A beneficial aspect of "NorthIndian" culture

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:49 am

It has been suggested by some posters, primarily Mburuburu and Max, that North Indian (or "NorthIndian" as they prefer to spell the word) culture is loud, boorish, crude. To some extent they are right. I have spent a fair bit of time with tamils and also kannadigas and i can say with some confidence that the people in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are more sophisticated, refined, cultured than people in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, etc. There are several caveats to consider, however. For instance, many Uttar Pradeshis consider Punjabis and Haryanvis to be crude, boorish, etc. and themselves to be more refined and sophisticated. So a lot of this crudeness vs refineness business is relative. It is a fallacy to think that the people and culture in non-SI states is a monolithic 'NI culture' and the people are 'NI people'. And what about Maharashtra? If you ask a Maharashtrian the question 'are you north indian or south indian' you will likely hear the answer 'Neither'.

Now, coming to the subject of this thread. The fact that south indians are in general more refined and cultured, etc. than north indians also has the direct consequence that they are more docile. The docility of the south indian combined with a superior knowledge of english (as compared to north indians) means that they are ripe for missionary activity. And indeed anyone who has travelled around in both SI and NI can immediately see that missionary activity is a lot more (and done in a blatant manner in places) than in NI where it can be physically dangerous for a missionary to propagate his faith blatantly lest he get beaten up by the crude north indian. I recall once during my travels in Tamil Nadu i had come across an open function where on the ground many people had gathered and there was a stage where young Indian missionaries were playing and singing Christian music. I also saw posters giving locations and timings of occasions where some missionary activity was to be held. This kind of blatant missionary activity is positively dangerous for the missionary in North India, because the crude 'NorthIndian' is intolerant of this kind of behavior.

So why is this a good thing? In my opinion, despite the fact that hinduism had the caste system, despite the fact that it also had sati and the prohibition against widow remarriage, there are also many great things about hinduism. The wide range of hindu philosophy--which ranges from monism and theism to atheism and materialism--is unmatched in any other religion. The problems the hindu philosophers conceptualized and answered were clearly deeper and more thorough than their christian, muslim, and jew counterparts. For instance, there is an argument in European philosophy called the Dreaming Argument. It was formulated by Rene Descartes, the french philosopher and mathematician, in the 17th century AD. But this same argument had been given, with greater thoroughness and rigor, by Kumarila Bhatta of the Mimansa school of Hindu philosophy a thousand years earlier.

I realize there is something called the right to choose one's religion. Having said that the incentives christian missionaries are known to offer (for instance when tribals of brazil were converted by giving them guns and limited number of bullets so that they had to keep coming back to the missionaries for more bullets while their own native culture of hunting using bow and arrow was simply destroyed by missionary activity) makes it undesirable in my opinion for missionaries to be given in a free hand to make converts. One notes that before the second world war there were almost no christians in south korea, while today the population is 40%. And these christians of south korea are very religious, even evangelical, christians.

I do not want India to become South Korea. Hinduism is the traditional religion of my country and that is how it should remain. The only exception i can think of is Budhism (also Jainism). The reason i mention Budhism is because many low caste hindus have converted to Budhism as a means to achieve social emancipation and i have no problem with this. After all, Budhism can be regarded as a sect of Hinduism in view of the similar positions in Budhism and some of the Hindu philosophies (like Sankhya).

All this does not mean that i support Hindutvas i.e. Hindu extremists. I believe it is possible to be a Hindu while being opposed to Hindutvas who are in my opinion typically have a very poor knowledge of what Hinduism is about. Try discussing Hindu philospophy with a Hindutva and chances are you will find his knowledge of the subject is minimal.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:01 am

Is this your own essay or an excerpt from some place else?

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:02 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Is this your own essay or an excerpt from some place else?

it is something i just wrote a few minutes ago. are you impressed or disappointed?

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:41 am

Neither. I disagree with your core thesis on multiple counts. Lauding the North Indian penchant for violence is just wrong. Societal violence is bad regardless of who is the target of that violence. It is hypocritical to hail the violence against missionaries as beneficial to Hinduism, but condemn it when the targets are minorities like Muslims, women, lower castes etc.

Secondly, if Hinduism is indeed as wonderful as you claim it is, why should it require Northindian violence to defend itself from competing religions? Shouldn't the beauty of its philosophy itself pull believers to its fold? If a religion requires violence to retain its following, then it's time to introspect on its inadequacies and make it more relevant in the 21st century. Surely, there is a reason why the maximum conversion takes place amongst the lowest castes.

Lastly, for all the talk of the "docile South Indian" being an easy mark for religious conversion, the percentage of Hindus in Karnataka (83%) or Tamil Nadu (87%) is higher than in UP (80%). So it's not even factual.

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:19 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Neither. I disagree with your core thesis on multiple counts. Lauding the North Indian penchant for violence is just wrong. Societal violence is bad regardless of who is the target of that violence. It is hypocritical to hail the violence against missionaries as beneficial to Hinduism, but condemn it when the targets are minorities like Muslims, women, lower castes etc.

I have great respect for missionaries myself since i went to a school operated by them. But my respect for them would diminish if my teachers in the missionary school would have ever attempted to convert me. This has actually happened to me as an adult in North America but it never happened while i was in school and more susceptible.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Secondly, if Hinduism is indeed as wonderful as you claim it is, why should it require Northindian violence to defend itself from competing religions? Shouldn't the beauty of its philosophy itself pull believers to its fold? If a religion requires violence to retain its following, then it's time to introspect on its inadequacies and make it more relevant in the 21st century. Surely, there is a reason why the maximum conversion takes place amongst the lowest castes.

To answer this, i reiterate what i had written earlier: the incentives christian missionaries are known to offer makes it undesirable in my opinion for missionaries to be given in a free hand to make converts. for instance when tribals of brazil were converted by christian missionaries by giving them guns and a limited number of bullets so that they had to keep coming back to the missionaries for more bullets while their own native culture of hunting using bow and arrow was simply destroyed by the missionary activity.

I will give another example to illustrate the missionary activity in NI and SI. I myself did part of my schooling in a missionary school in NI. Not once was i subjected to any religious propaganda. On the other hand, i was shocked to see a photograph in the school magazine of a missionary school in Tamil Nadu which showed a young boy being baptised (converted) in the school premises.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Lastly, for all the talk of the "docile South Indian" being an easy mark for religious conversion, the percentage of Hindus in Karnataka (83%) or Tamil Nadu (87%) is higher than in UP (80%). So it's not even factual.

There are historical reasons for why there are more hindus (as a percentage) in TN and Karnataka than in UP (where muslim population is 19%) and West Bengal (where muslim population is 35%). Some of the reasons i can think of is there may have been a greater percentage of low caste hindus in many of the NI states as compared to the SI states, and also the treatment meted out to low caste hindus may have been harsher which made many of them ripe for religious conversion into a faith which preached at least theoretical equality of all its adherents. But this is a problem i have not investigated in detail. For instance, why did most low caste hindus all over India not convert to Budhism (which preached equality) as a means of social emancipaiton? It is a question i cannot answer as of now. But this does not negate the observation of significantly greater missionary activity in SI as of today than in NI.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:26 am

Stop obsessing about missionaries. Ths real issue is that when a religion treats entire groups of its own followers as sub-human, those groups will flock for the exits at the first opportunity. Trying to stop that with violence is foolish and futile. Ergo, there is nothing praiseworthy or beneficial about the Northindian penchant for violence, period.

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:33 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Stop obsessing about missionaries. Ths real issue is that when a religion treats entire groups of its own followers as sub-human, those groups will flock for the exits at the first opportunity. Trying to stop that with violence is foolish and futile. Ergo, there is nothing praiseworthy or beneficial about the Northindian penchant for violence, period.

do you approve of the way the tribals in brazil were converted to christianity by the missionaries? The tribals used to hunt in their traditional way using bow and arrow--as they had done for thousands of years. The missionaries gave them guns and a limited number of bullets so as to make the tribals dependent on the missionaries i.e. the tribals would keep coming back to the missionaries whenever they would run out of bullets. This meant that first an aspect of the tribal culture--hunting using bow and arrow--was artificially destroyed by the missionaries. Secondly, the tribals of brazil had their own tribal religion and this aspect of the indigenous culture was also destroyed when the missionaries converted these people to Christianity.
If any low caste hindu is looking for an exit point, he or she has Budhism readily available for this purpose. Also, any Missionary activity in schools i.e. trying to convert naive and gullible children through religious propaganda is despicable.

by Hellsangel Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:54 am

Damn those refined, cultured and docile Keralites. The succumbed 2000 years back.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:03 am

your condoning violence as a means to protecting hinduism from proselytizers is telling. you are no different from the hindutva-vadis that you have railed against in the past.

brazil etc. is a non-issue. the history of india is the history of india. the opposite of violent tendencies is not docility. it's funny you think that way though.

i expect you to say many silly things, but not this!

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:06 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:your condoning violence as a means to protecting hinduism from proselytizers is telling. you are no different from the hindutva-vadis that you have railed against in the past.

brazil etc. is a non-issue. the history of india is the history of india. the opposite of violent tendencies is not docility. it's funny you think that way though.

i expect you to say many silly things, but not this!

do you approve of the way the tribals in brazil were converted to christianity by the missionaries? The tribals used to hunt in their traditional way using bow and arrow--as they had done for thousands of years. The missionaries gave them guns and a limited number of bullets so as to make the tribals dependent on the missionaries i.e. the tribals would keep coming back to the missionaries whenever they would run out of bullets. This meant that first an aspect of the tribal culture--hunting using bow and arrow--was artificially destroyed by the missionaries. Secondly, the tribals of brazil had their own tribal religion and this aspect of the indigenous culture was also destroyed when the missionaries converted these people to Christianity.
If any low caste hindu is looking for an exit point, he or she has Budhism readily available for this purpose. Also, any Missionary activity in schools i.e. trying to convert naive and gullible children through religious propaganda is despicable.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:12 am

i do not like proselytization. the problem is that the history of proselytization is also tied up with colonialism that it is difficult to break up the two threads. what happened in brazil is not relevant to what happened in india.

today we have a democracy. if you are against proselytization, violence is not the means to end it, but through the rule of law. why don't you introduce and pass legislation against proselytization if it bothers you so much? religion is unimportant to me but it seems to be important to you, so the onus is on you.

and about your suggested conversion to buddhism instead of christianity, may i tell you the obvious -- it is NOT your call but that of the individual. maybe christianity is more attractive than buddhism to those converting to it.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:17 am

jeb mburuburu - every time i see you agree gratuitously with rashmun, i cringe. do you have any opinions on this post of rashmun?

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:59 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i do not like proselytization. the problem is that the history of proselytization is also tied up with colonialism that it is difficult to break up the two threads. what happened in brazil is not relevant to what happened in india.

today we have a democracy. if you are against proselytization, violence is not the means to end it, but through the rule of law. why don't you introduce and pass legislation against proselytization if it bothers you so much? religion is unimportant to me but it seems to be important to you, so the onus is on you.

and about your suggested conversion to buddhism instead of christianity, may i tell you the obvious -- it is NOT your call but that of the individual. maybe christianity is more attractive than buddhism to those converting to it.

I abhor violence myself. If anyone manhandles or attacks a missionary I would like that person to face charges and punished to the maximum extent. I am only pointing out that missionaries seem to be intimidated about doing blatant proselytization in NI states like UP and this is not a bad thing. By the way violence is not the only way someone can oppose missionary activity. Heckling using aggressive language may suffice.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:44 pm

Rashmun wrote:
I abhor violence myself. If anyone manhandles or attacks a missionary I would like that person to face charges and punished to the maximum extent. I am only pointing out that missionaries seem to be intimidated about doing blatant proselytization in NI states like UP and this is not a bad thing. By the way violence is not the only way someone can oppose missionary activity. Heckling using aggressive language may suffice.

yes i somehow guessed you'll respond in this lily-livered manner. basically you're afraid of violence yourself and pontificate against it, but are perfectly willing to let the other guys live under the threat of violence. there is no place in a democracy for actual violence or the threat of violence. i see no difference between the two.[/quote]

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:13 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
I abhor violence myself. If anyone manhandles or attacks a missionary I would like that person to face charges and punished to the maximum extent. I am only pointing out that missionaries seem to be intimidated about doing blatant proselytization in NI states like UP and this is not a bad thing. By the way violence is not the only way someone can oppose missionary activity. Heckling using aggressive language may suffice.

yes i somehow guessed you'll respond in this lily-livered manner. basically you're afraid of violence yourself and pontificate against it, but are perfectly willing to let the other guys live under the threat of violence. there is no place in a democracy for actual violence or the threat of violence. i see no difference between the two.

[/quote]

i have already said that i am for zero tolerance for any kind of violence. missionaries have been my teachers; how can i be happy with anyone attacking them physically? However, if someone heckles them verbally when they are doing proselytization than that should be deemed more acceptable since the heckling could be considered freedom of speech and expression on par with proselyzation. The point here is that the average north indian is more intimidating than the relatively docile south indian even when it comes to heckling verbally. No missionary would like to be heckled (or abused) when doing their proselyzation work.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:35 pm

now you are changing your tune. here is what you said earlier:

And indeed anyone who has travelled around in both SI and NI can immediately see that missionary activity is a lot more (and done in a blatant manner in places) than in NI where it can be physically dangerous for a missionary to propagate his faith blatantly lest he get beaten up by the crude north indian.

So why is this a good thing?

and then you went on to give some cockamamie reason. and as for your utterly idiotic comment about docile southern indians, i only have to remind you that some of the same species turned out to be some of the world's most fearsome terrorists.

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:43 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:now you are changing your tune. here is what you said earlier:

And indeed anyone who has travelled around in both SI and NI can immediately see that missionary activity is a lot more (and done in a blatant manner in places) than in NI where it can be physically dangerous for a missionary to propagate his faith blatantly lest he get beaten up by the crude north indian.

So why is this a good thing?

and then you went on to give some cockamamie reason. and as for your utterly idiotic comment about docile southern indians, i only have to remind you that some of the same species turned out to be some of the world's most fearsome terrorists.

i am not denying that physical thrashing can also take place. but i think what is much more likely to happen to someone who does proselytization is not physical thrashing but verbal heckling or even abusive language bestowed on such people.

by Hellsangel Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:52 pm

Are you calling Northern Indians boors and louts?

by Hellsangel Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:02 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:, i only have to remind you that some of the same species turned out to be some of the world's most fearsome terrorists.

Can the Sinhalese who army crushed "some of the world's most fearsome terrorists" like an elephant squashes a grape, be considered southern Indian? After all the Indian Army that is dominated by Northern Indians could not do the job.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:03 pm

here is another statistic to show how idiotic the docile southern indian comment is. after independence there have been 25 chiefs of army staff. eight of them have been southern indians. that's 32%. southern indians are 20% of india's population and thus disproportionately represented in the highest ranks of the indian army. docile people don't get selected at rates higher than their presence in the overall population to lead one of the world's largest professional armies.

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:15 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:here is another statistic to show how idiotic the docile southern indian comment is. after independence there have been 25 chiefs of army staff. eight of them have been southern indians. that's 32%. southern indians are 20% of india's population and thus disproportionately represented in the highest ranks of the indian army. docile people don't get selected at rates higher than their presence in the overall population to lead one of the world's largest professional armies.

it can be investigated where exactly the south indian army generals are coming from. for instance, there is a small hilly region in Karnataka called Coorg which has produced many (i.e. a disproportionately large number of) army generals.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:19 pm

so what? they are southern indian aren't they? your comment was southern indians are docile. i just showed you how idiotic you are. there have been tulu, kannadiga, tamil, and telugu generals. do you want to continue to sound like a complete fool or recant what you said?

by garam_kuta Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:22 pm

whoa!

god's own country has become the wussy iyer land now... clap

march on..

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:23 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:so what? they are southern indian aren't they? your comment was southern indians are docile. i just showed you how idiotic you are. there have been tulu, kannadiga, tamil, and telugu generals. do you want to continue to sound like a complete fool or recant what you said?

Coorg is not a typical South Indian region. It is hilly terrain i.e. like the Garhwal-Kumaon region of North India. The physical terrain presumably makes the men more tough.

by Hellsangel Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:26 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:so what? they are southern indian aren't they? your comment was southern indians are docile. i just showed you how idiotic you are. there have been tulu, kannadiga, tamil, and telugu generals. do you want to continue to sound like a complete fool or recant what you said?

Coorg is not a typical South Indian region. It is hilly terrain i.e. like the Garhwal-Kumaon region of North India. The physical terrain presumably makes the men more tough.

BTW, why has there been no Muslim army chief of staff in India? Are Muslim men not tough enough?

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:28 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:so what? they are southern indian aren't they? your comment was southern indians are docile. i just showed you how idiotic you are. there have been tulu, kannadiga, tamil, and telugu generals. do you want to continue to sound like a complete fool or recant what you said?

Coorg is not a typical South Indian region. It is hilly terrain i.e. like the Garhwal-Kumaon region of North India. The physical terrain presumably makes the men more tough.

BTW, why has there been no Muslim army chief of staff in India? Are Muslim men not tough enough?

there is a deliberate, official policy in the indian army to only induct very few muslims in the indian army. the reason given is that if there is a fight with pak in future then...

by Hellsangel Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:30 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:so what? they are southern indian aren't they? your comment was southern indians are docile. i just showed you how idiotic you are. there have been tulu, kannadiga, tamil, and telugu generals. do you want to continue to sound like a complete fool or recant what you said?

Coorg is not a typical South Indian region. It is hilly terrain i.e. like the Garhwal-Kumaon region of North India. The physical terrain presumably makes the men more tough.

BTW, why has there been no Muslim army chief of staff in India? Are Muslim men not tough enough?

there is a deliberate, official policy in the indian army to only induct very few muslims in the indian army. the reason given is that if there is a fight with pak in future then...

Is that really true? Any write-up about it?

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:31 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:so what? they are southern indian aren't they? your comment was southern indians are docile. i just showed you how idiotic you are. there have been tulu, kannadiga, tamil, and telugu generals. do you want to continue to sound like a complete fool or recant what you said?

Coorg is not a typical South Indian region. It is hilly terrain i.e. like the Garhwal-Kumaon region of North India. The physical terrain presumably makes the men more tough.

BTW, why has there been no Muslim army chief of staff in India? Are Muslim men not tough enough?

there is a deliberate, official policy in the indian army to only induct very few muslims in the indian army. the reason given is that if there is a fight with pak in future then...

Is that really true? Any write-up about it?

this is what i have been told; i too have some former army officers in my family.

by Hellsangel Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:33 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Coorg is not a typical South Indian region. It is hilly terrain i.e. like the Garhwal-Kumaon region of North India. The physical terrain presumably makes the men more tough.

BTW, why has there been no Muslim army chief of staff in India? Are Muslim men not tough enough?

there is a deliberate, official policy in the indian army to only induct very few muslims in the indian army. the reason given is that if there is a fight with pak in future then...

Is that really true? Any write-up about it?

this is what i have been told; i too have some former army officers in my family.

You too? Who else? And what did they tell you about southindian officers?

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:34 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:

BTW, why has there been no Muslim army chief of staff in India? Are Muslim men not tough enough?

there is a deliberate, official policy in the indian army to only induct very few muslims in the indian army. the reason given is that if there is a fight with pak in future then...

Is that really true? Any write-up about it?

this is what i have been told; i too have some former army officers in my family.

You too? Who else? And what did they tell you about southindian officers?

nothing.

by Hellsangel Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:41 pm

Hmm. Looks like there is one Goan army Chief of Staff who went on to become Governor of Punjab.

by confuzzled dude Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:10 am

Kombleteley agreed. Sissy Dravidians, firstly succumbed to Aryans then took up Aryan religion as theirs. If not for North Indian resistance to Muslim invaders South India would've been 90% Muslim, of course Brits would still be ruling India. Even those Maoists are trained in Bihar and M.P. For crying out loud, Telugus can't even bifurcate their own state without north indian permission.

by Jebediah Mburuburu Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:42 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:jeb mburuburu - every time i see you agree gratuitously with rashmun, i cringe. do you have any opinions on this post of rashmun?

i have opinions on nearly everything. i don't remember agreeing with rashmun in this thread.

i don't reason with northindians as you do here; i don't beg or plead with northindians for understanding, as gdctzn does; i don't flirt with northindians as some women here do, no matter vot's for lunch, or what the newest reason for an alliance of convenience is.

i merely like to bash northindians for their incivility, crassness, and idiocy, when i'm so inclined. and when i'm not so inclined, i watch you be rude to rashmun, while he earnestly expresses the opinions you dislike, in a civil and polite way.

the time for reasoning has long been over. i've finally come to recognize southern indians' lack of self-esteem, their cowardice, and their tendency to prevaricate. but you should be alright, for you've paid your dues to the admin of the glut tribe.

by Idéfix Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:35 am

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:i don't reason with northindians as you do here; ... [blah, blah, blah] ... for lunch, or what the newest reason for an alliance of convenience is.

... i watch you be rude to rashmun, while he earnestly expresses the opinions you dislike, in a civil and polite way.

... i've finally come to recognize southern indians' lack of self-esteem, their cowardice, and their tendency to prevaricate.

A beneficial aspect of "NorthIndian" culture 08f983ad9e613922a45402b42719147b

by Captain Bhankas Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:19 am

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote: i don't flirt with northindians as some women here do, no matter vot's for lunch, or what the newest reason for an alliance of convenience is.

A beneficial aspect of "NorthIndian" culture Bull

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:58 am

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:

i don't reason with northindians as you do here; i don't beg or plead with northindians for understanding, as gdctzn does; i don't flirt with northindians as some women here do, no matter vot's for lunch, or what the newest reason for an alliance of convenience is.

your recent cozying up to rashmun brought exactly that phrase to mind.

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:i merely like to bash northindians for their incivility, crassness, and idiocy, when i'm so inclined. and when i'm not so inclined, i watch you be rude to rashmun, while he earnestly expresses the opinions you dislike, in a civil and polite way.

right, bashing northindians is different from being rude to them for their idiocy.

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:the time for reasoning has long been over. i've finally come to recognize southern indians' lack of self-esteem, their cowardice, and their tendency to prevaricate.

are these the tendencies that have resulted in your recent silence about many of rashmun's outrageous posts?

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:but you should be alright, for you've paid your dues to the admin of the glut tribe.

gentle reminder: you finished eighth grade a long time ago.

by southindian Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:41 am

WOW! NorthIndians!! What a beast...

NorthIndians surely must be a scary, low-life creature...making 2 GREAT SouthIndians discuss with such intent, passion and disgust.

Amazing!

PS: These are so called grown-up...and educated humans

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:04 am

southindian wrote:WOW! NorthIndians!! What a beast...

NorthIndians surely must be a scary, low-life creature...making 2 GREAT SouthIndians discuss with such intent, passion and disgust.

Amazing!

PS: These are so called grown-up...and educated humans

the thread was started by rashmun in case it escaped your notice.

by goodcitizn Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:05 am

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:jeb mburuburu - every time i see you agree gratuitously with rashmun, i cringe. do you have any opinions on this post of rashmun?
i have opinions on nearly everything. i don't remember agreeing with rashmun in this thread.

i don't reason with northindians as you do here; i don't beg or plead with northindians for understanding, as gdctzn does; i don't flirt with northindians as some women here do, no matter vot's for lunch, or what the newest reason for an alliance of convenience is.

i merely like to bash northindians for their incivility, crassness, and idiocy, when i'm so inclined. and when i'm not so inclined, i watch you be rude to rashmun, while he earnestly expresses the opinions you dislike, in a civil and polite way.

the time for reasoning has long been over. i've finally come to recognize southern indians' lack of self-esteem, their cowardice, and their tendency to prevaricate. but you should be alright, for you've paid your dues to the admin of the glut tribe.

Nobody gives a damn about your uncouth behaviour towards women here nor your reprehensible attitude towards north indians. It is a pity that Max even seeks your approval on his views. You are and have always been a hypocrite --hating north indians but getting a Ph.D to teach your kids Hindi. You don't represent south indians at all so stop acting like a south indian. You are nothing but a pompous bore.

by southindian Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:56 am

Wow GC, that was a nice whack. Hypocrite explained well.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:10 pm

here is the type of "benefit" that rashmun supports. gyanputra of sulekha would be proud of rashmun.

warning: this makes for difficult watching.

by Guest Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:13 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:here is the type of "benefit" that rashmun supports. gyanputra of sulekha would be proud of rashmun.

warning: this makes for difficult watching.

how many times do i have to repeat that i am against all forms of violence and anyone attacking a missionary deserves the harshest possible sentence. did gyanputra ever say this? please stop this character assassination. fight cleanly.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:16 pm

rashmun, i fundamentally disagree that the presence of a threat is different from the actual execution of the threat. there is no place in civil democratic society for threats of any kind.

secondly, how is a threat maintainable unless it is acted upon from time to time to make its potency viable in the minds of those threatened? therefore by endorsing the threat, you are also condoning the actual violence. so you are no different from gyanpukera.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:20 pm

it's sort of like the iranian fukwa against rushdie. its mere presence i am sure shut a lot of people up from saying uncharitable things about islam. you could argue one of the "benefits" of the fukwa was that it protected islam. is this the sort of protection you are seeking for hinduism?

by Guest Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:24 pm

What is fukwa? You renaming fatwa to fukwa, why?

by Guest Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:25 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rashmun, i fundamentally disagree that the presence of a threat is different from the actual execution of the threat. there is no place in civil democratic society for threats of any kind.

secondly, how is a threat maintainable unless it is acted upon from time to time to make its potency viable in the minds of those threatened? therefore by endorsing the threat, you are also condoning the actual violence. so you are no different from gyanpukera.

if the harshest possible punishment is meted out to the perpetrators of violence--as i am advocating--then any physical violence will automatically subside. I am not endorsing violence nor am i endorsing threats of violence. On the other hand i see no problem with verbal heckling of anyone who goes around prosletyzing. In particular i have serious issues with prosletyzing among children and among tribals.

by Guest Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:26 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:it's sort of like the iranian fukwa against rushdie. its mere presence i am sure shut a lot of people up from saying uncharitable things about islam. you could argue one of the "benefits" of the fukwa was that it protected islam. is this the sort of protection you are seeking for hinduism?

no of course not.

by Guest Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:29 pm

when i started this thread i was ok with threats of violence (but not actual violence) towards missionaries who went around prosletyzing. Max has convinced me that even threats of violence is unacceptable. (Of course, i am still ok with verbal heckling.)

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:33 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rashmun, i fundamentally disagree that the presence of a threat is different from the actual execution of the threat. there is no place in civil democratic society for threats of any kind.

secondly, how is a threat maintainable unless it is acted upon from time to time to make its potency viable in the minds of those threatened? therefore by endorsing the threat, you are also condoning the actual violence. so you are no different from gyanpukera.

if the harshest possible punishment is meted out to the perpetrators of violence--as i am advocating--then any physical violence will automatically subside. I am not endorsing violence nor am i endorsing threats of violence. On the other hand i see no problem with verbal heckling of anyone who goes around prosletyzing. In particular i have serious issues with prosletyzing among children and among tribals.

you didn't just advocate for verbal heckling. you said the following:

This kind of blatant missionary activity is positively dangerous for the missionary in North India, because the crude 'NorthIndian' is intolerant of this kind of behavior.

So why is this a good thing?

by Guest Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:34 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rashmun, i fundamentally disagree that the presence of a threat is different from the actual execution of the threat. there is no place in civil democratic society for threats of any kind.

secondly, how is a threat maintainable unless it is acted upon from time to time to make its potency viable in the minds of those threatened? therefore by endorsing the threat, you are also condoning the actual violence. so you are no different from gyanpukera.

if the harshest possible punishment is meted out to the perpetrators of violence--as i am advocating--then any physical violence will automatically subside. I am not endorsing violence nor am i endorsing threats of violence. On the other hand i see no problem with verbal heckling of anyone who goes around prosletyzing. In particular i have serious issues with prosletyzing among children and among tribals.

you didn't just advocate for verbal heckling. you said the following:

This kind of blatant missionary activity is positively dangerous for the missionary in North India, because the crude 'NorthIndian' is intolerant of this kind of behavior.

So why is this a good thing?

read my previous post (the one before this post) in this thread.

by Sponsored content