RSS: No need for secularism in India; colour of flag should be turned saffron as tricolour injects c

[Whazzup]

To describe it in two words - A "Hindu-Pakistan". I am sure you wouldn't want one either...

Well acc to members here their minority is flourishing there.

 

[The_Showstopper]

Nope the way "secular India" was shoved into our constitution during emergency by Indira Gandhi.

It was just the word that was inserted in but idea was always in their in our constitution. Our constitution did not give exclusivity to any religion while giving equal rights to all. What do you do about that? Change the constitution?

Well acc to members here their minority is flourishing there.

And you take it by word?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir u misunderstood me thats y i deleted my previous post.
I meant this post of a member here.



Not the RSS guy.

On the quoted post, I support a uniform civil code. As to the matter of religion, yes, as long as the government is indifferent to religion, I am fine with it. I am not fine with idiots suggesting that plastic surgery was practised in ancient India, which is why we have the legend of Ganesh, and more mind-numbing stupidity about our ancient aircraft designing, building and operating skills.

 

[jaunty]

If these idiots thought that Modi was elected to create a Hindu rashtra, they couldn't have been more wrong.

 

[Tridibans]

and why do you have problem with saffron flag? for thousands of years our flag is saffron colored. then what is wrong if we want that to continue?

@Joe Shearer A negative rating for this? My god ..... this is absurd.

You can argue with the fellow. But off late, I have seen you giving negative ratings to Indian members like candies.....

You are a respected member. I hope you know negative ratings are meant for abusive, racist and troll posts. Its his pov. If it is wrong, correct it by replying. Don't dilute the powers given to you, respected sir.

@SarthakGanguly @ranjeet @Star Wars @magudi @Soumitra

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer A negative rating for this? My god ..... this is absurd.

You can argue with the fellow. But off late, I have seen you giving negative ratings to Indian members like candies.....

You are a respected member. I hope you know negative ratings are meant for abusive, racist and troll posts. Its his pov. If it is wrong, correct it by replying. Don't dilute the powers given to you, respected sir.

@SarthakGanguly @ranjeet @Star Wars @magudi @Soumitra

That is precisely what I hand it out for. Let me put it to you in these terms. If we are both members, you and I, and it has been perceived by those responsible that I have the sense and discrimination to hand out a positive or a negative rating, and you have not been perceived in those terms, is it likely that I will hand over my decisions on these things to you?

Would you consider that a logical step? Would you like to consider that even a troll, or a racist, or an abusive member might protest that what he is writing is merely his point of view?

And, by the way, when you were calling in like-minded people, you forgot Samudra Manthan.

 

[Spectre]

That is precisely what I hand it out for. Let me put it to you in these terms. If we are both members, you and I, and it has been perceived by those responsible that I have the sense and discrimination to hand out a positive or a negative rating, and you have not been perceived in those terms, is it likely that I will hand over my decisions on these things to you?

Would you consider that a logical step? Would you like to consider that even a troll, or a racist, or an abusive member might protest that what he is writing is merely his point of view?

And, by the way, when you were calling in like-minded people, you forgot Samudra Manthan.

It is a slippery slope when subjectivity is at play but nonetheless your prerogative

 

[Tridibans]

That is precisely what I hand it out for. Let me put it to you in these terms. If we are both members, you and I, and it has been perceived by those responsible that I have the sense and discrimination to hand out a positive or a negative rating, and you have not been perceived in those terms, is it likely that I will hand over my decisions on these things to you?

Would you consider that a logical step? Would you like to consider that even a troll, or a racist, or an abusive member might protest that what he is writing is merely his point of view?

You are not understanding my point of contention. Negative ratings are reserved for something which are not only against forum rules (literally) but also unethical, abusive or damaging to the thread decorum by simply provoking others (like the daily Indo-Pak trolling. With you being so generous with these ratings, it surely is losing its importance. Instead of discouraging posters, it has now become "just another rating".

Trust me when I say this, even compared to Donatello or Syed Ali (ask any Indian members how itchy their hands are to award these ratings ), your frequency of rating people negatively are way higher the last couple of weeks.

I mean, being one of the most intelligent and senior most posters, try arguing first. Then present facts. Why directly a negative rating? (Obviously considering that the poster is not abusive or trolling... like in this particular thread).

 

[gau8av]

To describe it in two words - A "Hindu-Pakistan" and I am sure you wouldn't want one either...

not happening, relax.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is a slippery slope when subjectivity is at play but nonetheless your prerogative

I would be fascinated to see examples of objectivity on a social or a political issue.

You are not understanding my point of contention. Negative ratings are reserved for something which are not only against forum rules (literally) but also unethical, abusive or damaging to the thread decorum by simply provoking others (like the daily Indo-Pak trolling. With you being so generous with these ratings, it surely is losing its importance. Instead of discouraging posters, it has now become "just another rating".

Trust me when I say this, even compared to Donatello or Syed Ali (ask any Indian members how itchy their hands are to award these ratings ), your frequency of rating people negatively are way higher the last couple of weeks.

I mean, being one of the most intelligent and senior most posters, try arguing first. Then present facts. Why directly a negative rating? (Obviously considering that the poster is not abusive or trolling... like in this particular thread).

Would you agree that a negative rating is the last resort?

 

[gau8av]

I would be fascinated to see examples of objectivity on a social or a political issue.



Would you agree that a negative rating is the last resort?

Shearer sahab, sorry for the offtopic but your tag says 'professional', that means you're an ex-serviceman, right ? army, navy or AF ?

curious

 

[ravi kiran]

well what's your problem with Thiranga ???saffron flag for thousands of years.. i don't know that... but my prob is someone trying to impose their own ideology on others.. if we don't agree we been tagged as Secular? ? first please tell me whats your problem with secularism ????

no one is imposing anything on anyone. first tell me what is your definition of secularism?
in my home rules will be mine. same is for India. we Hindus are sons of this soil. we will decide fate of this land. people who are more loyal to saudi have no right on this land.

i am not against Islam. believe it or not i respect Islam. but i am against muslims of south asia. who are more arabs than arabs. who are loyal to arab land instead of their motherland. muslims have already divided my country i dont want that happen again.
I want India to be Hindu Rashtra where all minorities will have equal rights. that is much better than your fake secularism.

@Joe Shearer why negative rating? if you have any problem with my POV then come and debate. dont be like sissy.(sorry to say but you are acting like one)

 

[Spectre]

I would be fascinated to see examples of objectivity on a social or a political issue.

My observation was a two penny generalized one, pay it no heed. As I said this your privilege - let's leave it at that.

Regards

 

[ravi kiran]

On the quoted post, I support a uniform civil code. As to the matter of religion, yes, as long as the government is indifferent to religion, I am fine with it. I am not fine with idiots suggesting that plastic surgery was practised in ancient India, which is why we have the legend of Ganesh, and more mind-numbing stupidity about our ancient aircraft designing, building and operating skills.

amazed to see professional abusing Hindu gods.
reported.
@waz @Horus @Oscar @Irfan Baloch

 

[Joe Shearer]

Shearer sahab, sorry for the offtopic but your tag says 'professional', that means you're an ex-serviceman, right ? army, navy or AF ?

curious

I am what I am. And that is not curious.

no one is imposing anything on anyone. first tell me what is your definition of secularism?
in my home rules will be mine. same is for India. we Hindus are sons of this soil. we will decide fate of this land. people who are more loyal to saudi have no right on this land.

i am not against Islam. believe it or not i respect Islam. but i am against muslims of south asia. who are more arabs than arabs. who are loyal to arab land instead of their motherland. muslims have already divided my country i dont want that happen again.
I want India to be Hindu Rashtra where all minorities will have equal rights. that is much better than your fake secularism.

@Joe Shearer why negative rating? if you have any problem with my POV then come and debate. dont be like sissy.(sorry to say but you are acting like one)

Thank you for your certificate. It was neither wanted nor appreciated. The problem with your so-called POV is that it is based on prejudice, not on principle; it is based on faith, not on reason. There is no argument possible in such cases.

amazed to see professional abusing Hindu gods.
reported.
@waz @Horus @Oscar @Irfan Baloch

Your superstition-laden response helping to prove the point, of course.