Escort services thrive on social media

[Nilgiri]

.you know how much a high level escort can earn in an evening? Probably more than my monthly wage.
Take a look at this...

You know how much a white collar criminal can earn in an evening? Probably way more than you will make in your lifetime. Let's legalise white collar crime too....i.e moral standard should simply be how much can be earned in an evening.

This is the quality of your argument now. Not to mention the "if" of 2000 hours work time AND the fact what prostitutes actually end up making and having to go through....especially in developing world (where you are suggesting pure legalisation no matter who gets caught into it).

You rely on leftard farticles, I actually have talked to them. It shows.

Then the rest of your post is stuff like "why" was "Sati" "legal". You don't even know a smidgen on the subject and it will take too much time and effort to bring you up to speed on it, and you will just hypocritically wave it away anyway. So not worth the conversation.

I have already voiced my opinion against forced and underage prostitution.

You seem to have no idea what forced prostitution actually is (i.e how to actually determine if its forced in the real world)....esp in a place like Bangladesh. Again you have never talked to one, the average experience of a hooker in the West even after she been through the system and seen it all, yet you live in a bubble spouting your Trotsky crap.

Yep...people should be informed with the risks that comes with prostitution....although I feel people generally knows this. That's why I say make it legal...so it is easy to find and inspect...stop forced prostitution...and make prostitutes go through medical checkups frequently....or make it a law that a brothels must ensure that its workers do medical check up in every three or six months.

So you admit that society SHOULD step in after all with LAWS whether a personal individual likes them or not?

"Make prostitutes go through medical checkups"....who are YOU or SOCIETY to tell them that if they don't want to?

You have already lost the argument...is was the issue of you saying "society has NO RIGHT to impose on individuals"....that made me enter this waste of a conversation with you in the first place. You climbed down to say well it should impose when its murder/life...and now its even medical checkups and formalisation of brothels or whatever. So there you go you are just arguing the extent, not what you initially said in an absolute. Thus you defeated your own argument.

Complete freedom as long as you are not harming others...
Kill yourself...fine.
Kill someone else......not.

Again who are you...and who are society to draw the line at "not harming others" and imposing on the free will of another?...when earlier you said "moral standards" should NEVER be imposed on another. Do you understand the meaning of NEVER....or don't you?

I have said it before...I am not a leftist.....better word for me would be nihilist or maybe bit of a solipsist as well.

LOL you clearly are an extreme leftist. You can deny that you are, just like you are free to deny you are an extremely ignorant hypocrite too. You would score somewhere to the left of Trotsky on a standard political test...guaranteed. Again feel free to check yourself.

Same thing here.....more people are murdered by non druggies......ban vehicles? It kills more people than drugs(probably)..There should be punishment(I'd say capital punishment) for murderers...but vanning vehicles, banning drugs isn't the way to go.

The prevalence of the negative externality when it comes to murder and other serious tort on people surrounding druggies is clearly studied and clearly known....and it is significantly higher than the mainstream population. Go look up the numbers yourself if you want to.

You have already climbed down to extent-clause from your absolute freedom earlier...yet you won't apply here quite hypocritically.

So, what kind pf law do you propose to sop single parenthood? Do you stop people from their right to get divorced? Just let it be....you made a wrong choice choosing a bad life partner so you are stuck in this loop till you or your partner die? You say it is harmful to society...but in the end it is harmful to those individuals who give birth without marrying or divorce after giving birth, isn't it? Leave them be. Because among them you will find some who probably did better by separating like left an abusive partner then raised a child well. So, some(in the minority) does well by separating...do you have the right of seperation take away from them? And you don't know who will do better after separating and who won't. So, you have to give this right to everyone....and have them accountable to their choices. Tell me, do you insist that people stay together even if they are unhappy? Even though they might not find happiness otherwise.

Waste of time talking about this. The intent was to show the decline in socioeconomics of a community the further leftard/groupthink it goes. The policy prescriptions are many...again going to take far too much time to try attempt discuss with one staunch deluded Trotskyist.

Again.....how do you know whoich children is learning great life lessons? This is like a lottery......do you think the children of sweepers, housemaid are learning great life lessons running around slums? Can you be sure that children of successful people are learning great life lessons? Is the child of a alcoholic abusive a$$hole learning great life lessons even though the kid could be living in a mansion? Children can't chose their parents..they have to live with it.

The data is all out there if you look for it. I am talking about the macro-extent of the negative externality torts, not absolute 0 or 100% correlation to every individual you can hypothetically imagine/cherry pick.

Again waste of time continuing here.

Is it a baby, before birth?

Yes. Its a human lifeform with sentience.

Note to self:... **** I should just quote everything as parts to start with in reply and answer each one instead of going back and forth...srry that really annoyed me I had to write that. Thankfully I figured to do this now.

So, are you willing to allow prostitution to those who are informed? Logic should apply both way, shouldn't it? And yes people should be informed about the risks....maybe include them in school text books....I mean sex education is already there in some places...I'm not sure what and how much is covered there....but if it isn't there...maybe then include it...a chapter on risks of prostitution.

Yes I do not believe in absolute authoritarianism. But there should be strong intervention to the largest extent by society...as deemed by the clear negative externality of the activity on the overall scale.

There is no point arguing on this....I could give you hundreds of examples how a lot of things which was considered morally bad....later got accepted by people. Or vice versa. But you'll still believe what you want to believe. Plato, Aristotle were for that time...many of their concepts won't work today.

Obviously you haven't read Plato or Aristotle....yet you live in the western civilisation that is the fruit of their debate. Seems about right for a leftie.

Tell me what is the key difference in philosophical approach of Plato and Aristotle in your own words. Prove me wrong if not.

Don't evade it....According to you Prostitution is illegal...and if this point is very important to you, then I guess you would prefer Afghanistan over Canada? Homosexuality and maybe being topless is also legal in Canada...but illegal in Afghanistan..

Don't evade a strawman? Wait we are supposed to just leave every society we find imperfections/faults in?...instead of challenging those, making a case, finding people who think like you and don't think like you and try to change things for the better as you perceive it?

Why don't YOU leave Sweden since they have banned the hardcore drugs (like Cocaine and Heroin) that you clearly have stated should be totally legal on demand? Do you even listen to yourself/apply to yourself before you propose an "argument"?

Like I said the leftards in the US all made a big hue and cry that they would leave if Trump won.....and so far....zilch. This is you guys in one simple nutshell....the only consistency you seem to have is lack of consistency.

No....I'd say around 5-6 months of pregnancy....when the fetus is capable of living outside womb....it is dangerous to perform abortion too at that stage......going back to abortion...it is legal at all stages in Canada(just checked wiki). Dude you need to leave that vile immoral country fast.

Read above (for the Canada jibe). Please try not to repeat yourself in the interest of time in the next conversation we may or may not have somewhere else (because I certainly will not be replying anymore here).

And again you seem to pose "5 - 6" months as some magic marker point....erm why not 4.9 months? Why is capability of living outside a womb a moral standard on sentience/nervous system (i.e ability to feel pain, engage in REM sleep and a myriad of other things) which happen at way different stages of development?

Should we cut off all ventilator support for people that need it (and have full or limited brain function, response, cognition, sentience) just because they would otherwise not be viable?

Educate me. Why people(a few of them) want abortion? What do you suggest them to do if they are pregnant but don't want the child? Ban prostitution? Hoes gotta eat too. And some sexually frustrated people needs to find a release too. What do you propose? What should those who want sex but don't want kids and marriage do? Should they go hang themselves?

Again people will find a way regardless. So the best thing to do is prevent as much from happening with solid moral framework and upbringing.....rather than just say legalise everything that's morally wrong + has massive negative externalities...in full individualism argument. I am for a balanced approach, neither absolute extreme is viable.

Prevent neglect...I am not sure how you do it...but it is harmful and somehow needs to be done. Childhood neglect can cause serious damage to a child.....by neglect I don't necessarily mean abuse...but rather considering them as burden....Other than that I am fine with their decision to give up their child for adoption or have an early abortion.

Its definitely lot better from moral standpoint than murdering the baby in the womb. If it was a "mistake", society should have a good system to preserve the life and nurture it by adoption etc.

I have done weed myself.

OK, you probably killed a fair number of brain cells. Good for you.

Depends on the standards....If you force burqa on everyone its bad......clothing should be about choice...legalize nudity...I don't think you'll see many roaming around naked though.

It's not about the "many" or "not many" that elect for full nudity in public. Its the inherent right of the public to enforce public standards. The whole concept does not extend to just nudity either.

Again its does the public/society have the right to impose conventions on the individual or doesn't it? Even if you think not, its simply dissonant from reality, there will ALWAYS be convention imposed on the rest....it is how humans organise. We band together in groups in the first place because of the need to procreate and protect. We are not stray atoms in the cosmic wind.....we prefer to be stellar systems....its why we even exist in the first place....why we define light and dark and good and evil....and why we form say a godhead/absolute moral authority out of it to simplify (and admit we do not know the full purpose of this...but benefit from the order over entropy). @Desert Fox @Psychic

Double standards is the last thing I want to have....I have been pretty consistent with my views, I think....

I think not. Refer to below statement:

I am not completely mindful of the things I wrote before.....if I stated that society can't interfere anywhere, no matter what or something that sort....that probably came out in a moment of heat or something.

OK...hey its a climbdown, I'll take it. But I will have to depart from this thread now unless something new comes up. Please don't bother replying to this one....we are just going in circles. A Lion and Sheep (and you can be whichever one, the point is the level of contrast) do not make for much agreement.

Obviously it's the parents paying...but still...its going to have an impact on him till he die.....considering the fact that if he studies medicine he'll end up a doc and if he studies engineering he'll end up as an engineer.....and earn his livelihood accordingly.

Again if he is fully cognisant of the impact for full life, he has the individual right to not take his parents funds and make his own way (there is such a thing as student bank loan you know). Why is the individualism suddenly absent from your argument when its suits you?

Oh....you touched nihilism too....Nihilism makes sense when you think clearly...and not in the conventional way you have been taught to think...

Yeah whatever. Nietzsche (as much as I disagree with him on a LOT)...has a good analysis of Nihilism w.r.t Human society and psyche, you ought to read all he was written someday....he captured and crystallized a lot of the earlier strands from other philosophers discussing the same thing. Suffice to say, its not a good thing for human society and civilisation....given the timescale contrast of developing those versus an individual lifetime.

 

[Desert Fox]

You know how much a white collar criminal can earn in an evening? Probably way more than you will make in your lifetime. Let's legalise white collar crime too....i.e moral standard should simply be how much can be earned in an evening.

This is the quality of your argument now. Not to mention the "if" of 2000 hours work time AND the fact what prostitutes actually end up making and having to go through....especially in developing world (where you are suggesting pure legalisation no matter who gets caught into it).

You rely on leftard farticles, I actually have talked to them. It shows.

Then the rest of your post is stuff like "why" was "Sati" "legal". You don't even know a smidgen on the subject and it will take too much time and effort to bring you up to speed on it, and you will just hypocritically wave it away anyway. So not worth the conversation.



You seem to have no idea what forced prostitution actually is (i.e how to actually determine if its forced in the real world)....esp in a place like Bangladesh. Again you have never talked to one, the average experience of a hooker in the West even after she been through the system and seen it all, yet you live in a bubble spouting your Trotsky crap.



So you admit that society SHOULD step in after all with LAWS whether a personal individual likes them or not?

"Make prostitutes go through medical checkups"....who are YOU or SOCIETY to tell them that if they don't want to?

You have already lost the argument...is was the issue of you saying "society has NO RIGHT to impose on individuals"....that made me enter this waste of a conversation with you in the first place. You climbed down to say well it should impose when its murder/life...and now its even medical checkups and formalisation of brothels or whatever. So there you go you are just arguing the extent, not what you initially said in an absolute. Thus you defeated your own argument.



Again who are you...and who are society to draw the line at "not harming others" and imposing on the free will of another?...when earlier you said "moral standards" should NEVER be imposed on another. Do you understand the meaning of NEVER....or don't you?



LOL you clearly are an extreme leftist. You can deny that you are, just like you are free to deny you are an extremely ignorant hypocrite too. You would score somewhere to the left of Trotsky on a standard political test...guaranteed. Again feel free to check yourself.



The prevalence of the negative externality when it comes to murder and other serious tort on people surrounding druggies is clearly studied and clearly known....and it is significantly higher than the mainstream population. Go look up the numbers yourself if you want to.

You have already climbed down to extent-clause from your absolute freedom earlier...yet you won't apply here quite hypocritically.



Waste of time talking about this. The intent was to show the decline in socioeconomics of a community the further leftard/groupthink it goes. The policy prescriptions are many...again going to take far too much time to try attempt discuss with one staunch deluded Trotskyist.



The data is all out there if you look for it. I am talking about the macro-extent of the negative externality torts, not absolute 0 or 100% correlation to every individual you can hypothetically imagine/cherry pick.

Again waste of time continuing here.



Yes. Its a human lifeform with sentience.

Note to self:... **** I should just quote everything as parts to start with in reply and answer each one instead of going back and forth...srry that really annoyed me I had to write that. Thankfully I figured to do this now.



Yes I do not believe in absolute authoritarianism. But there should be strong intervention to the largest extent by society...as deemed by the clear negative externality of the activity on the overall scale.



Obviously you haven't read Plato or Aristotle....yet you live in the western civilisation that is the fruit of their debate. Seems about right for a leftie.

Tell me what is the key difference in philosophical approach of Plato and Aristotle in your own words. Prove me wrong if not.



Don't evade a strawman? Wait we are supposed to just leave every society we find imperfections/faults in?...instead of challenging those, making a case, finding people who think like you and don't think like you and try to change things for the better as you perceive it?

Why don't YOU leave Sweden since they have banned the hardcore drugs (like Cocaine and Heroin) that you clearly have stated should be totally legal on demand? Do you even listen to yourself/apply to yourself before you propose an "argument"?

Like I said the leftards in the US all made a big hue and cry that they would leave if Trump won.....and so far....zilch. This is you guys in one simple nutshell....the only consistency you seem to have is lack of consistency.



Read above (for the Canada jibe). Please try not to repeat yourself in the interest of time in the next conversation we may or may not have somewhere else (because I certainly will not be replying anymore here).

And again you seem to pose "5 - 6" months as some magic marker point....erm why not 4.9 months? Why is capability of living outside a womb a moral standard on sentience/nervous system (i.e ability to feel pain, engage in REM sleep and a myriad of other things) which happen at way different stages of development?

Should we cut off all ventilator support for people that need it (and have full or limited brain function, response, cognition, sentience) just because they would otherwise not be viable?



Again people will find a way regardless. So the best thing to do is prevent as much from happening with solid moral framework and upbringing.....rather than just say legalise everything that's morally wrong + has massive negative externalities...in full individualism argument. I am for a balanced approach, neither absolute extreme is viable.



Its definitely lot better from moral standpoint than murdering the baby in the womb. If it was a "mistake", society should have a good system to preserve the life and nurture it by adoption etc.



OK, you probably killed a fair number of brain cells. Good for you.



It's not about the "many" or "not many" that elect for full nudity in public. Its the inherent right of the public to enforce public standards. The whole concept does not extend to just nudity either.

Again its does the public/society have the right to impose conventions on the individual or doesn't it? Even if you think not, its simply dissonant from reality, there will ALWAYS be convention imposed on the rest....it is how humans organise. We band together in groups in the first place because of the need to procreate and protect. We are not stray atoms in the cosmic wind.....we prefer to be stellar systems....its why we even exist in the first place....why we define light and dark and good and evil....and why we form say a godhead/absolute moral authority out of it to simplify (and admit we do not know the full purpose of this...but benefit from the order over entropy). @Desert Fox @Psychic



I think not. Refer to below statement:



OK...hey its a climbdown, I'll take it. But I will have to depart from this thread now unless something new comes up. Please don't bother replying to this one....we are just going in circles. A Lion and Sheep (and you can be whichever one, the point is the level of contrast) do not make for much agreement.



Again if he is fully cognisant of the impact for full life, he has the individual right to not take his parents funds and make his own way (there is such a thing as student bank loan you know). Why is the individualism suddenly absent from your argument when its suits you?



Yeah whatever. Nietzsche (as much as I disagree with him on a LOT)...has a good analysis of Nihilism w.r.t Human society and psyche, you ought to read all he was written someday....he captured and crystallized a lot of the earlier strands from other philosophers discussing the same thing. Suffice to say, its not a good thing for human society and civilisation....given the timescale contrast of developing those versus an individual lifetime.

Well said!

You have already lost the argument...is was the issue of you saying "society has NO RIGHT to impose on individuals"....that made me enter this waste of a conversation with you in the first place. You climbed down to say well it should impose when its murder/life...and now its even medical checkups and formalisation of brothels or whatever. So there you go you are just arguing the extent, not what you initially said in an absolute. Thus you defeated your own argument.

The amount of circle talk by that dude is appalling. Claims he's not a leftist but uses leftist talking point.

 

[Centaur]

So you admit that society SHOULD step in after all with LAWS whether a personal individual likes them or not?

"Make prostitutes go through medical checkups"....who are YOU or SOCIETY to tell them that if they don't want to?

You have already lost the argument...is was the issue of you saying "society has NO RIGHT to impose on individuals"....that made me enter this waste of a conversation with you in the first place. You climbed down to say well it should impose when its murder/life...and now its even medical checkups and formalisation of brothels or whatever. So there you go you are just arguing the extent, not what you initially said in an absolute. Thus you defeated your own argument.

Very well said . However I think sati practice emerged from the story of self sacrifice of pandu's second wife madri, when she jumped on the pyre of her husband because she was regretting too much? ( Correct me if I am wrong).
So if my idea is correct, then probably madri was willing sati! So according to the free will theory of @Mage , if someone still want to jump on the pyre of her husband, who are the society or law to stop her ? Because if an individual want to suicide ,then it's not harming any other person .
So if such trend started, then will not the opportunist try to impose the sati system on her in the name of Holiness?
Because if you can make anyone sati, you can Rob her huge property. so impose Holiness on sati practice since any one can jump into pyre because of her own will, or even you don't need to do it. Just kill her secretly and throw her on pyre in a rural village and spread a lie that she jump into her husband's pyre, end of story. No one will doubt as already anyone can jump into pyre with her own free will!
So what shall the the prescription of Mr @Mage ?
Since willingly jumping in to fire shall not harm anyone personally. What such type of pseudo secular aka hypocrites will counter sati? Even if the govt will monitor the Practice that if she is doing it willingly or not, still should it be allowed ?
Can govt monitor every citizen? Or do they ( pseudo seculars ) want to make mind reading machin?
@Nilgiri

 

[Nilgiri]

However I think sati practice emerged from the story of self sacrifice of pandu's second wife madri, when she jumped on the pyre of her husband because she was regretting too much?

It can be argued that way somewhat.

But Mahabharat is

a) Smriti (human authored, thus has imperfections)

b) it was very isolated case and no parallels in rest of story (before and after) for example (say widows of all the warriors lost in the war that happened much later in story). Thus it can be said it was purely the decision of Madri herself (the guilt she felt in Pandu's death if you know the full story and context)....combined with the overall notion of the fire being a cleansing agent for the human soul (as seen in say the stories of Sita and Prahlad in earlier and thus morally stronger Treta-yug) still being harnessed in Dvapara yug story of Mahabharat (in fact it is significant that Kaliyug starts generally at the end of this story).

c) Mahabharat itself comments on what is unusual for the society as it portends to the main protagonists and antagonists. This comes into play when you earlier referred (somewhat in mean, negative spirit to Hindus today... but fine I forgive it as heat of the moment) to Draupadi having 5 husbands....and she herself gets abused royally by Kauravas in the court (before they attempt to disrobe her) on this matter....it shows it was not common at all for society (i.e a huge exception to the social rule). Similar kind of thing to the "Sati" of Madri.

If we instead refer to the Sruti (revealed from Almighty directly aka Vedas... and direct commentary aka core upanishads), there is only warning and condemning of such practice. In fact the one major attempt to quote from Vedas on this to portray it as some ancient inherent support for it is from Atharv-Ved...which has a mantra to the widow to lie on the pyre....BUT the next mantra tells her to RISE and continue with rest of life (with re-marriage if possible)...it is this 2nd mantra that is ignored by those focusing on 1st one for their attempt to box in the narrative/agenda. In fact this mimic custom is seen in a lot of rituals in Hinduism (i.e go one way first, but then rectify and go the better way)....in our weddings there is custom in South that the bridegroom has a similar mimic ritual where he is leaving the whole wedding to become a bachelor for life (ascetic) and do a pilgrimage to Kasi (Varanasi) as purpose of his life....but he is convinced/begged by Bride's parents etc to not do that but to have married and non-ascetic life with their daughter...and produce wealth + children etc.

So this cherrypicking without context is just like they quote the Quran as saying Kill all infidels...but they forget to give the context its from...i.e after every peaceful avenue has been exhausted.

It is even more direct in the oldest Veda (Rig Veda) where the widow is specifically said to go ahead with Agre (life)....but Agre is mistranslated (even by Hindu commentators, esp in this Kaliyug I may add) to be "Agni" aka Fire..to again suit a narrative.

Vedic Sanskrit is very contextual (the meanings of many words change depending on their position in sentence, the other setnences around them, how it is heard etc...)...because Vedic Sanskrit is a heard language not a written one (it predates writing by millenia, and is organised in such way that the Vedas can be transmitted orally without change i.e chance of "Chinese whispers" effect) . Its why classical sanskrit even evolved in first place (it can be said as the Vedic sanskrit that was changed to be written). 90% + of "Hindus" today do not even know this, the rot has set into the on the ground system far long ago. Thus we have the practice of Sati in certain areas (rare still if you look at overall population) that is anti-thesis to what is in the revealed scripture and original commentary...because of human imperfection and the entropy of end of times.

Now as far as the willingness goes (say if the wife truly wants to suicide + harness some notion of purification she feels the funeral pyre gives...it is why Rajputs for example did in large numbers during the invasions rather than succumb to the dishonour later)...just like Madri....yes you are correct, its left to individual...but that is their responsibility and choice to make despite what God has preferred for them to do (and it will imprint on their Karma etc). However any compulsion on this matter (internally or externally imposed) is from the (flawed interpretation) human side of things +entropy, not the original faith/revelation.

 

[Centaur]

It can be argued that way somewhat.

But Mahabharat is

a) Smriti (human authored, thus has imperfections)

b) it was very isolated case and no parallels in rest of story (before and after) for example (say widows of all the warriors lost in the war that happened much later in story). Thus it can be said it was purely the decision of Madri herself (the guilt she felt in Pandu's death if you know the full story and context)....combined with the overall notion of the fire being a cleansing agent for the human soul (as seen in say the stories of Sita and Prahlad in earlier and thus morally stronger Treta-yug) still being harnessed in Dvapara yug story of Mahabharat (in fact it is significant that Kaliyug starts generally at the end of this story).

c) Mahabharat itself comments on what is unusual for the society as it portends to the main protagonists and antagonists. This comes into play when you earlier referred (somewhat in mean, negative spirit to Hindus today... but fine I forgive it as heat of the moment) to Draupadi having 5 husbands....and she herself gets abused royally by Kauravas in the court (before they attempt to disrobe her) on this matter....it shows it was not common at all for society (i.e a huge exception to the social rule). Similar kind of thing to the "Sati" of Madri.

If we instead refer to the Sruti (revealed from Almighty directly aka Vedas... and direct commentary aka core upanishads), there is only warning and condemning of such practice. In fact the one major attempt to quote from Vedas on this to portray it as some ancient inherent support for it is from Atharv-Ved...which has a mantra to the widow to lie on the pyre....BUT the next mantra tells her to RISE and continue with rest of life (with re-marriage if possible)...it is this 2nd mantra that is ignored by those focusing on 1st one for their attempt to box in the narrative/agenda. In fact this mimic custom is seen in a lot of rituals in Hinduism (i.e go one way first, but then rectify and go the better way)....in our weddings there is custom in South that the bridegroom has a similar mimic ritual where he is leaving the whole wedding to become a bachelor for life (ascetic) and do a pilgrimage to Kasi (Varanasi) as purpose of his life....but he is convinced/begged by Bride's parents etc to not do that but to have married and non-ascetic life with their daughter...and produce wealth + children etc.

So this cherrypicking without context is just like they quote the Quran as saying Kill all infidels...but they forget to give the context its from...i.e after every peaceful avenue has been exhausted.

It is even more direct in the oldest Veda (Rig Veda) where the widow is specifically said to go ahead with Agre (life)....but Agre is mistranslated (even by Hindu commentators, esp in this Kaliyug I may add) to be "Agni" aka Fire..to again suit a narrative.

Vedic Sanskrit is very contextual (the meanings of many words change depending on their position in sentence, the other setnences around them, how it is heard etc...)...because Vedic Sanskrit is a heard language not a written one (it predates writing by millenia, and is organised in such way that the Vedas can be transmitted orally without change i.e chance of "Chinese whispers" effect) . Its why classical sanskrit even evolved in first place (it can be said as the Vedic sanskrit that was changed to be written). 90% + of "Hindus" today do not even know this, the rot has set into the on the ground system far long ago. Thus we have the practice of Sati in certain areas (rare still if you look at overall population) that is anti-thesis to what is in the revealed scripture and original commentary...because of human imperfection and the entropy of end of times.

Now as far as the willingness goes (say if the wife truly wants to suicide + harness some notion of purification she feels the funeral pyre gives...it is why Rajputs for example did in large numbers during the invasions rather than succumb to the dishonour later)...just like Madri....yes you are correct, its left to individual...but that is their responsibility and choice to make despite what God has preferred for them to do (and it will imprint on their Karma etc). However any compulsion on this matter (internally or externally imposed) is from the (flawed interpretation) human side of things +entropy, not the original faith/revelation.

Thanks for this post. It was good explanation. However @Nilgiri I have a question regarding veda.
Can you tag me and answer me in "whatever" thread?
What is the main part ( like samhita, Brahman , upanishads )of veda, and why Vedas are full of such deity ( I.e indra, agni, Varuna etc) whom you don't worship although Vedas are major scriptures right ? It really puzzle me, can you give me some authentic information and explanation? (Not here as it will be completely off topic as I might ask few more questions for better understanding) , so please in whatever or another thread).
Thanks in advance.

 

[El Sidd]

5G has been announced.
Great news for Bangladesh and her economy.

#HasinaDelivers

 

[Flynn Swagmire]

5G has been announced.
Great news for Bangladesh and her economy.

#HasinaDelivers

Unlike Pakistani government?

 

[El Sidd]

Unlike Pakistani government?

Pakistan chairs UNHCR

 

[Flynn Swagmire]

Pakistan chairs UNHCR

Thats why so much refugees nowadays...

 

[El Sidd]

Thats why so much refugees nowadays...

Yes blame everything on Pakistan.

Nobody is interested in your Hilsa routine.

With India threatening to annex parts of Bangladesh. You must be one confident hilsaite. Myanmar on the other Hand is also pushing West. Looks like a 2 Front.

Pakistan chairing the UNHCR is a blessing having dealt with refugees for experience.

 

[Flynn Swagmire]

Yes blame everything on Pakistan.

Nobody is interested in your Hilsa routine.

With India threatening to annex parts of Bangladesh. You must be one confident hilsaite. Myanmar on the other Hand is also pushing West. Looks like a 2 Front.

Pakistan chairing the UNHCR is a blessing having dealt with refugees for experience.

Why so serious? Enjoy your afghani flower...

 

[delta2]

Isn't prostitution legal in Bangladesh?

Afghans are acting up because of laid back and soft approach by Pakistan. If Pakistan had been even half as tough as the Iranians towards the Afghani refugees, the situation would have been very different.

You will never, ever, ever, hear an Afghan bad mouth Iran after he/she lived there as a refugee.

The Afghani refugees deserve dignity and respect as human beings, but not at the cost of our dignity and respect.

 

[El Sidd]

Why so serious? Enjoy your afghani flower...

Ok

 

[Flynn Swagmire]

Isn't prostitution legal in Bangladesh?

Yes!

T&C applies...

 

[delta2]

If Iranians ever get even a whim of complaint from an Afghani, they put their foot down.

Yes!

T&C applies...

What is T&C? Taxes?