Classic statement.shiv wrote: we the DIE complain that the situation in India is so different from the situation in the US.
Also DIE will say why cant Indians and India be like Americans and America.
Interesting that you mention Nietzsche and right after that Einstein in the middle of the lake. Regarding the phrase "for god's sake" Nietzsche had said something like this , "Its like someone starts very confidently to swim across a lake, reaches the middle, and happily drowns".Alok_N wrote: Imangine Nitzche (sp?) doing science ... that is my model ...
Einstein said, "I retreat into my world of physics to find peace" ... he used to row his boat to the middle of the lake and sit there contemplating just to get away from his SHQ ...
Acyually it was Faraday, since his law of induction opened up ways to mass produce electricity.finally, I will repeat what I had posted earlier in some thread ...
King of England: "Professor Maxwell, this 'electricity' of yours is very interesting and amusing. But what possible use could it have for society" ...
Two classic quotes are attributed to Faraday:
Whilst attempting to explain a discovery to either Gladstone (Chancellor) or Peel (Prime Minister) he was asked, 'But, after all, what use is it?' Faraday replied, 'Why sir, there is the probability that you will soon be able to tax it.'
When the Prime Minister asked of a new discovery, 'What good is it?', Faraday replied, 'What good is a new-born baby?'
such words can have profound impact on a young mind ...This book belongs to the most rare of men. Perhaps not one of them is yet alive. It is possible that they may be among those who understand my "Zarathustra": how could I confound myself with those who are now sprouting ears?--First the day after tomorrow must come for me. Some men are born posthumously. The conditions under which any one understands me, and necessarily understands me--I know them only too well. Even to endure my seriousness, my passion, he must carry intellectual integrity to the verge of hardness. He must be accustomed to living on mountain tops--and to looking upon the wretched gabble of politics and nationalism as beneath him. He must have become indifferent; he must never ask of the truth whether it brings profit to him or a fatality to him... He must have an inclination, born of strength, for questions that no one has the courage for; the courage for the forbidden; predestination for the labyrinth. The experience of seven solitudes. New ears for new music. New eyes for what is most distant. A new conscience for truths that have hitherto remained unheard. And the will to economize in the grand manner--to hold together his strength, his enthusiasm...reverence for self; love of self; absolute freedom of self..... Very well, then! of that sort only are my readers, my true readers, my readers foreordained: of what account are the rest?--The rest are merely humanity.--One must make one's self superior to humanity, in power, in loftiness of soul,--in contempt.
Ok, Ok, but who is going to determine what the Dharma should be? Is this going to be an individual who sits in a Court of Law? Is this the President? Is this the LS or RS? How does this system work? To what extent are the precepts of dharma going to be subject to the loudest group (not the largest, the loudest) in the Hindu universe? From the foregoing discussion we know that many Hindus are positively economically impacted by cow slaughter, as are many non-Hindus, so this is probably not even going to be resolved by the greatest good argument.Dharma, by definition includes doing the right thing for the individual, society and indeed for all kind, not just man kind. Dharma cannot cede primacy to the rights of the individual over others at all times
and then instantly contradict yourself by saying:I do not think anyone on the forum has suggested that Dharma replaces the consitution, individual rights or laws of the state.
Typically, the laws are "under the Constitution" and thereofre have to be Constitutional for htem to be valid. So, does Dharma override the constitution, or does the constitution override Dharma.The argument is for: Laws to be under Dharma
This is not what Valkan asserted.Calvin, religiously there is only one view about beef.
I am not sure I understand this. Could you clarify.you should be aware of the rights that exists, respecting religious sentiments of all religions, especially if you are in the minority
This is a gratuitous insult.If you are an Indian you should be aware of this already
Is it possible that you and these members have differing views of what constitute whims and what constitute "inalienable individual rights"?But same members are silent about imposing minority whims on majority and that duplicity can only be linked to cultural anthropomorphic slavery created by failure of education OR failure to rectify education designed for preparing generations of slaves to serve empire.
Therefore, is it fair to say that the individual does have the right to sustain his life, the right to his property, or the right to action as long as it doesn't physically harm another person. From this right is the right to engage in consensual contracts with other such individuals derived? Does this freedom allow, if the contract involves killing of a beast that belonged to the first individual, and selling the meat to the second? Does it allow the first man to sell the beast to the second, so that the second may kill and consume the meat?Dharma cannot cede primacy to the rights of the individual over others at all times.
Can it be reflection on your complete lack of understanding about SDF? OR just selective interpretation bias? Problem with your thinking Calvin is that you believe in Utopian systems which can not exist anywhere in world and then blame SD for failure of such hypothetical systems in India.Quote:
If you are an Indian you should be aware of this already
This is a gratuitous insult.
I never thought of him & science together, but his writings are very thought provoking/challenging, if that is what you mean.Alok_N wrote:Kumar,
My response to Johann was based on something I read when was about 18 years old ... I hope you recognize this ...
such words can have profound impact on a young mind ...
[Johann was speaking of disconnect between science and society ... the part above explains my comment about "Nietzsche doing science" ... btw, too many unnecessary consonants in that name ... ]
Selective interpretation bias again. No one is challenging rights of Ejs to propagate. This thread was to discuss SDF under threat of social engineering of Ejs which has nothing to do with Christianity. Conversion is a personal matter but when coercion, exploitation and politicization is introduced under pretext of RELIGION, it does becomes every ones problem. Now it might not be perceived by you as threat but we SDFs do. Are we allowed to voice our concerns? Or that's not part of your Individualistic freedom?Re: Indian Constitution - one of the premise for this thread was the discussion about evangelization. This is a "right" that derives from the "practice and propagate" right associated with religion. The contention was that the concept of "propagate" was not in consonance with Dharma and had to go.
wrong~.Alok_N wrote:God is in everything ... so, God is in Beef ... don't worry, have Beef curry ...
This link spooked me, I can see where Shiv is coming from and why he sometimes appears to be becoming fundoo (by Indian standards that is). Several other articles of his are interesting too. I would recommend his article on "whiteness". Maybe it can be made a sticky somewhere to give a perspective of the kind intellectual racism Shiv talks about.You guys must have heard of Rajeev Malhotra, here in the US. He fights a lonely battle against anti Hindusim among the academic circles.
http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/p ... ndrome.htm
Apologies if this has already been discussed.
Manny
The framers of the constitution did not understand the diabolical nature of EJ'ism and Jihadism. The right to 'propagate' was not meant to be a right to denigrate the majority religion while hiding behind the pseudo-secularism purchased with minority appeasement and paid for by the external fund sources. If Ambedkar had foreseen this turn of events he would have forestalled it with suitable injunctions on the insidious twisting of the system blatantly carried out by the EJ's - and it still might not have worked.Effectively, Dharma would *REPLACE* the Constitution.
I don't think anyone is asking you to slaughter cows or any other animals against your religion. But that doesn't mean you can flout your religion to infringe on individual freedom of others who may want to slaughter cow for their consumption or sale to other parties who may want to purchase the meat for their consumption. That doesn't mean any one is imposing cow-slaughter on you.Indeed religion is a personal choice. Killing cows is not your religion is it?
My religion abhors the killing of all animals, including cows. Why is your choice of killing cows being imposed upon me, flouting and insulting my religion?
Should your choice be OK over my religion?
Why not have my religion over your choice?
If you had checked the figures carefully, you would have found that percapita consumption of beef is twice as much as that of poultry in India (0.7 kg vs 1.5 kg) and rate of consuption of beef is increasing at a higher rate than the poultry (probably because beef is cheaper in India compared to poultry)Check the links if you wish, but I will quote the relevant figures.
1) India ranks 49th in a list of 49 countries for beef consumption
2) In case it is felt that the above statistic is because of poverty or hunger, you will find that India has over 280 million cattle, and has 15% of the world cattle population
Please enlighten me how it is a fallacy. It is a genuine question because of your so called concerns about what SD (majority) has done to minority. I don't see any evidence that majority is coercing minority in India. You have alternative take and I am curious to know from where this concern about SD majority brutality originated. There is a possibility that we SDF are insensitive to minorities in India and if so we need to address it.Vishy: your first question is a fallacy, and doesn't deserve an answer.
there is that "individual freedom" again ...Sajan wrote:I don't think anyone is asking you to slaughter cows or any other animals against your religion. But that doesn't mean you can flout your religion to infringe on individual freedom of others who may want to slaughter cow for their consumption or sale to other parties who may want to purchase the meat for their consumption. That doesn't mean any one is imposing cow-slaughter on you.
I am perfectly fine with that. You can go and make urinals like cross, someone else can make urinal like "Om", yet another one can make urinal like david's star or kaaba. I don't care. Are you clear now ?will you be cool with that?
All I have done is raise questions. I have never seen you answer them with any intelligence or understanding. I never claim to be intelligent not I claim to be right. Frankly you have your own bias which no amount of discussion is going to change. Then why this facade? Please mind your posts are as irritating and without content, I was just returning the favor.Vishy: I have tolerated your nonsense on this thread benignly. You have clearly not followed this thread, nor its predecessors with any amount of attention. This discussion was *specifically* spawned in the context of the "right to propagate." You on the other hand, are unable to make a logical argument, to understand one, or to logically defend a position.
Using high falutin words like "selective interpretation bias" do not make you intelligent, particularly when you are unable to engage in simple reading comprehension. If you are not going to give respect, you will get none.
And that mechanism should be used, if we believe that the Constitution as it stands is an acceptable framework. If we do not agree to this, we will need to either have another Constitutional Convention; or abrogate it in its entirety and replace it with Dharma.The constitution allows for self correction using the mechanism provided therein.
yup, I'm clear ... (even though you agreed only after some equal-equal) ...Sajan wrote: I don't care. Are you clear now ?
Sajan wrote:I am perfectly fine with that. You can go and make urinals like cross, someone else can make urinal like "Om", yet another one can make urinal like david's star or kaaba. I don't care. Are you clear now ?will you be cool with that?
Arrey Guruji why are you walking into the trap to start a peeing contest (with decorated urinals etc. ).Alok_N wrote: there is that "individual freedom" again ...
boss, suppose my "Individual Freedom" compels me to construct public bathrooms in which the Urinals are made of christian crosses ...
all day people would urinate on the cross for free ... on some days of the week, I would hang some other religious symbols on the cross just for variety ...
no one is asking you to pee there ...
will you be cool with that?
Ah . religion thread.. I will break my own rules of posting here just this absolute once again.Sajan wrote:I don't think anyone is asking you to slaughter cows or any other animals against your religion. But that doesn't mean you can flout your religion to infringe on individual freedom of others who may want to slaughter cow for their consumption or sale to other parties who may want to purchase the meat for their consumption. That doesn't mean any one is imposing cow-slaughter on you.
My choice of what to eat and not to eat and when to eat should not be dictated by your religion (or my religion for that matter). It should be entirely upto me to decide. IOW, my choice of what to eat and your religion are not correlated.
If I remember right, HAF (Hindu American Foundation) had successfully challenged display of 10 commandments in public places and won the case. So what types of rights are being denied there, I am just curious ?This is the logic western countries use when they deny the rights of minority. I do not see why same logic cannot be used in India for the sake of communal harmony
Maybe I missed parts of the intervening threads - they went quite fast. I do not recall anybody claiming that the constitution should be replaced with Dharma. If there has been a claim to this effect then I wish to categorically distance myself from it. The constitution is and should remain to be the social contract for the country.And that mechanism should be used, if we believe that the Constitution as it stands is an acceptable framework. If we do not agree to this, we will need to either have another Constitutional Convention; or abrogate it in its entirety and replace it with Dharma.
I am still struggling to understand *how* the system will function under Dharma.
From my experience, "vast majority" of people have plenty of commonsense and they don't care about most of these issues as they have plenty of other things to worry about. It is a very small minority (which may include but not limited to internet brigadiers and arm-chair generals) that are formenting these "issues".And since you don't have access to this "vast majority" - they would have to be right.
Your "individual freedom" is protected through no-call lists, opt-out options etc.And you were advocating "AOL's" right to Dump Cd's in my mailbox, without any regard to my "Individual Freedom",
How about the state endorsing via the 10 commandments stuff that go fundamentally against hindu and buddhist and other indic religions (now dont give be horse dump about how god is supposed to one in hinduism with differenet manifestations.. I think that is merely an interpretation of one particular school and not subscribed to by the lay hind on the street).Sajan wrote:If I remember right, HAF (Hindu American Foundation) had successfully challenged display of 10 commandments in public places and won the case. So what types of rights are being denied there, I am just curiouss
I agree that so far it has been a state subject, and that the "loopholes" here are that this pertains to "slaughter" of cows, so that if the cow "dies" it is a separate issue. I am not clear on whether bulls are exempted. Other animals (buffalo, chicken) are not prohibited. Secondly, if beef from Kerala or Arunachal (I think is the other state) is exported to any other state, that is legal.Now based on my limited understanding of the constitutional issues involved, the slaughter of animals is a state subject and if states decree that cow slaughter is banned then legally it is banned. If you partake of beef in these states then you are breaking the law. Are we in agreement so far?