a sea of comments, and furthermore felt it vital to the utmost to repeat over and over how it's "redundant" and how Hinduism has all these great virtues, etc. While somehow maintaining that your stance on their repressiveness is somehow the same as mine.

If you can't see how blatantly double-sided that is, I'm afraid you got some in your eye.



I brought up apparent contributions simply to emphasis that who gives a **** within the context of the conversation.

Now you're further deepening the chasm at your feet by pretending I'm hardlining Islamic contributions when I mentioned it specifically to reference... get this - their apparent contributions are unimportant to the idea of being repressive

How are you this bad at reading?



http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls400eJKpe1r317bvo1_250.gif

The 'virtues' of ancient Hinduism woo woo advancements, none of which appear to prevent it from being full of repressive social issues and traditions, is irrelevant. Why are you continuing to slip this in, if you apparently don't have bias?

Or do you have a semantic failing when it comes to determining bias?



Blah blah derp ad hominem.

K.



You started arguing with me about a comment which warranted very little discussion, especially in relation to the topic at hand. If your intent is to keep this thread pure, you did a bang-up job by gargling Hinduism's balls and then proceeding to antagonize me with your eighth grade internet toughness.



Considering India is largely a Hindu society, and much of its existing social structure, traditions, and divisions are derived from that religion, yes. Yes it is related. It isn't the whole point, but no one should be surprised that India is recriminalizing gays when it hasn't yet stomped out the other BS it's had on its plate for thousands of years.

But insulting Hinduism made your knee jerk, so here we are.



But relevant enough to repeat yourself ad nauseam and launch into song about Hinduism innovation and preach about redundancy and leeching, as if it was ever in contention.

K.



Quite.

The echo in your colon must be what makes you say the same stuff over and over again.

But bonus points for actually breaking my statement up instead of just posting a big block of whatever at the end.

Keep that reaching, bro.

http://iambrony.dget.cc/mlp/gif/my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-brony-explanation-shes-pinkie-pie.gif

Bardock42
Do you have like a system for storing and categorising gifs and pictures, or do you google on the fly?

Stealth Moose
Always google on the fly.

Bardock42
Aww, you are way less cool than I thought.


And I already thought that you were not cool at all

Stealth Moose
Harsh. So harsh. If it helps, I have like 2-3 GB of pictures that are hilarious and sometimes appropriate. I am just too lazy to host them every time.

Bardock42
I'll take it into consideration, but I don't think it'll help you much, sorry.

Epicurus
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Well, since you seemed to be talking about the all progressive changes India was making on behalf of the scheduled castes and comparing it strongly with evil Muslim strongholds (which was never my intent or my expressed point)

Point out where I compared the reforms that India is making with regards to its traditionally backward communities with the awful conditions that minorities live under in muslim-majority countries.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
and then fellating their ancient traditions and the stuff they didn't 'leech' from other cultures (because we should always fellate cultures that develop things in isolation, regardless of how they treat their own people, lawl) I figured all these very recent cases of human rights abuses and backwards traditions needed airing. If you dismiss them out of hand, whatever. I'm sure other people reading this probably don't do as much, because they don't have a hard-on for all things ancient Hindu.

Acknowledging how advanced a particular civilization is at a particular point in time isn't called "fellating" their culture, it's stating the obvious. What is not is pointing out all these red herring loaded examples to a person who has openly admitted that they do exist, but is pointing out for your own benefit how it's irrelevant to bring them (or even the Hindu religion for that matter) in a thread which discusses the judicial lapses when it comes to the civil rights of the LGBT community. After 2 pages of continuous arguing, do you still not get what my contention with your ridiculous claims is?
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

See above. Also, lol @ cherry picked. These were top 20 stories from the sites above. I barely took any time in finding them. Clearly, the progressiveness and philosophical foundation of Hinduism has made India not only a bad place for gays, but a bastion of poverty, a dangerous place to be a woman, and a shitty place to be if you happen to be born the wrong parents.

But they are cherry-picked. Or would you like me to post the numerous examples of the actual efforts the Indian government has made in regards to the empowerment of these minority tribes/castes? Here you go:









These are just a few examples that I found on the very first page of a quick google search. Best part is that most of them were directly located in the Dalit wiki page. But I am pretty sure that you'll be quick to point out how all of my examples are cherry-picked, how I missed the umpteen articles detailing the misery of Dalits etc. etc. To which I'll say:
http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q487/TheGodKiller666/pot_kettle_******_zps4b54a829.jpg
Lol, while Hinduism is certainly not a progressive religion(which of them is), it certainly isn't responsible for humans rights abuses of gays, women or the fact that India is a poverty-stricken country. Anyone who's done their research on this subject(which certainly does not include you) would know that all that stuff is directly traceable back to the the British.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Tell me more about this ancient woo woo mystical originality and how it translates into all these obvious social issues.

While you've quoted quite a lot lulzworthy and profileworthy things during the course of our argument, this is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most ignorant and retarded statement made imho. Strides made in math, astronomy, algebra, medicine, chemistry etc. aren't "mystical woo woo". Do you even think before spouting such imbecilic nonsense simply to make a point on the internet to a guy you don't even know?

Edit: Damn, this character limitation on KMC is an annoying little b1tch. Anyways, rest of my response is continued in the next post.

Epicurus
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

You started arguing with me about a comment which warranted very little discussion, especially in relation to the topic at hand. If your intent is to keep this thread pure, you did a bang-up job by gargling Hinduism's balls and then proceeding to antagonize me with your eighth grade internet toughness.

When one makes a comment like this:
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Right, but you took exception to my statement where I couldn't think of an equivocal social status to the specific situation I had in mind. You then took this specific statement and ran with it, because you didn't like the non-love I was expressing towards Hinduism, which is why you've harped on the redundancy and its great ancient virtues and innovations.

You couldn't, because the Dalit and LGBT cases are quite dissimilar, something which escaped you for some unknown reason when you penned down this post. In the cases of the Dalits, both the government and the judiciary have actively made efforts to uplift them and empower them, despite the common public's growing resentment with the reservation policy which in their minds gives the Dalits an unfair advantage when competing for jobs or taking entrance exams to enroll into prestigious institutions, although that line of thinking is inaccurate and besides the point.

In the case of the LGBT, the Delhi High Court made a ruling 5 years ago where they revoked the draconian, 150 year old, British-era law that were listed under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code whereby anyone who identifies themselves as gay today would basically be committing a crime by leading such a lifestyle.

You not understanding the basic differences between these 2 completely different and somewhat unrelated cases is on you, not me.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

I get that you have a knee-jerk reaction to Abrahamic religions. I got it when you shoe-horned in the idea about the omnipotence paradox disproving God in another thread (as if this was some kind of philosophical revelation). Pretty sure a guy previously called 'Godkiller' has a chip on his shoulder when it comes to religion. Got it. But I'm not white knighting Islam or Abrahamic religions here. You repeatedly fail to realize this is the case. And you furthermore seem to be avoiding the responsibility of educating me in social statuses worse than the one I had related, since that is so keenly your point.

Nope, I showcased how well-constructed the Omnipotence Paradox is in that it helps undermine one of the MAJOR attributes that are ascribed to the Abrahamic God. Not that this is relevant again, as it is clearly another one of your silly attempts to go off-topic and save face from the brutal mauling I have been inflicting upon you since the last page. Pointing out how singling out Hinduism in a thread about gays and which discusses the piss-poor way the Indian Judiciary functions is silly and off-topic is not the same as white-knighting or championing a religion. Going by this horrible line of thought, I too could claim that you did indeed champion Abrahamic religions by claiming how "oppression within the Abrahamic faiths is open to debate", when it is too obvious for anyone to consider about. I already pointed out examples in previous posts. Your failing to notice them is again on you, not me.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

The more you say this, the more true it becomes!

Going by this line of logic, if I kept on saying that "water is transparent" over and over again, that would somehow make it true. Implying that it wasn't true to begin with. Further implications are left open to the imagination. laughing out loud

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Well, I wouldn't have suspected as much if you hadn't had such a big visceral reaction to my rather blah comment in a sea of comments, and furthermore felt it vital to the utmost to repeat over and over how it's "redundant" and how Hinduism has all these great virtues, etc. While somehow maintaining that your stance on their repressiveness is somehow the same as mine.

Lolwut? I see that usurping your own trollish camadre of railing on and on about how "Hinduism is repressive and the evils upon dalits due to it, none of which has literally anything to do with this thread has no come back to bite you in the ass. But don't begin to fret already, we're just getting started. evil face
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

If you can't see how blatantly double-sided that is, I'm afraid you got some in your eye.

I didn't before, but now I am. Tears of laughter at your hilariously befuddled attempts at projecting...again.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

I brought up apparent contributions simply to emphasis that who gives a **** within the context of the conversation.

You brought them up without even reading about that stuff before. Seeing the amount of time and effort you put into penning down these long-winded responses to me, I'd say you certainly do. thumb up

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Now you're further deepening the chasm at your feet by pretending I'm hardlining Islamic contributions when I mentioned it specifically to reference... get this - their apparent contributions are unimportant to the idea of being repressive.

The thing is that their apparent contributions aren't their own; those were leeched off from civilizations that they plundered like India(shocker there), Persia, and(to a slightly lesser extent) China. Which makes comparison to my claims regarding Hinduism's "woo woo" advancements, quite redundant to say the least. Although it's not like this is the first redundant, irrelevant and pointless thing you've brought up during the entirety of our discussion anyways.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
How are you this bad at reading?

This question is directed at the wrong person. The right person for it is you yourself. thumb up

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls400eJKpe1r317bvo1_250.gif

The 'virtues' of ancient Hinduism woo woo advancements, none of which appear to prevent it from being full of repressive social issues and traditions, is irrelevant. Why are you continuing to slip this in, if you apparently don't have bias?

And continuously bringing up how much of a fail ideology Hinduism is in a thread which specifically discusses the shortcomings of Indian judiciary as far as gay rights are concerned, isn't? Hypocrisy much?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Or do you have a semantic failing when it comes to determining bias?


Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Blah blah derp ad hominem.

K.

"Hey kettle, your black. HARR, HARR, HARR!!"

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

You started arguing with me about a comment which warranted very little discussion, especially in relation to the topic at hand. If your intent is to keep this thread pure, you did a bang-up job by gargling Hinduism's balls and then proceeding to antagonize me with your eighth grade internet toughness.

When one makes a comment like this:
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
India birthed Hinduism, one of the most repressive continuous religions in the world, and Buddhism, probably the most progressive and lenient. But the majority still favor the former and people have lived and died under it for centuries.
It clearly warrants some discussion, because what you're stating isn't related to the thread topic, so it stands out and is open to being addressed by another poster. That is known as partaking in a discussion on a message board; replying to each other's posts. Did you not even know this simple fact of life when it comes to an internet discussion board?

edit: *phucking character limits. continues in next post.*

Epicurus
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Considering India is largely a Hindu society, and much of its existing social structure, traditions, and divisions are derived from that religion, yes. Yes it is related. It isn't the whole point, but no one should be surprised that India is recriminalizing gays when it hasn't yet stomped out the other BS it's had on its plate for thousands of years.

Nope, much of India's existing social structure, traditions, and divisions(which were further exacerbated for their own gain) are the derived from colonial-era British rule. Hinduism is merely an artificial topping on Mmost of these ways in which India continues to function even today. Which makes totally not at all related, and your bringing up the short-comings of the religion a totally irrelevant and rather dumb point to make in this thread.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

But insulting Hinduism made your knee jerk, so here we are.

Read previous to previous para.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

But relevant enough to repeat yourself ad nauseam and launch into song about Hinduism innovation and preach about redundancy and leeching, as if it was ever in contention.

K.

I could say the same thing about you flip-flopping worse than an actual flip-flop regarding your horrid comments about "oppression in Abrahamic religions is open to debate", but then again, what would be the point? You would just go back to projecting the stench of your butthurt onto me, like you've been doing for the last couple pages like a broken record.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Quite.

The echo in your colon must be what makes you say the same stuff over and over again.

But bonus points for actually breaking my statement up instead of just posting a big block of whatever at the end.

Keep that reaching, bro.

http://iambrony.dget.cc/mlp/gif/my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-brony-explanation-shes-pinkie-pie.gif
laughing out loud

Here, take this:
http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/36/21/03/33/0036210333306_500X500.jpg
It'll soothe the pain that's currently plaguing your behind.

Epicurus
Originally posted by Epicurus
http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q487/TheGodKiller666/pot_kettle_******_zps4b54a829.jpg
I just noticed that there was a photobucket glitch while posting this image. Here's the direct link:
http://s1160.photobucket.com/user/TheGodKiller666/media/pot_kettle_black_zps9b3c4e2c.jpg.html

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.