You’re right Sarva. I think amongst us all Vimoh had been the most polite and made a sincere attempt to have a discussion with Q, but he is getting the same result we all are getting: stubborn stupidity.
At the end of the day Q is stubbornly defending murders, rapists, looters and his ancestors who did this here. I said earlier himself had my ancestors done the same, I would have been ashamed of them, I never would have spoken in pride “how my dad kicked everybodies ass” The truth is clear and Q knows this himself the civilised world, including many Western people today consider his white supremacy views backwards. My Western maths teacher once said to me, even without me saying a word, “I am actually ashamed what my ancestors did to your people” Why did she feel the need to say this? We were not even having any kind of conversation about colonialism, in fact we were talking about Indian mathematicians. But she honestly felt the guilt as a good person that her ancestors had done such horrible things to my people and felt compelled to say something. She is not the only one, I have had many Western people say similar things to me.
When I was in college there was a BNP(white nationalist) member in our English class. He use to dress like a viking and was very proud of his British/Anglo-saxon culture. I did not even know he was a BNP member until quite late, and was shocked because he use to talk to me a lot and thought very highly of my intelligence(I learned this from a peer who had told me said I was the most intelligent person he had come across) Everybody in my class hated him and because I did not know he was BNP then, I was quite surprised why they hated him so much. Then I found out: because he was a backwards human being.
Good people do not feel pride in their ancestors if they were murderers, rapists and looters and they certainly do not defend them in debates. The truth is Q would be condemned just like we are condemning him here by any civilised person irrespective of what race they are. He would be prosecuted for hate crimes in the UK had he said the things hes said on this forum, “My dad kicked your dads ass, and looted, raped and destroyed your country” If he said something similar to a black person he would have been beaten up. If he said similar things in China he would be imprisoned or even executed. Had he said to a jew that the Nazi were just innocent victims of their circumstances and they are pathetic for being so badly crushed, he would be reported for antisemitism.
The truth is Q is and would be considered a despicable human being by any civilised person. He is a blemish on the Yoga forums.
As other Western people other than Q are not participating here, I will say something on their behalf: There are many good Western people who would condemn Q just as strongly as we are. So do not generalize Q’s backwards neo-nazi views to Western people in general. Most Western people would be appalled by him.
My fight has never been with Western people and it never will be, because I have met so many good Western people in my life. My fight is against Western culture, who many good Western people also criticise.
I think the good Western people of this forum should let themselves be known because the only representation Western people are getting in this thread is by Q. He is speaking as a representative of Western people - and the last thing good Western people on this forum, is a neo-nazi to represent them.
I think the good Western people of this forum should let themselves be known because the only representation Western people are getting in this thread is by Q. He is speaking as a representative of Western people - and the last thing good Western people [B]WANT[/B] on this forum, is a neo-nazi to represent them.
While, im at it, I will address a point Q repeatedly makes only to show the absurdity of his views to the objective reader(although the absurdity is apparent) In Q’s world there is no such thing as something which is qualitatively superior, but only quantitatively superior. You can have bigger weapons, more wealth, more books etc. He further maintains that all kind of behaviour is just the result of circumstances and nothing more. His people were poor and had a cold and harsh climate and the Indian people were rich and a warm climate and this is why his people had to rape, murder and loot and why the Indian people didn’t have to.
Now let us demonstrate the absurdity of his views
Nothing is qualitiatively superior, only quanitatively superior
First of all, it should be known that is a common view in the West. Qualia are not considered to be measurable and are downgranded as secondary qualities. This has been going on since the beginning of the Western scientific tradition. Locke was the first philosopher to lay this foundation down by calling all qualities to be secondary, while physical things like mass, weight, dimension were primary qualities. Locke’s view known as representionalisism is that primary qualities were natural and real, while secondary qualities like taste, touch, colour, sound and smell etc were secondary.
This is despite the fact that later Kant proved that both primary and secondary qualities were not not natural and real but both were constructed by the mind. So this habit of separating primary and secondary qualities or basically quantity and quality was an unnatural dichotomy. Today, both quantitative and qualitative research is done in science, but the prejudice that qualitative research is inferior to quantitative research remains.
In the Indian scientific tradition this problem of qualitity and quantity duality has never been present. In the Indian tradition, as Kant proved later, it was always known that the entire world is sensory - it is all quality. The things we see are colour/form, the things we hear are sound, the things we feel are touch etc In other words the entire world can be reduced to only 5 sensory categories. No rational person can argue that we know the world through our 5 main senses. Therefore it is all qualia.
This Indian system classification then refines this further to make a distinction between substance and qualities. A substance is the locus which contains qualities. There are 9 substances: 5 sensory elements, space, time, mind and consciousness. Each of these substances are a locus for different qualities. Here is a list of 24 qualities recognised in the Indian system:
Earth has the qualities of smell, taste, colour and touch. Water has the qualites of taste, colour, taste and touch; light has the qualities of colour and touch; force has the qualities of touch; space has the quality of size/direction/dimension’ time has the qualities of priority and posteriority; mind has the qualities of discrimination, cognition; consciousness has the qualities of pain, pleasure, will, desire, aversion.
Now how can we say one is greater than the other ? Easy we can say for example that ultraviolet colour is higher frequency than red colour. We can say that the light of the sun is brighter than the light of a candle. We can say that 10 is a higher number than 1. We can say an aeroplane is louder than a drum. We can say an intelligent person’s cognitive ability is greater than a dumb person’s cognitive ability. Finally, we can say that one person’s consciousness is more refined than anothers because ones consciousness is full of negative mental states like hate, pain, violence, greed, lust, anger and anothers is full of positive mental states like love, bliss, compassion, peace.
Now it goes without saying that a culture which has high love, bliss, compassion and peace is superior to one has that has high hate, pain, violence, greed, lust and anger. And if one doubts this the very fact that they cannot recognise this immediately is a sign of their low evolutionary development. A bee cannot understand for example why the architect considers the the bee-hive a beautiful creation; a tiger cannot understand why the sage is non-violent.
All behaviour is the result of circumstances and environment. Good environment leads to good behaviour and bad environment leads to bad behaviour.
Of course the sensible reader will immediately spot how stupid this assertion is, unfortunately as we are dealing with stupidity here the point has to be demonstrated. If it was true good environments lead to good behaviour then why has the West which has been the richest region in the world since the 19th century, has been involved in non stop war and barbarism? Holocausts, world wars, cold war, gulf wars, war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why does the West have the highest rates of divorce, depression and mental disorders and crime in the world?
If it is true that poverty leads to bad behaviour like rape/murder etc then why were some of the most greatest spiritual leaders in history born in very poor families? Jesus Christ, Guru Nanak, Swami Ramarkrishna, Ramana Maharishi? And if the Germans were all poor and living miserable lives and that is why they became Nazis, then why did some Germans fight for the plight of the Jews?
Clearly the argument Q is making is patently absurd. To murder, rape or loot somebody it is not circumstances which lead to these actions. You can be the poorest person in the world and not hurt a fly and the richest person in the world and be a cold blooded murderer. It is ones quality of consciousness that leads to these actions. The West is full of a history of such actions because it is has a low spiritual development. It is right to call the West civilisation savage and barbaric. It makes no difference whatsoever how many countries it has subjugated, it is still a barbaric civilisation. No civilised person can be proud of the West.
By the way I am taking this discussion into the relevant thread. This thread is to discuss whether Hinduism is a religion or not. To discuss India vs West discuss it in “Clash of civilisations: India vs West”
There are Four [I]Vedas (Rig, Yaju Sama, Atharva)[/I],
Six [I]Vedangas, (shiksha, kalpa, jyotish, nirukta, chanda and vykarana),[/I]
Four upangas (purana, mimamsa, nyaya and dharma).
There are eighteen [I]Puranas[/I].
Fourteen [I]vidyas[/I] or kinds of science.
Sixty four [I]kalas[/I] or forms of Art.
It is mind boggling indeed. Even the ancient rishis were able to take just a pinch to study.
In The “Body of Knowledge Realization” known as Hinduism, [I]Dharma[/I] is a small but important part in the process of realizing the self.
Where did Q say this exactly? Can you give a link to the specific post or thread?[/QUOTE]dude. Of course I didn’t say that. Just google a line of what hysterical Nietzsche posted.
Didn’t you notice that all you Hindu nationalists have are slander, ad hominem, insults, misrepresentation and so forth? Because your viewpoint is unsustainable. So you turn a discussion into a flamewar, so there is “no use in posting here”.
do you think that if you address other people when you talk about me that does not count as replying to me? Hilarious.
See, I knew you were not going to stop. All you want is to stop others from talking to me. You fear, they are not as shameless as you are in misrepresenting what I say and slandering me and so forth. You fear that it becomes only clearer how absurd your viewpoint is. Probably you also hope that threads will just be closed.
You’re right Sarva. I think amongst us all Vimoh had been the most polite and made a sincere attempt to have a discussion with Q, but he is getting the same result we all are getting: stubborn stupidity.
I don’t know. I had a decent discussion with him indeed, with no slander, no offense, no insults. Then he wrote this post:
You are addressing a point that Bryon did not make. He never said the one guy did anything “alone”. And it shouldn’t even be an inference unless you are, for some reason, manipulating his words to create a straw-man argument that you can easily pull down because it is frivolous.
The way you have addressed my points, makes it clear that you are already taking the discussion in a direction of your choice. So I will refrain from replying now. But I sincerely request you to go and read up some before you challenge established facts being proposed by a known historian with little more than an agenda.
Your way of working through a debate is anything but intellectual. You manipulate arguments, refuse to take facts as they come, and even refuse to accept facts as such in case they do prove to be accurate.
Whether India is “superior” or not can only be established by a perusal of historical accounts and facts. You admit that you have not done so, but you also insist that you will never admit it EVEN IF it is true. Not the way debates happen.
Doesn’t answer my question. Are you saying they were equals? And if you are going to reply saying that you don’t believe in superiority, then would you also claim that a hero isn’t superior to a murderer? Do explain.
As for Bryon, I can personally vouch for his status as an MA in history and the fact that he is working on his PhD. That’s considerably more than a “couple of books”. You may say you find a historian’s knowledge amusing, but it doesn’t do anything to negate the worth of his study. In any case, what I am supposed to go by? His knowledge, which he has painstakingly acquired by years of study, or your opinion, which you haven’t even bothered to corroborate with some basic reading?
Please do get an education and come back when you are capable of having a civilised and intelligent debate. Otherwise all this is worth nothing.
99% ad hominem, offensive, slander, misrepresenting what I say.
At the end of the day Q is stubbornly defending murders, rapists, looters and his ancestors who did this here. I said earlier himself had my ancestors done the same, I would have been ashamed of them, I never would have spoken in pride “how my dad kicked everybodies ass” The truth is clear and Q knows this himself the civilised world, including many Western people today consider his white supremacy views backwards.
I’m not a white supremacist when I explain how and why a wrong-doer comes to their wrong-doings. I only fail to have black-and-white-worldview where I declare some people holy, some demonic.
My Western maths teacher once said to me, even without me saying a word, “I am actually ashamed what my ancestors did to your people” Why did she feel the need to say this? We were not even having any kind of conversation about colonialism, in fact we were talking about Indian mathematicians. But she honestly felt the guilt as a good person that her ancestors had done such horrible things to my people and felt compelled to say something. She is not the only one, I have had many Western people say similar things to me.
But I don’t feel guilty for what my ancestors did. Why would I? I’m sorry for what they did, sure. But I didn’t do it, so where would guilt come from?
When I was in college there was a BNP(white nationalist) member in our English class. He use to dress like a viking and was very proud of his British/Anglo-saxon culture. I did not even know he was a BNP member until quite late, and was shocked because he use to talk to me a lot and thought very highly of my intelligence(I learned this from a peer who had told me said I was the most intelligent person he had come across) Everybody in my class hated him and because I did not know he was BNP then, I was quite surprised why they hated him so much. Then I found out: because he was a backwards human being.
And I feel not proud for what my ancestors did, neither the bad, nor the good things. I had explained that in detail to Nietzsche once, but I don’t have the time to search, you know, I can’t stand up to your guys slander-bombast. It’s overwhelming.
Good people do not feel pride in their ancestors if they were murderers, rapists and looters and they certainly do not defend them in debates. The truth is Q would be condemned just like we are condemning him here by any civilised person irrespective of what race they are. He would be prosecuted for hate crimes in the UK had he said the things hes said on this forum, “My dad kicked your dads ass, and looted, raped and destroyed your country” If he said something similar to a black person he would have been beaten up. If he said similar things in China he would be imprisoned or even executed. Had he said to a jew that the Nazi were just innocent victims of their circumstances and they are pathetic for being so badly crushed, he would be reported for antisemitism.
Did “my dad” not kick your ass and lotted, raped and destroyed your country? It’s a fact. And that I would be proud of that, is your invention. You just don’t like to deal with the question how it was possible, that your uber-superior strong-warrior-culture dad was not able to defend himself. It’s a valid question.
The truth is Q is and would be considered a despicable human being by any civilised person. He is a blemish on the Yoga forums.
The truth is that this is a bombast of slander.
As other Western people other than Q are not participating here, I will say something on their behalf:
You mean those other Western people that you have disgusted away from discussing with you Hindu nationalist guys by slandering them? And now you speak on their behalf? :lol:
There are many good Western people who would condemn Q just as strongly as we are. So do not generalize Q’s backwards neo-nazi views to Western people in general. Most Western people would be appalled by him.
My fight has never been with Western people and it never will be, because I have met so many good Western people in my life. My fight is against Western culture, who many good Western people also criticise.
I think the good Western people of this forum should let themselves be known because the only representation Western people are getting in this thread is by Q. He is speaking as a representative of Western people - and the last thing good Western people on this forum, is a neo-nazi to represent them.
Sure, let good Western people of this form let themselves known. Let them discuss you Hindu nationalists ultra-aggressive superiority claims. Well, actually good Western people of this forum already did that. They all ended up being insulted, misrepresented and slandered by you and Nietzsche. And that is why noone is talking to you anymore. And now they see how far you go. How hysterical you are. You’re actually psychotic, Surya Asura, I personally am faszinated, plz, keep it coming. :lol:
While, im at it, I will address a point Q repeatedly makes
What, you go ad rem? Holy crap! :lol:
only to show the absurdity of his views to the objective reader(although the absurdity is apparent)
Ah… That’s at least some relief. :lol:
In Q’s world there is no such thing as something which is qualitatively superior, but only quantitatively superior. You can have bigger weapons, more wealth, more books etc. He further maintains that all kind of behaviour is just the result of circumstances and nothing more. His people were poor and had a cold and harsh climate and the Indian people were rich and a warm climate and this is why his people had to rape, murder and loot and why the Indian people didn’t have to.
I wouldn’t say they had to rape, you only include that to make it sound more awful. And even attacking another tribe and kill their people and steal from them is of course aweful. Yet do I indeed think this is the explanation for why a culture can become militant and aggressive.
You call that an “apparent absurdity”. Then why does a culture become militant and aggressive? For what reason if it’s not the circumstances? Because they are like predators? In their genes? And that is how and why not racism?
See. You’re the damn racist. You declare an explanation for wrong-doings absurd and fail to present an alternative. What could the alternative be, if it’s not circumstances? It could only be the nature of the wrong-doers. You call them “Asura”. I call that: Damn racism.
Any “good” person can ask themselves what they would do if they were in a position like that: Steal from others or have themselves and their loved ones die? Stealing, then, unfortunately mostly has to come with killing, because those who are rich mostly don’t want to share their wealth.
Now let us demonstrate the absurdity of his views
:lol: I’d say it doesn’t work out.
Nothing is qualitiatively superior, only quanitatively superior
First of all, it should be known that is a common view in the West. Qualia are not considered to be measurable and are downgranded as secondary qualities. This has been going on since the beginning of the Western scientific tradition. Locke was the first philosopher to lay this foundation down by calling all qualities to be secondary, while physical things like mass, weight, dimension were primary qualities. Locke’s view known as representionalisism is that primary qualities were natural and real, while secondary qualities like taste, touch, colour, sound and smell etc were secondary.
This is despite the fact that later Kant proved that both primary and secondary qualities were not not natural and real but both were constructed by the mind. So this habit of separating primary and secondary qualities or basically quantity and quality was an unnatural dichotomy. Today, both quantitative and qualitative research is done in science, but the prejudice that qualitative research is inferior to quantitative research remains.
Are we there yet…?
In the Indian scientific tradition this problem of qualitity and quantity duality has never been present. In the Indian tradition, as Kant proved later, it was always known that the entire world is sensory - it is all quality. The things we see are colour/form, the things we hear are sound, the things we feel are touch etc In other words the entire world can be reduced to only 5 sensory categories. No rational person can argue that we know the world through our 5 main senses. Therefore it is all qualia.
This Indian system classification then refines this further to make a distinction between substance and qualities. A substance is the locus which contains qualities. There are 9 substances: 5 sensory elements, space, time, mind and consciousness. Each of these substances are a locus for different qualities. Here is a list of 24 qualities recognised in the Indian system:
rupa (colour), rasa (taste), gandha (smell), sparsa (touch), sa?khya (number), parima?a (size/dimension/quantity), p?thaktva (inidividuality), sa?yoga (conjunction/accompaniments), vibhaga (disjunction), paratva (priority), aparatva (posteriority), buddhi (intellect), sukha (pleasure), du?kha (pain), iccha (desire), dve?a (aversion) and prayatna (effort) gurutva (heaviness), dravatva (fluidity), sneha (viscosity), dharma (merit), adharma (demerit), sabda (sound) and sa?kasra (faculty).
Are we there yet…?
Earth has the qualities of smell, taste, colour and touch. Water has the qualites of taste, colour, taste and touch; light has the qualities of colour and touch; force has the qualities of touch; space has the quality of size/direction/dimension’ time has the qualities of priority and posteriority; mind has the qualities of discrimination, cognition; consciousness has the qualities of pain, pleasure, will, desire, aversion. yawn Is there a point to your bombast somewhere…?
Now how can we say one is greater than the other ?
Yeah, exactly? How can we say that? How can we decide wether the rabbit or the tiger, the apple or the peach is superior?
Easy we can say for example that ultraviolet colour is higher frequency than red colour. We can say that the light of the sun is brighter than the light of a candle. We can say that 10 is a higher number than 1. We can say an aeroplane is louder than a drum. We can say an intelligent person’s cognitive ability is greater than a dumb person’s cognitive ability. Finally, we can say that one person’s consciousness is more refined than anothers because ones consciousness is full of negative mental states like hate, pain, violence, greed, lust, anger and anothers is full of positive mental states like love, bliss, compassion, peace.
But dude, that is quantity. One thingy has more. So you say it’s superior. I said that before.
Now it goes without saying that a culture which has high love, bliss, compassion and peace is superior to one has that has high hate, pain, violence, greed, lust and anger.
No, it doesn’t. And if you say really a lot, write a long essay of bla bla bla to point out the superiority of India’s systems and so forth, you come to the same result. It’s a matter of quantity. And if you have culture which has “high love” and compare that to one which has “high hate”, then it’s about quantity. And you still have to wonder how it came that one culture has “high love”, but the other “high hate”. I can tell you: It’s the circumstances. One culture has the easy going life in some friendly valley and the other lives a hard life in a mean winter.
And if one doubts this the very fact that they cannot recognise this immediately is a sign of their low evolutionary development.
See, here you go with racism again. Who doubts “that a culture which has high love, bliss, compassion and peace is superior to one has that has high hate, pain, violence, greed, lust and anger” is of a “low evolutrionary development”.
You’re a damn racist, Surya Asura. Everybody sees it clearly over and over again.
A bee cannot understand for example why the architect considers the the bee-hive a beautiful creation; a tiger cannot understand why the sage is non-violent.
And people who disagree with your nonsense are neanderthals.
That was your explanation. This is how you have proven that there is indeed a qualitative difference, and not just a quantitative one. You explain that there is a quantitative one
Easy we can say for example that ultraviolet colour is higher frequency than red colour. We can say that the light of the sun is brighter than the light of a candle. We can say that 10 is a higher number than 1. We can say an aeroplane is louder than a drum. We can say an intelligent person’s cognitive ability is greater than a dumb person’s cognitive ability. Finally, we can say that one person’s consciousness is more refined than anothers because ones consciousness is full of negative mental states like hate, pain, violence, greed, lust, anger and anothers is full of positive mental states like love, bliss, compassion, peace.
And then you say who doesn’t agree that the quanitative superiority equals a qualitative one, is some sort of animal.
Do you think people don’t notice?
All behaviour is the result of circumstances and environment. Good environment leads to good behaviour and bad environment leads to bad behaviour.
Sure.
Let’s start with some suggestive rethoric, k?
Of course the sensible reader will immediately spot how stupid this assertion is, unfortunately as we are dealing with stupidity here the point has to be demonstrated.
Check.
If it was true good environments lead to good behaviour then why has the West which has been the richest region in the world since the 19th century, has been involved in non stop war and barbarism? Holocausts, world wars, cold war, gulf wars, war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why does the West have the highest rates of divorce, depression and mental disorders and crime in the world?
Easy: Your assumption that the environment of the West would be good, is wrong. It’s not good. It’s superficial, people have too much time to think and find out how pointless their life often is, how they are taken advantage of, people are greedy because every day the advertising shows them bling bling, people have the opportunity to get filthy rich, so they take advantage of those people, war in Iraq and Afghanistan is waged cuz there is oil, and so forth.
If it is true that poverty leads to bad behaviour like rape/murder etc then why were some of the most greatest spiritual leaders in history born in very poor families? Jesus Christ, Guru Nanak, Swami Ramarkrishna, Ramana Maharishi?
I’m not saying that poverty leads to bad behaviour, I say that it can lead to bad behaviour. I wouldn’t know that Jesus was ever in a position where he had to decided between having his children die or steal from someone else.
And if the Germans were all poor and living miserable lives and that is why they became Nazis, then why did some Germans fight for the plight of the Jews?
The Nazis did not rise to power by announcing they’d gas the Jews and indeed did not all Germans support the Nazis, mostly intellectuals did not see their “vision” as agreeable. But a majority did, the mainstream. And that was enough, and the mainstream supported the Nazis because Germans were poor and living miserable lifes.
What else would’ve been the reason? Why did the Nazis rise to power? Explain.
And then some Germans helped the Jews out of compassion, once they saw their suffering. It’s something very different to get to hate people when they are depicted as being parasites to the nation, living wealthy in big houses, eating good, dressing fine and then seeing people fearing for their life and that of their children.
Clearly the argument Q is making is patently absurd.
It’s clearly perfectly valid and it’s the argument anybody makes who deals with history. Present an alternative of for example the Nazis rise to power - you won’t.
To murder, rape or loot somebody it is not circumstances which lead to these actions. You can be the poorest person in the world and not hurt a fly and the richest person in the world and be a cold blooded murderer.
No? Then what leads to it?
It is ones quality of consciousness that leads to these actions.
And what leads to the quality of consciousness?
The West is full of a history of such actions because it is has a low spiritual development.
And why does it have a low spiritual development?
It is right to call the West civilisation savage and barbaric. It makes no difference whatsoever how many countries it has subjugated, it is still a barbaric civilisation. No civilised person can be proud of the West.
There goes your damn racism again.
By the way I am taking this discussion into the relevant thread. This thread is to discuss whether Hinduism is a religion or not. To discuss India vs West discuss it in "Clash of civilisations: India vs West"
By the way why did you bring this stuff up here in the first place, no wait I know, cuz you’re trying as hard as you can to slander me and you think if you and your apprentice Nietzsche spam the crap out of me, it will shut me up, but it won’t, cuz I’m thick skinned and shrug your tasteless insults off my back like nothing. :lol:
What leads to wrong or right doings are circumstances. It’s crystal clear. It counts for you too. What leads you to your behaviour are circumstances, it’s not your own decision. You did not decide to be a bitch now. You’re forced to. I do agree that intense reflection can help, a spiritual practice can indeed help, introspection, meditation, self-control. This is true. But you are a “great” example for how difficult that is even for one who is an expert on the theory of such practices. You know all about Yoga and the methods, yet you’re controlled by your lowest senses and instincts and most basic emotions of hatred and anger. Your ego is you master. Now think of a culture who has no time to read books on Yoga, no time to practice any techniques, not to mention one that does not even have access to such techniques, because it never had the time to develop them. How can you expect of such people to control themselves better than a spoiled bitch like yourself? It’s not possible.
Your attempts to explain my argument was “stupid” and “absurd”, are a huge failure. Everybody you try to influence sees it like I do. You waste your time, give it up, establish a practice, become a good person, eventually.
you think this is impressive? I don’t. Makes me :roll:.
Are you Bryon’s spokesman? He wrote:
And his conclusion was:
I was wrong? Your boss did not want to say that it was one guy who won the battle, instead of it being the achievement of the culture he comes from? Fine. But still
what I said is right and
this anecdote ain’t explaining how an “inferior” culture can overcome a “superior” and
you, as Bryon’s spokesman, really need to explain the point of this whole anecdote
:roll:
Concerning this:
and this:
Sorry, I fail to be impressed by alleged or actual degrees and education some random guys on the internet have or might have or are trying to have. I am impressed by what people say only - one day you should try it too.
But since you’re trying to impress me with some degrees, I had a look at this battle:
Also it says:
A ration of 1 : 1.4 or even just 1 : 1.2. Not soooo outnumbered, eh?!
And then it says:
A depiction that some citizens overcame an uber-elite force, “would” be wrong. Furthermore:
Additionally there is this article:
Sounds like the Thebans were outnumbering the Spartans at this particular point of the formation, then killed a lot of Spartans, inlcuding the king, and made the rest of the Spartan army give it up and flee:
Who are these Peloponnesians? Some group:
The fought with the Spartans, as it seems. And then they fled, cuz they had no motivation anyways, and since the king was dead, why not get the hell outta there.
That’s what happened, unless Wikipedia is wrong of course.
Oh. And just btw. The ultra-competent Bryon-guy seems to find the homosexual couples kinda mentionable or hilarious or unbelievable or whatever. I even had heard of this custom before, here’s an explanation:
Conclusion: Speak for yourself, cuz now you’d have to explain all this if you wouldn’t want to look like a clown.
If you ask me what you’re supposed to go by, I suggest your own intelligence and your own interpretation.
Be smart. It’s superior. :lol:
Furthermore:
If you want to discuss stuff the way you like it, why don’t you go back to your Hindu nationalists forum? There you can discuss with your comrads the why’s and how’s of India’s superiority and how you guys drive a McLaren F1-racecar while the others only have their Hyundai’s and so forth. Your little-boys’-“my-dad-is-stronger-than-your-dad”-talk dad’s find so hilarious.
Bla bla bla. Empty words. What
argument do I manipulate?
fact do I refuse to accept?
fact has been proven to be accurate?
You wouldn’t know. :roll: You’re shifting from ad rem to ad hominem, you leave the factual level of the discussion and focus on the personal. You say less than nothing.
See, this is manipulating. I say that I do not believe in the possibility of a culture being superior at all. I don’t believe a culture can be superior to another.
Then you say if I would see that India is indeed superior, see that it is “EVEN true”, I would still not admit it. So you say I would be lying then.
No dude, I’m not a liar.
No, they are not equal, your comparison does not work at all. Are apples and peaches equal? No. Is the apple superior? Or the peach? There is no measuring of what you want to measure. You can measure which culture has more citizens or which has more books or which has more money or which has an advanced technology and so forth. A rabbit and a tiger. The tiger is bigger, stronger, has the better weapons, better hunting strategies, it is more beautiful, more playful, etc. etc. Now which animal is the superior creature? It can’t be answered.
And so forth.
From my perspective, from within my worldview, my standpoint, your oh-so-important question makes no sense whatsoever. It’s like asking “what’s bigger, blue or red?”
I would claim that, yes, and I already did, sorta. You know what the outcome was? I’d justify rape and just love genocide. :eek:
I would claim the hero is not superior, because it’s the circumstances that make both the hero and the murderer. So the circumstances are superior. From some perspective. Your comrads don’t get it either, if you’re kinda decent, don’t worry. If anyhting, maybe the actions can be evaluated, but not the person. Even that, though, is questionable, but if you asked me personally, I would basically think that saving lives is superior to killing. Still, though, circumstances have to be considered, killing killers is another story, for example. Or what if you had 3 innocent people who are about to involuntarily kill 100 children in an accident and you could stop them by killing them? What then? Who is evil, who is a hero? Or try this: Saving 10 lives is superior to saving 1 live, saving 100 superior to saving 10. 1000 superior to 100. Who now of these guys saving 1, 10, 100 and 1000 lives is the superiorest person of them all? The one saving 1000? Why? Maybe the guy who saved just 1 live had not even the chance to save 1000, so how is the one saving 1000 superior? The next guy never had the chance to save a life, how is he inferior to the guy who saved one life? You wouldn’t know.
And what about the murderer: Why did he become a murderer? Maybe he had to kill someone to save his family from starving. Maybe he feels terribly guilty for it. While the one who saved a life was just lucky, was just there at the right time in the right place, flipped a switch. Who is the great hero now? I’d think the murderer who takes the guilt to save his family. What did the hero in this story do? Flip a switch: Wow! Or the murderer was just greedy and selfish: Why? How come? What lead to it? Where was he born, how did he grow up? How does his mind work?
And therefore, if I read a book (got one now, guess will take me at least 2 weeks to read) and it turns out that your depiction of stuff is now finally the correct one, that still does not mean that your claim of Indian superiority was right. I thought you thought it’d work like that, so I told you it’s not. I am simply interested in finding out how you think it can be, that a superior civilisation/culture/group is conquered and enslaved for centuries by an inferior one. If the allegedly superior culture was deceived: How could that be possible? If the attacker had the better weapons: How can that be? Why did the superior culture not create superior weapons too? If the inferior culture had a better strategy: How was that possible? And so forth.
I already have gained some interesting insights. For example does indeed the climate and the rivers of the Indus valley allow for an easy life, at least easier than in an area like Germany, where you have no large areas to cultivate crop, but instead a long and hard winter every year.
Also: Before the Muslims took over, India was not one country, but many kingdoms. Didn’t know that. So there wasn’t even that superior “India”, there were a couple of kingdoms and the Muslims conquered them one by one. Why did the kingdoms not unite and stand together against the Muslims? The German tribes for example did unite when the Hungarians threatened what today is Germany:
Just btw, 8,000 Germans versus 17,000 Hungarians, outnumbered 1 : 2. Also had I read that a guy called Babur won an important battle where he was outnumbered considerably by using a superior strategy and using superior weapons:
Outnumbered 1 : 5. Lodi already was a muslim, though, but still: He had more troops, more wealth Babur still outsmarted him and had the better weapons. Do you call Lodi superior? He obviously wasn’t.
Yeah sure. Hope I can one day stand up against you superior folks. Til then I guess I have to live with roflmao. :([/QUOTE]
Q:
You are being needlessly confrontational with me. I said you were uneducated because you yourself admitted you haven’t read much on the subject. I stated a fact you agreed with. Use your on logic of absolute relativism on this. There is no superior and inferior. I am well-read, and you are not. Fact, not opinion. I will not respond to your saying that my response to you was 99 per cent ad-hominem and slander. The conversation is out there and anyone can see it to decide for themselves if what you say is true or not.
To answer your post…
Bryon said the general “helped” the army win the battle. He obviously didn’t win it by himself. Wonder why you would overlook something as obvious as that.
Sorry, I fail to be impressed by alleged or actual degrees and education some random guys on the internet have or might have or are trying to have. I am impressed by what people say only - one day you should try it too.
I am trying my friend. You disappoint sorely on that front. You haven’t dazzled me with your arguments, yet. Let us hope you do soon.
I will ignore the chaff in your post and try to concentrate on the wheat. So no reply from my side to allegations of being a Hindu nationalist, or all that racecar stuff. I don’t even understand what much of it means. You seem to be taking out other people’s anger on me. Understandable.
Apples and peaches are different, yes. But it is still worth asking which is more sweet. On selective criteria, two items may indeed be called as being superior or inferior to each other. Plus, when you find that a certain item outdoes another item on a significant number of criteria, it is safe to make a claim of superiority. For example, a mango is superior to a rock, insofar as culinary reasons are concerned.
Context determines superiority or inferiority.
We are right in the middle of a context. I am not asking “what is bigger - red or blue?” That’s a manipulation of my argument. I am asking if for purposes of decorating a certain house, red is better theme than blue.
The hero-villain argument is based on moral relativism. The hero may have been the villain if circumstances had been different. But he wasn’t, because they weren’t. History is an established timeline. It can not be judged on the basis of counter-factual arguments. What [I]may have happened and what could have been done do not matter[/I]. What matters is what did happen and what was done. You can’t judge Hitler on the basis of what he may have become if his circumstances had been different. The historic Hitler (or Buddha, or Jesus, or Gandhi, or Churchill) have to be judged on the basis of who they were and what they did.
Indian civilisation did some things and Western civilisation did some things. They have to be judged on the basis of those actions/achievements alone.
You make a good point about how river valley civilisations have it easier than desert ones and I agree with that. When you are surrounded by ice-cold storms and barren lands, you will not spend much time on philosophical sophistry. But to say that the achievements of those who landed up on the banks of a river do not matter because they had it easy is just plain unfair.
Furthermore, you are now making things personal. This is not what I am here to do. I repeat what I said before. Your knowledge in historical and cultural matters is negligible (as you admit yourself) and I think you should get an education and then come back so we may argue in a civil manner.
Although, if it pleases you to argue on the basis of only inferences, I can do that also. Let us just keep it civil, so we don’t run off on a tangent. I won’t respond to insults and attacks. Arguments, on the other hand, I am all OK with.
Where did Q say this exactly? Can you give a link to the specific post or thread?[/QUOTE]
I was mocking him by c-p’ing a post from Stormfront, a white nationalist and supremacist website.
The people on there do the [U]exact[/U] same thing as Q does: mock the achievements of other civilizations by trivializing them out of ignorance and asserting the supremacy of Western civilization.
I am breaking my vow of not responding to Q because the latest post he has made is full of such obvious contradictions I can easily show them to be contradictions and reduce his arguments to absurdity showing him the superiority of the Hindu intellect
you really don’t want to make this personal? That’s really great. It is, though, a problem if you provide a reply that consists of 99% ad hominem arguments, both devaluating me and upvaluating you (and Bryon). What should I reply there? I still provided an extensive reply to your tiny ad rem bit.
However, even if it’s just an experiment I will make another remark and then drop anything ad hominem and just focus on ad rem, including any comment you might care to add here; if you should really need an answer to anything ad hominem, feel free to send me a private message.
My remark is this: I think you intent to play the education-card a lot. Cuz I said it myself. You know? I said it myself, so how would I know anything about India being superior and what-not. What I know only little about, is India’s particular history. That’s all the education I lack.
So if you think that it is my lack of knowledge about Indian history that prohibits me to understand something, just provide the knowledge or a link and I will willingly accept whatever information is provided there. Historical knowledge, of course, like who built what city, who created an empire, who destroyed it, who conquered it and so forth.
Deal?
Onto the facts only now? Let’s roll!
Apples and peaches are different, yes. But it is still worth asking which is more sweet.
Sure. That you can ask. I had admitted that already.
On selective criteria, two items may indeed be called as being superior or inferior to each other.
Yes.
Plus, when you find that a certain item outdoes another item on a significant number of criteria, it is safe to make a claim of superiority.
Maybe, but you would have to prove the significance of the number of criteria, and I’m pretty sure that’s impossible when we talk about a culture. Why don’t you demonstrate it?
For example, a mango is superior to a rock, insofar as culinary reasons are concerned.
Sure. But if you need something to build a house, the rock is superior. Or if you want to crack a nut. Or if you need a weapon. Or all sorts of other context. So not only do you have to count criterias, prove the number to be significant, but you also have to evaluate each criteria in a context. There you have the problem that someone else could evaluate the criteria differently or come up with different context, where the criteria have a completely different value.
That’s why I think it ain’t working out to declare a culture superior to another. Besides that I don’t even see the point. Please explain why it is important to prove a culture’s superiority.
Context determines superiority or inferiority.
That’s what I think too.
We are right in the middle of a context. I am not asking “what is bigger - red or blue?” That’s a manipulation of my argument.
No, I am saying that from my perspective your question wether or not India is superior is as pointless as asking “what is bigger - red or blue?”
I am asking if for purposes of decorating a certain house, red is better theme than blue.
If you’d ask that, the answer is obviously a matter of taste.
The hero-villain argument is based on moral relativism. The hero may have been the villain if circumstances had been different. But he wasn’t, because they weren’t. History is an established timeline. It can not be judged on the basis of counter-factual arguments. What may have happened and what could have been done do not matter. What matters is what did happen and what was done.
There is the explanation missing. You just say “What may have happened and what could have been done do not matter. What matters is what did happen and what was done.” Why is that so? I have explained why it does matter. It matter not only when we evaluate the actual action, but particularly when we evaluate the person.
You can’t judge Hitler on the basis of what he may have become if his circumstances had been different. The historic Hitler (or Buddha, or Jesus, or Gandhi, or Churchill) have to be judged on the basis of who they were and what they did.
But we can’t judge who they were without considering the circumstances that made them what they were. And what they were was determined by the circumstances. And what they were decided what they did. So what they did depends on the circumstances.
We can at any time judge what they did. In case of Hitler, it was bad. In case of Gandhi, it was good. But to judge Hitler the person and Gandhi the person does not go without considering the circumstances. And there I already provided this explanation:
I would claim the hero is not superior, because it’s the circumstances that make both the hero and the murderer. So the circumstances are superior. From some perspective. Your comrads don’t get it either, if you’re kinda decent, don’t worry. If anyhting, maybe the actions can be evaluated, but not the person. Even that, though, is questionable, but if you asked me personally, I would basically think that saving lives is superior to killing. Still, though, circumstances have to be considered, killing killers is another story, for example. Or what if you had 3 innocent people who are about to involuntarily kill 100 children in an accident and you could stop them by killing them? What then? Who is evil, who is a hero? Or try this: Saving 10 lives is superior to saving 1 live, saving 100 superior to saving 10. 1000 superior to 100. Who now of these guys saving 1, 10, 100 and 1000 lives is the superiorest person of them all? The one saving 1000? Why? Maybe the guy who saved just 1 live had not even the chance to save 1000, so how is the one saving 1000 superior? The next guy never had the chance to save a life, how is he inferior to the guy who saved one life? You wouldn’t know.
And what about the murderer: Why did he become a murderer? Maybe he had to kill someone to save his family from starving. Maybe he feels terribly guilty for it. While the one who saved a life was just lucky, was just there at the right time in the right place, flipped a switch. Who is the great hero now? I’d think the murderer who takes the guilt to save his family. What did the hero in this story do? Flip a switch: Wow! Or the murderer was just greedy and selfish: Why? How come? What lead to it? Where was he born, how did he grow up? How does his mind work?
How do you for example evaluate Hitler and Gandhi? Demonstrate.
Indian civilisation did some things and Western civilisation did some things. They have to be judged on the basis of those actions/achievements alone.
No, why? Why do they have to be judged at all? What makes you the judge? This is dogmatic.
You make a good point about how river valley civilisations have it easier than desert ones and I agree with that. When you are surrounded by ice-cold storms and barren lands, you will not spend much time on philosophical sophistry.
See, it’s a good point. And you say that it should not be considered when we - for reasons yet to be explained - judge a culture. Any achievement of a culture that has to live under much harder circumstances: Isn’t it worth a lot more than the achievement of a culture that lives an easy life? Because it is much harder to achieve something surrounded by ice-storms?
But to say that the achievements of those who landed up on the banks of a river do not matter because they had it easy is just plain unfair.
Of course does any achiefment matter, I never would say anything different. If you judge only the achievement and it’s value: That’s mostly quite simple. But to judge the culture that came up with it, is much more difficult.
Ad rem, that’s all there is. Explain your viewpont instead of just saying “it is so”.
So if you think that it is my lack of knowledge about Indian history that prohibits me to understand something, just provide the knowledge or a link and I will willingly accept whatever information is provided there. Historical knowledge, of course, like who built what city, who created an empire, who destroyed it, who conquered it and so forth.
You should not be participating in a discussion on Indian history if you have no knowledge about Indian history. You are discussing Indian history with Phd’s and graduates who have studied Indian history to a considerable depth. Similarly, you are discussing Hinduism with practicing Hindus with 10years of experience and who read most of the primary texts.
It is not our responsibility to educate you. If you lack credentials, then don’t join in on the discussion. This of course has not stopped you from saying ignorant things like “dancing is banned in India”
Google and wiki “Indian history” Read a few books on the matter and get back to us, then you will at least have some knowledge on the matter to make some worthwhile contributions here. As the matter stands right now, you’re making yourself look like an utter moron.
That’s why I think it ain’t working out to declare a culture superior to another. Besides that I don’t even see the point. Please explain why it is important to prove a culture’s superiority.
Because we can. Sam is taller than Paul. We say Sam is taller than Paul because Sam IS taller than Paul.
There is the explanation missing. You just say “What may have happened and what could have been done do not matter. What matters is what did happen and what was done.” Why is that so? I have explained why it does matter. It matter not only when we evaluate the actual action, but particularly when we evaluate the person.
We do not discuss what could have happened because it did not happen. We discuss what happened because they are the facts. We don’t waste time with idle speculation. It is a pass time of fools.
But we can’t judge who they were without considering the circumstances that made them what they were. And what they were was determined by the circumstances. And what they were decided what they did. So what they did depends on the circumstances.
We judge people on their actions and not their circumstances. Hitler may well have been molested by his uncle and been bullied by jews at school, but this has no bearing on judging his action. He commited mass murder so we judge him as a mass murderer.
We can at any time judge what they did. In case of Hitler, it was bad. In case of Gandhi, it was good. But to judge Hitler the person and Gandhi the person does not go without considering the circumstances. And there I already provided this explanation
You do not need to know the circumstances of somebody to judge an action that has been done. In a court of law we do not need to know the entire history of a man who commited rape to convict him of rape, the present action is enough to make a judgement.
You judge a person by their character. Hitler had a perverted and savage character he was a mass murderer and a lunatic. Gandhi had a noble and saintly character he was a peaceful freedom fighter who commited himself to selfless service to his people and taught them self-reliance.
No, why? Why do they have to be judged at all? What makes you the judge?
Because we can. We have a faculty of judgement that allows us to discriminate between what is right and wrong. We know Hitler was wrong because he was a perverted savage person who was a mass murderer who killed innocent people. We know Gandhi was right because he was a noble and saintly person who dedicated himself in selfless service to the upliftment of his people.
See, it’s a good point. And you say that it should not be considered when we - for reasons yet to be explained - judge a culture. Any achievement of a culture that has to live under much harder circumstances: Isn’t it worth a lot more than the achievement of a culture that lives an easy life? Because it is much harder to achieve something surrounded by ice-storms?
An achivement is measured not by what environment or which people it was developed by, but by its use value and degree of complexity/sophistication/development. For example a caveman stick man drawing painting is less sophisticated than a picasso. Indian classical music which has 22 microtones is more sophisticated than Western classical music which has 12 semitones. Indian classical music has greater use value because it gives its artists more range and expression.
It is possible to measure how developed something is by its extent of sophistication. It goes without saying a picasso represents a significant extent of development over a stickman drawing. To say otherwise would be idiotic.
Of course does any achiefment matter, I never would say anything different. If you judge only the achievement and it’s value: That’s mostly quite simple. But to judge the culture that came up with it, is much more difficult.
A culture can be judged just like anything else can be. It depends on context and degree of development. A culture is the totality of the habits, values and institutions of a society, such as language. If we compare a culture whose habits include killing babies, who value crime like rape and murder and speak in grunts to one another with a culture whose habits include social welfare, who value wise philosopher and sages and speak a refined language with the precision of a computer language, it is clear to see by contrast which of these cultures is more evolved. Again, to not see this, would mean one is an idiot.
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;61169]The asura dog has barked! Quick SD and Vimoh, trash it so that it knows its place![/QUOTE]
We don’t need to show him his place, he is doing that himself.
I told you he was a neo-nazi from the start. Before he was trying to make out Nazi’s were innocent victims of circumstances. Now he is trying to make out Hitler and Gandhi are equivalent
I bet you any money he’s a regular on Stormfront. He even knew the URL of stormfront.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;61180]We don’t need to show him his place, he is doing that himself.
I told you he was a neo-nazi from the start. Before he was trying to make out Nazi’s were innocent victims of circumstances. Now he is trying to make out Hitler and Gandhi are equivalent
I bet you any money he’s a regular on Stormfront. He even knew the URL of stormfront.[/QUOTE]
You haven’t dazzled me with your arguments, yet. Let us hope you do soon.
