Alla
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2014, 03:34 AM
RE: Alla
This is me teaching Mark Fulton Koine Greek.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 03:45 AM
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 03:10 AM)Stevil Wrote:  You are a racist, that is an undeniable fact.

That is meaningless coming from a person that lives and benefits from an apartheid regime.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 04:03 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2014 04:32 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Alla
*Raises hand*

Hi..sorry for coming kind of late to the thread...and I really don't have a good idea as to where the topic of this thread is going atm but...well...some aspects/comments and such have stuck a nerve and I'd like to ask some questions.

(17-02-2014 08:20 PM)Chippy Wrote:  I'm not of Anglo-Celtic or Anglo-Saxon descent.

*Nods* Interesting. I, myself, am of Anglo-Saxon/Celtic descent

(17-02-2014 08:20 PM)Chippy Wrote:  My ancestral history in Australia starts in the 20th-century.

Might I inquire as to which year/decade your habitation of said island continent began?

(17-02-2014 08:20 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Indigenous Australians have a right to vote and there is no interference with their exercise of that right.

Very true.....but such rights were only given after a referendum, before which native Australians were not even classified as 'People' (Hence 'Why' some justified taking children away from parents and such).

As in they could not hold jobs, earn money or own land (Though, I suppose the one fringe benefit was they did not pay taxes. Tongue)

Very much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 04:17 AM
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 04:03 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Might I inquire as to which year/decade your habitation of said island continent began?

It suffices to say "early".

Quote:Very true.....but such rights were only given after a referendum, before which native Australians were not even classified as 'People' (Hence 'Why' some justified taking children away from parents and such).

As in they could not hold jobs, earn money or own land (Though, I suppose the one fringe benefit was they did not pay taxes. Tongue)

Indeed and that changes nothing because it is history and not current-day Australia.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 04:24 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2014 04:32 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 04:17 AM)Chippy Wrote:  It suffices to say "early".[quote]

*Nods*

[quote='Chippy' pid='497663' dateline='1392718679']Indeed and that changes nothing because it is history and not current-day Australia.

Indeed...Though, having arrived in the place in 1966.....this means that I have been an 'Australian' longer than any native who is older than myself. So....in a way the 'History' that you mention that doesn't matter is still rather recent. As in affecting people and families today.

Very much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 04:33 AM
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 02:56 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Fact 1. Mark Fulton is a doctor
...

Fact. You are too stupid and ignorant to understand what the argument between myself and Mark Fulton was actually about. Your nonsensical demand confirms that is the case. Referring to that argument as representing a victory for you (or Mark Fulton) shows just what an ignorant fuckwit you are. Fulton conceded all of my central points and in the thread I linked you to demonstrated that I know more than he does about experiment design. So go fuck yourself.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 04:48 AM
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 04:24 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Indeed...Though, having arrived in the place in 1966.....this means that I have been an 'Australian' longer than any native who is older than myself. So....in a way the 'History' that you mention that doesn't matter is still rather recent. As in affecting people and families today.

Unless you subscribe to a Judaic, i.e. supernatural, conception of inter-generational guilt your position is nonsensical. The vital point is that there are no laws that negatively discriminate against indigenous Australians and many that positively discriminate for indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians can and do vote without interference and none are owned as slaves.

This stands in contrast with the Indian caste system which operates today and which has clear beneficiaries and clear victims that are victims because their labour is being exploited by upper-castes.

How exactly is the non-existence of a body of laws "affecting people and families today"? By what mechanism is this affect achieved? How does that fact that someone's grandfather couldn't vote impinge on one's current ability to vote? How is it impeded or denigrated? You are appealing to some unspecified metaphysics of causation which is mystical.

And stop with the perfunctory well-wishes. Just state you point.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 04:59 AM
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 02:16 AM)Chippy Wrote:  [Of IndianAtheist]...
he pushes the usual high-caste propaganda that the caste system no longer exists.
...

Just for the record, could you please point me to the post where this pushing occurred?

I couldn't find it.

Thanks.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 05:37 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2014 05:41 AM by Chippy.)
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 04:59 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 02:16 AM)Chippy Wrote:  [Of IndianAtheist]...
he pushes the usual high-caste propaganda that the caste system no longer exists.
...

Just for the record, could you please point me to the post where this pushing occurred?

I couldn't find it.

Thanks.

I'll give you more than that.

Here he contends that Dalits are free to vote but they are just too stupid to vote down the system that oppresses them. This position of course presumes that the caste system actually exists.

Me: the Dalit would vote down the system that exploits them and oppresses them.
IndianAtheist: Except they aren't educated and intelligent enough to know any better that doesn't mean that India isn't a democracy.

Source.

Then in the same post he writes:

Caste system has no meaning in the society other then for conservative Hindus who want to feel superior to others.

Source.

Here he posts that the caste system has been "abolished":

The caste system has no legality in India it was abolished DECADES AGO!

Source.

IndianAtheist has been reduced to incoherency. He can't decide whether the caste system exists and the Dalits are just too stupid to vote it down or that it was "abolished" and they have nothing to complain about and exists as nothing more than an idea in the heads of conservative Hindus.

Edit:- corrected links.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 07:33 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2014 07:48 AM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: Alla
(18-02-2014 05:37 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Bunch of Strawman hogwash.
Here he contends that Dalits are free to vote but they are just too stupid to vote down the system that oppresses them
Generally the poor&uneducated are more susceptible to votebank politics... and i was talking about POOR&UNEDUCATED IN GENERAL BTW.
Quote:This position of course presumes that the caste system actually exists.
Yeah right it exists in the MOST RURAL AND THE MOST BACKWARDS parts of my country and i have nothing to fucking do it with.

I live in urban civilized part of India WHICH DOES NOT PRACTICE CASTE SYSTEM YOU FUCKING RACIST SWINE!
Quote:Here he posts that the caste system has been "abolished":
Central Government Act

Article 15 in The Constitution Of India 1949

15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and palaces of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children
(4) Nothing in this article or in clause ( 2 ) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
Quote:IndianAtheist has been reduced to incoherency.
You dick has been reduced to incoherency.Drinking Beverage

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: