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. 😂
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. 😈
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. 👆
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. 👆
Originally posted by Stealth MooseThe '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?
This question is directed at the wrong person. The right person for it is you yourself. 👆
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.*
