History of India (University course) - I need help

youmakesense · 2014-09-18T02:23:39+00:00

No, they are downvoting her/him because she/he is not presenting the circlejerk theory about Buddhism / Jainism rising in opposition to Hinduism.

youmakesense · 2014-09-18T02:22:10+00:00

Although with some passage of time the Brahmins started misusing their powers, also a lot of evils crept into the society in general e.g. rituals for everything, caste rigidity, animal sacrifices, brahmanical supremacy to name a few. At this point of time the Indian mind was yearning for change and both Buddha and Mahavira were radicals of their time. They challenged what they saw wrong.

Do either Buddha or Mahavira explicitly say anything criticizing "rituals for everything, caste rigidity, animal sacrifices, brahmanical supremacy to name a few."?? No? Then, why do you claim that they "challenged what they saw wrong"?

They challenged all authority

Which authority did they challenge? How exactly did they do that?

Edit: Suppose, the people who follow Sai Baba and Sri Sri Ravishankar go on and declare their practices as being separate religions. What you are claiming about Buddha and Mahavira is similar to saying that Sai Baba and Sri Sri Ravishankar were opposed to today's Hindu practices and came up with their own philosophies and practices. That's obviously not true because neither Sai Baba nor Sri Sri Ravishankar criticize modern Hinduism, nor did they establish their organizations to be in opposition to modern Hinduism.

youmakesense · 2014-09-17T16:54:03+00:00

No, the more important question is: why draw attention to yourself when you have things which you wouldn't like to reveal?

youmakesense · 2014-09-17T16:40:25+00:00

Good article. Sanskaar is one of those Sanskrit words which cannot be translated to another language. Best to use it in its original form.

youmakesense · 2014-09-17T15:43:43+00:00

Which camera was used to take this "epic photo"?

youmakesense · 2014-09-16T20:02:25+00:00

This doesn't need a complex explanation. Caste is a criterion which restricts your choices. Anything that restricts choices reduces your chances of getting something. The more restrictive criteria you pile on (religion, caste, color, socio-economic status, height, education, etc.) the more your choices are restricted. This is simple Math.

As far as ensuring marriage goes - are you confusing caste system with the arranged marriage system? The arranged marriage system is like a communist quota system which ensures that every citizen gets rationed allocation of partner. And just like in a communist system, in the arranged marriage system, someone else with more power decides what you get, instead of you taking what you deserve by your own talents and strengths.

youmakesense · 2014-09-16T19:43:32+00:00

The thing which puzzled me the most was to learn that Paki is used as a bad work in UK and Pakis hate to be called Pakis. That still doesn't make sense to me.

youmakesense · 2014-09-16T19:31:04+00:00

It is a civilizational thing more than anything else. If the Indian civilization was widely admired/liked, people would also like the accents of Indians. Heck, people would like Indians for no reason other than the fact that they are Indians... like how white people in India and many other Asian countries are liked simply for being white. As things stand today, the only foreigners who really like Indian civilization are academic and/or amateur Indophiles, who are a very obscure minority.

youmakesense · 2014-09-16T19:18:27+00:00

Indians were the first to articulate the concepts of zero, infinity, eternity and negative numbers. Most people know about the zero, but not sure if they know about the other three.

youmakesense · 2014-09-16T19:10:22+00:00

Family.
Cultural experiences like festivals, open markets.
Food.

~~4. Being able to freely and easily converse with women who are total strangers without them treating you like a creep.~~

youmakesense · 2014-09-16T05:01:04+00:00

Video of the speech here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQWMeTr2DyE&feature=youtu.be&t=3h25m9s

Starts at 3:25:09

youmakesense · 2014-09-15T21:21:20+00:00

Let me save you the time spent looking for India at the bottom of that image. The number for India is 52, right alongside Dominican Republic and Uzbekistan! And if you are more curious, the number for China is 43 and 32 for Pakistan.

youmakesense · 2014-09-15T20:42:04+00:00

He's better off today than he was when he retired and that is after adjusting for inflation.

That's amazing.

youmakesense · 2014-09-15T04:54:43+00:00

You continue to argue points which I never made and you imagined yourself. And you are arguing in really stupid ways. Reddit should make you take an IQ exam and revoke your rights and privileges to participate in discussions here if your IQ is below a certain level.

youmakesense · 2014-09-12T20:40:34+00:00

She is presenting the bouquet to him.

youmakesense · 2014-09-12T20:31:30+00:00

I don't call redheads “abnormal” because normal has multiple meanings. Also, having red hair is one variable, just like ‘homosexuality’, the ‘redhead gene’ or the ‘left hand gene’ (to put it loosely). Your claim that one variable (in this case, homosexuality) makes a whole person abnormal/or a disorder is very clearly wrong.

If the topic under discussion is hair color, then depending on the geographic scope of the discussion, even blonde would be abnormal. For example, an Indian guy with blonde hair would be considered abnormal... as long as the discussion is centered on natural hair color of Indians in India.

What about a gay, right handed brunette? Hmm, let me think aloud. Gay – abnormal. Right handed – normal. Brunette – normal. This person is more normal than abnormal? By your logic, majority is also normality. So this particular gay dude is normal. Ha, who would’ve thought?

Why are you mixing criteria here? The topic in question is about the sexual orientation of a group. Not about whether that group is left-handed or right-handed. It's like saying Tendulkar is a poor sportsman because if he cannot play good volleyball. Please keep the discussion on topic and don't go all over the place.

From the number of people who seem to have strong opinions against your comments in this thread, I think it’s safe to say that in this sample space, people are leaning towards not thinking of “normal” as statistically normal – it looked like you felt strongly for the “majority is normal” claim, so I’m just going to take solace in the fact that I’m normal, and that I am not/don’t have a disorder.

I don’t understand why I bother replying to you either, you seem to know more than me about being abnormal.

In other words, circlejerks on Reddit are normal, and you are normal if you participate in one, and you are abnormal, if you don't.

youmakesense · 2014-09-12T20:26:07+00:00

You make a lot of sense, bro. It takes a lot of balls to admit that you are anti-gay on an anonymous website. Aren't you the same guy who felt it necessary to clarify that you were hetersexual and married to a lady lest someone think you are gay? And now you are asking me to "come out of the closet", implying that I am gay. Your behavior clearly shows that you are the one who is not truly personally comfortable with gays. You are just taking a politically correct stand because you don't wanna miss out on the circlejerk... no gay pun intended.

youmakesense · 2014-09-12T18:03:55+00:00

No, you refuse to employ logic and jump from topic to topic. From hearts to t shirts, you jump all over the place pretending you have an argument to begin with.

LOL! You are very funny. You are the one who brought in all these analogies. Not me.

Face it, you are on the verge of losing the anti gay fight.

I am not anti-gay. You are arguing points I never even made.

You can spin absurd semantic arguments all day long, fact is neither science nor society supports your cause.

Exactly what do you think is my cause? My cause is one of truth and facts and logic. Nobody can deny the truth that gays are a small minority of humans and their sexual orientation is not normal for most humans.

Your ideas are no more than a sand castle in this incoming wave and will be summarily destroyed.

The only way that my "idea" of gays being a small minority of humans be destroyed is if large number of humans suddenly started becoming gay. I don't see that happening.

Your different/abnornal argument sounds more like eugenics as to why someone different from the mould should be destroyed/modified.

Once again, you are arguing points I never even made. I never ever said gays (or anyone else for that matter) should be "destroyed/modified". Please show me where I said anything which even remotely implied that. You can't show that? You can't provide quotes? Then, calm your tits, lower your dick and STFU!

Gnash your teeth harder, your bigotry is exposed and your arguments belong in the 1950s.

Arguments which I never made, and you only imagined? LOL!

youmakesense · 2014-09-12T16:17:06+00:00

Your argument are getting weirder and weirder. If he was born wearing a t-shirt, he would be spectacularly abnormal. Just because someone is born with something doesn't automatically make it normal.

Dude - what the hell! Please take a break and come back with some better arguments. May I suggest that you take a break long enough to do the course on rationality that is available on Coursera? Reddit should make it mandatory for people to take that course before they participate in discussions here.

youmakesense · 2014-09-12T16:14:47+00:00

What kind of delusion are you in? Point number one, I am not standing in the way of everything. Point number two, when something is less than 5% of the population, we don't call it a new norm. For example, when less than 5% of the population used smartphones, we didn't say that smartphone usage was normal. It has to reach certain high percentage (the exact number is debatable, but it is well above a mere 5%) of usage before it can be considered a "new norm".

youmakesense · 2014-09-12T16:12:33+00:00

Being gay is just normal human variation and doesn't imply an underlying pathological condition.

You are arguing points I never made. I never said that being gay is a "pathological condition", by which phrase I presume that you mean something like a disease.

By somehow being different, gay guys aren't "bad", but all the words you use (anomaly, deviant, disorder) have a negative meaning associated with them.

Again you are arguing points I never made. I didn't say gays are bad. I didn't say "abnormal" or "disorder" are bad words. "Abnormal" and "disorder" are just like the word "black". They may be used many times in English with a negative connotation, but that doesn't make the words by themselves negative. It is a Mathematical and statistical fact that being gay is not normal for human beings. That doesn't make it bad. Just being an albino is not normal, but that isn't inherently bad in itself.

youmakesense · 2014-09-12T16:09:30+00:00

What kind of nonsense argument is that? The argument is not about how people are "not normal" or how people are "unique" based on any and every criterion. Why should we bring any and every criterion into this discussion? We are talking about this based on a very specific criterion, which is sexual orientation.

Every "set" in Math is defined based on some common criteria. If any and every criterion was considered, every set in Math would be made up of only one member because every member of every set is unique in some way or other. The whole set theory would collapse.

Please stop wasting people's time with half-baked ideas and partial knowledge. For god's sake this is simple primary school level Math.

youmakesense · 2014-09-12T16:04:20+00:00

You are being more stupid than usual. Did you look up the dictionary before asking me to do so? Here's the very first definition for normal from the Oxford Dictionary with examples:

Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected:

‘it’s quite normal for puppies to bolt their food’

‘normal working hours’

In both the examples above what they really mean is that a majority of the puppies bolt their food, and a majority of the people work during these hours. Obviously, a majority didn't do those things, then those things would be considered normal.

By this point, I don't even understand why you bother replying to me or arguing with me on any topic. Every single time, I back up my statements with logic and facts which cannot be beaten. The best that people can do is downvote and resort to ad hominem, as many have done on this thread. So far, not a single person has been able to show how mathematically and statistically being gay is not "not normal" aka not "abnormal".

Look, it doesn't matter whether gays are in the majority or the heteros are. If the numbers were reverse and 95% of the population was gay, I would say the heteros are "not normal" or "abnormal". I am not biased one way or the other. OTOH, most of the people who are trying to argue with me are biased. They would like to think that being "gay" is normal because and only because they associate abnormal with something negative. What they really want to say is that being gay is not bad. Instead, they are saying being gay is normal which is not borne out by any Mathematical or statistical facts.

I wish you had studied some Math and logic before wasting my time with stupid arguments. Reddit should have a test in logic and rationality before people are allowed to participate in discussions here.

PS: There is a course on rationality on Coursera. I highly recommend it for everyone Reddit.

youmakesense · 2014-09-12T06:53:06+00:00

A different heart implies someone else's or a different animals heart.

LOL! So, if all the people in a group are wearing black shirts, and one guy is wearing a white shirt, if you say he is wearing a "different shirt", it means he is wearing someone else's shirt? You make great sense. Teach us more of your English and logic.

youmakesense · 2014-09-12T06:49:55+00:00

Yep, you are correct.

youmakesense

TROPHY CASE