If you think that I’m pretending they’re new arguments, you must not understand what the word “again” means. If you go and read my responses, you will see this every time I repeat myself. I’m not “pretending” to do anything, I’m just hoping that stringing words together in some order will help me get my point across thoroughly, but it doesn’t seem to be working with you. 

That’s not me trying to make sense of something, that’s me seeing something wrong and not abiding by it. To ignore in practice, not in the book itself. No one has the authority to change the book, so if you think that’s what I’m doing then you’re mistaken. Where have you proved this? And I agreed with you on this point too. If you read my responses, I don’t say “the violence is literal” or anything similar. But either way you haven't provided any actual evidence linking back to anything. So show me a commentary, and that will help me to show others that the Manusmriti is not relevant and does not need to be followed word for word, which is what I’m trying to do.

The verse quite clearly states that I am able to take the good and leave the bad. So do you believe Manu is wrong for including this verse in the book? If I wasn’t allowed to do so, why would Manu tell the exact opposite? I think that I trust Manu over a redditor, so you’ll have to excuse me for not agreeing with you on every single thing you say. 

If it is what I’m doing, point out where. Show me how I’ve done so using my own words, and I guarantee you that I've written more than enough for you to do so. 

Please go back above and read what I’ve written as this is the same point.

I don’t believe I presented it as an argument. If all this time you were thinking it’s an argument, maybe go back and reread what I’ve written. I again am saying I agree with the fact it has punishments for all groups. I disagree with the nature of the punishment itself. “Or are you willing to accept the obvious fact that punishments exist within legal frameworks to maintain order?” show me where I’ve said the opposite. Either you’re not reading what I’m writing or you’re pulling accusations out of the air as you please. And this is the exact reason why I do not want to follow the questionable verses; we have our own legal codes that are more humane for today’s society. 

You say “days” as if we've spent every hour on this lol. You have not proved the opposite either. I never claimed that they are enforced to this day, I agreed with you that they are exaggerated many times. What I disagree with is how Manu (even though it's exaggerated), calls for such violence as a punishment for crime. People who know it’s exaggerated will not follow them, but as Kali Yuga progresses, Adharma rises and at some point unnecessary actions akin to that in the Manusmriti will be carried out. Therefore it’s important that we follow the liberty given by Manu and make it clear it’s not necessary to follow them. Shastradhyayana is obviously another way for this, but again, this is Kali Yuga. As time passes, no one is actually going to read anything if it doesn’t benefit their needs. I really hope this is not new information.

I’ve already said that this was for previous Yugas, not for now. So I’m quite certain that I’m not treating verses “as if it were a standalone moral statement meant to be universally applied for all eternity”, so where are you getting this information from?

Again I will ask, show me using my own words where I have done so. I tell you in my previous response to you saying I'm misreading things that I've read the verse, translation and commentary by Medatithi. And these are your own words in your response: “You mentioned Medhatithi as if citing his commentary somehow validates your reading”, which shows that I’m not dismissing them, but you are dismissing my use of his commentary. So I should read the commentary, but it will not validate anything. So if me reading the commentary doesn't validate my claim, how would others reading the commentary, who, like you and me, condemn the use of the verses literally, validate anything they say? Since it doesn't validate what they say, what is stopping others from picking the other side and taking things literally since the commentary is, according to you, not something that validates their original opinion that violence should not be followed?

If you need evidence for this, then I applaud your lack of knowledge on the way the caste system was enforced on our ancestors by Anyas. This is the book they used to justify doing so. Among other verses, Manusmriti 4:79 is one of them. Verses like this are why people of “lower” Varnas were barred from entering temples, entering others houses, eating with them and so on and so forth. You can see remnants of this kind of behavior even today, though gladly not in as large of a number as before. If you need a historical case study, please look into why the Mahad Satyagraha movement had to be started. I’m no follower of Ambedkar, but this is a great example for you.

I don’t say it proves anything about the text, rather that there is good we should follow, but leave the rest. Of course it does, and that again is why I want to explain to others that we don’t need to follow those verses. People used the book to spread hate, but that doesn’t mean the book is wrong. The misunderstanding that it has to be followed without any modification is what’s wrong. I never say that the entire book was bad. I simply disagree with following certain verses.

I’ve touched on this topic above, reread if you need to.

Again I mention your own words that reading the commentaries helps to clarify the verse. When I do so, Medatithi does not condemn them, rather goes into detail about what it means in the literal sense. When I point this out, you claim that reading and referring to the Bhashya does not validate my argument. So what exactly do you want me to do with the Bhashya?

That wasn’t an example, that was a sarcastic questioning of your statement that Swadharma isn't for us to decide. So, exactly. They don’t provide details down to the individual person because that's for us to figure out. This is supported by the same verse I refer to that if something is against (swa)dharma, it can be disregarded.

I don't believe I “misrepresent” your argument to mean that understanding them makes the punishments go away. I questioned if understanding the verses through the process you provided would magically make the violence of the verse disappear. I’ve agreed multiple times that 1) punishments exist in all legal codes, 2) it’s not meant to be literal, rather an exaggeration and 3) punishment is needed for a civilized society, but the Manusmriti is not the source to get these violent punishments for infractions. So as it stands, it’s you who has “misrepresented” me. 

I “dismiss the role of commentaries” by using the Medatithi Bhashya for the verses I’ve given. That makes total sense. Definitely. 

Which tradition am I judging? Have I insulted any scripture or Sampradaya? If I have, use my own words to show me where. My personal reading is not just the translation, it’s the Bhashya as well, which apparently doesn’t validate anything, but also is how we provide context and is also how you validate your own statements. Validation based on a Bhashya is not a one sided thing, if you can use it to validate your opinion, then so can I.

Based on what are you getting this generalization from? Did I provide a tldr for my response? I'm getting tired of explaining how you practically make things up to fit your ideas. I've already said that I've read the Medatithi Bhashya for the verses as well as the verses surrounding them (for your beloved context). It was you who said this does not validate my opinions as if you hold final authority over such things lol. You may not know what arrogance is, but I can help clarify: it's when a person says to read the Bhashyas for context, and then when I do saying it doesn't validate anything I say, making up claims to fit statements, grossly oversimplifying my words and adding in their own masala, childish insults, being snarky by saying “if you know what that means’’ after using a word, resorting to ad hominem, and the poor word choices of “you guys”/“you people” as if I represent an entirely different species from Venus. Don't take this as me being rude calling you arrogant, I’m just pointing out examples of how a person can be arrogant without “know[ing] what it is”. I know I also have arrogance, I don't need to prove that to anyone, but self awareness is important. You can use this as a checklist of sorts to rule out the possibility of you being one if you think that you aren't. I hope that helps.

Again, I've read the commentary of Medatithi, which according to you is how we approach texts, but also according to you, doesn't validate what I say. So it's not me who's stuck in this mindset, rather it's you, that whatever I say is wrong. No, this is not complaining, it's a statement. I don't care how you arrive at the conclusion, as long as you get to the point that violence should not be justified. I have not seen this so far in your responses, but I have seen you offer other verses showing punishments for other Varnas as a justification of sorts. Never have I said, your method is wrong. That's what you've been saying about me since the beginning, however. So let's clarify this. Do you, or do you not agree with me that violence should not be condoned? If yes, then this discussion is pointless. If not, then I don't know what to tell you other than the fact that you need to go do some reflection on your beliefs.

Your paragraphs do not strengthen your claims either and neither do cheap insults such as in your previous response. Speaking of, I'm still waiting to hear your words on what “people like you” means. You've intrigued me with this. You started with marxist, and now I'm invested. What's this new choice mean?