Osmania University beef festival sparks violence

[Joe Shearer]

and you are the king of mindless verbosity,like most of your pals in JNU and Media.

Instead of running around in circles, the Indians first need to determine as to what's the law of the land in regards to eating Beef, the above two statements are in total contradiction, and every one in India seems to have their own version, assertion, belief and banter in this regard. Any wonder such diversity of legalities and moralities being shown here.

No conflict. A Sangh apparatchik vs. a plain ordinary Joe from the street. Trust the Joe, any Joe, any time

 

[blackout]

Beef festival has dragged you people to 40 pages!!! even the beef that was taken on beef festival would have digested by now and you people are fighting for ****

cool down guys if u wish to eat beef have it else move on and dont disturb who is eating...

 

[Capt.Popeye]

@joeshearer

What you are advocating for is an idealistic culture.

Why not? Only if one aims for an ideal, one may make it part of the way there. Of course the wiser and/or luckier ones may make it all the way.

It is a right of every person to eat what he want to eat and nobody should interfere in it but if things like cow slaughter is openly allowed,it would certainly lead to some religious nutjob doing in in front of temples to instigate riots.

Undoubtedly it is the right of every person to eat what he wants; while it may not be enshrined as such specifically in the Fundamental Rights it is certainly afforded sufficient protection by the same.

Now let me add the rider (which also arises from the Constitution): just as the there is the right of a person to eat what he wants, it is circumscribed by the duty to do that with respect to common good. I.E. that person has to comply with what we commonly call "civic sense" to simplify things. That would extend to but not be limited to: not slaughtering an animal on the cross-roads or such a common place, or slaughtering a neighbor's animal or an animal not in possession of (belonging to) oneself.
And so on. About "nut-jobs" and their ilk, there are sufficient laws to tackle law and order problems of that nature.

If you think that people go on riot just because they have such a deep love for cows,you are wrong in this respect.

Thank god then. That means that people are not that stupid. But could that also mean that the people who choose to go on riot have some ulterior and nefarious motives then? And need to be taken very seriously?

If you understand human pysche you will know that people have strong tendency to do what they are told not to do.

My constant endeavor in life is to understand the human psyche. But certainly its not worth my (or your) while to understand plain human stupidity. What else would one characterise a "pig-headed" insistence on doing what one should not do?

The particular act would be equivalent to showing middle finger to hindus and even the non hindutva variety one are going to feel insulted by it.

Why do you assume that? Hindus are able to all the non offensive and legitimate/legal things that the want to, especially in the privacy of their homes. Actually anyone might be able to get away by doing even the offensive and illegal things within four walls if one can push one's luck (a different matter). The law is very simple, legal/illegal, permissible/non-permissible and so on. Any personal interpretations are meaningless. And do you consider "hindutva" as synonymous with "hinduism"?
n.b. even hinduism which is a perfectly legitimate expression is very "omnibus" in its essence, but that is outside the present scope.

Either it would result in riots or counter insulting vitalating social atmosphere.


And yes i am scared of such a future because people who believe in small state are an absolute minority in India.

So should Fear (latent or otherwise, justified or unjustified) be an impediment to action? Should fear of a riot reduce a Govt. or its Law Enforcement agencies to quivering jelly? Or should that be reason and solid justification to deal with it head on and eradicate it? To act firmly and conclusively. Is'nt that the kind of action that we always respect!

Years ago the future awaited me just as it still does. I do not see any reason to fear it. Neither do you have to. Just do not let it get out of your grasp.

 

[Subramanian]

Oh now i am with the Sangh,trust me i am much more dangerous than those incompetent morons in the Sangh.

Average Joe amongst his league of average Joes.

You obviously haven't read the story about the candidate who appeared for a competitive examination, and had prepared only an article on the cow. Regrettably, the examiners chose to overlook this excellent topic and chose to set the topic of Admirals instead. Our resourceful candidate was not to be distracted. He started his essay with a flourish,"Admirals are men and men eat cows. Now, coming to the subject of cows...."

Our friends cannot frame a set of arguments about any topic, about military topics, space research, nano-technology, pornography, the game of Ludo, hockey, cricket, Sachin Tendulkar .... anything at all, without framing it as a Hindu vs. Muslim fight. Not a discussion; real men with hair on their chests don't discuss. They indulge in the kind of nonsense that we have seen so far.

The fact that this festival was organised by Dalits has nothing to do with their reason for existence. They need to find a way to write about the cow, and that is what they did.



You are the bright light in the harbour, aren't you? The original remark was this:



I must now ask you to give us your brilliant essay on the cow.

yeah i am the bright bulb to your neon tube.

I'd have preferred you to inform that ignoramus that portraits of the prophet are available over significant sections of the Muslim world. There are uneducated people everywhere.





So when in doubt, and unable to understand how to counter your opponent's argument, say 'Verbose', and you get a Get_out_of_jail_free pass?

What would happen if the forum banned the word 'dude'? Would you drift away to Facebook in frustration at no longer being able to compose mail?

I have no doubts on how to counter your argument,i dont wish to because while debating with a fool,a wise man generally quits first.

You are not able to understand the actual mediocrity of your arguments and keep on hoisting yourself on a high horse and now coming up with high school trash talk.

I called it for what it is,mindless verbosity.

 

[blackout]

Oh now i am with the Sangh,trust me i am much more dangerous than those incompetent morons in the Sangh.

Average Joe amongst his league of average Joes.



yeah i am the bright bulb to your neon tube.

are you a nadar?

 

[Subramanian]

See,it depends upon cognitive biases and schemas that a person have.I am a vegetarian (though eat eggs regularly) so i am inclined to see most non vegetarians as equal.What i have stated was from personal experience.

I think the most important thing that this world require today is that,how a person views something varies and is dependent on values that person have.I am not saying this for this particular post but in general.

Written or spoken words have different meanings for different people.




I replied to him because he is not a habitual troll.

see Personal habits make political statements,everything is political and we are in the cusp of it.

If we continue to act naive,we just get extinct in no time,thats all.

are you a nadar?

no ettu veetil pillaimar.

 

[anonymus]

@joeshearer



Why not? Only if one aims for an ideal, one may make it part of the way there. Of course the wiser and/or luckier ones may make it all the way.



Undoubtedly it is the right of every person to eat what he wants; while it may not be enshrined as such specifically in the Fundamental Rights it is certainly afforded sufficient protection by the same.

Now let me add the rider (which also arises from the Constitution): just as the there is the right of a person to eat what he wants, it is circumscribed by the duty to do that with respect to common good. I.E. that person has to comply with what we commonly call "civic sense" to simplify things. That would extend to but not be limited to: not slaughtering an animal on the cross-roads or such a common place, or slaughtering a neighbor's animal or an animal not in possession of (belonging to) oneself.
And so on. About "nut-jobs" and their ilk, there are sufficient laws to tackle law and order problems of that nature.



Thank god then. That means that people are not that stupid. But could that also mean that the people who choose to go on riot have some ulterior and nefarious motives then? And need to be taken very seriously?



My constant endeavor in life is to understand the human psyche. But certainly its not worth my (or your) while to understand plain human stupidity. What else would one characterise a "pig-headed" insistence on doing what one should not do?



Why do you assume that? Hindus are able to all the non offensive and legitimate/legal things that the want to, especially in the privacy of their homes. Actually anyone might be able to get away by doing even the offensive and illegal things within four walls if one can push one's luck (a different matter). The law is very simple, legal/illegal, permissible/non-permissible and so on. Any personal interpretations are meaningless. And do you consider "hindutva" as synonymous with "hinduism"?
n.b. even hinduism which is a perfectly legitimate expression is very "omnibus" in its essence, but that is outside the present scope.



So should Fear (latent or otherwise, justified or unjustified) be an impediment to action? Should fear of a riot reduce a Govt. or its Law Enforcement agencies to quivering jelly? Or should that be reason and solid justification to deal with it head on and eradicate it? To act firmly and conclusively. Is'nt that the kind of action that we always respect!

Years ago the future awaited me just as it still does. I do not see any reason to fear it. Neither do you have to. Just do not let it get out of your grasp.

I do not understand your post?

I am in favour of most of your points and the ones i am not in favour of are incoherent.

I was only expressing my doubts over consequences that do anything kind of mentality would have.It does not means that i support India to become a dictatorship.

and regarding Psyche thing,you require cognitive effort to hold yourself back in face of provocation.Most people are incapable or unwilling to do that.I stated only an obvious observation.

 

[blackout]

no ettu veetil pillaimar.

Bad for you...!

 

[SpArK]

no ettu veetil pillaimar.

Which one? Kazhakoottam,Ramanathamadam, Chempazhanty,kudamon,Venganur, marthandam, Palichal or Kolathur??

Which one? Do u still have grudge against Travancore kingdom ?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I do not understand your post?

I am in favour of most of your points and the ones i am not in favour of are incoherent.

I was only expressing my doubts over consequences that do anything kind of mentality would have.It does not means that i support India to become a dictatorship.

and regarding Psyche thing,you require cognitive effort to hold yourself back in face of provocation.Most people are incapable or unwilling to do that.I stated only an obvious observation.

I am sorry if you did not understand my post, I truly am.

I also am convinced that you do not support Dictatorships and by extension, any form of Totalitarianism. Therefore you are unlikely to support anything that will be forced down the throats of anybody.
By the way, the Indian Constitution pretty much says the same thing (in broad terms). So we need not have much reasons to fear anything!

About holding oneself back in the face of provocation: since I did not have the benefit of studying psychology, I believe that I only need to have "common sense". For the following reasons:
To understand what is the nature of the provocation,
to understand whether it merits any response,
to understand what that response should be,
to understand how far that response should go,
And most of all, whether to respond at all.

I may be able to manage all that with just "common-sense"; or so I hope.

 

[Manas]

What, in fact, your elliptical language conceals is that only Jagannath at Puri was attacked, from all records available to us. Neither Balaji at Tirupati nor Sri Rama at Rameswaram were attacked. That grand rhetorical flourish grouping these three loaded icons together to draw the sympathy of the vulnerable Hindu reader was just that, and nothing more, a rhetorical flourish.

Our history texts, 40 years ago, spared no detail about the destruction of Hindu temples by Muslim raiders. My suspicions were aroused because these texts made no mention of any attack on Tirupati, or on Rameswaram.

Are you unhappy that Tirupati, or Rameswaram weren't attacked in the similar manner Puri Jagananth ,Somnath ,or countless temples the north indian were attacked and many of them destroyed for ever, and suffer similar fate??

A citation of the source of this account would be interesting. Is this from an accepted historical text, or of some other origin?

It is chronicled in Madala panji, considered as the most authentic historical record related to Jagannath Temple.But you can waittill history spinsters like Romila Thaper writes her perspective to these events.

This is a very strange story.

We are to believe that a Muslim administration was unable to destroy a temple under its military rule.

A moment's reflection will show that this is a strange matter. Another moment may be required to conclude that the Muslim rulers really did not want to harm the temple at all.

Interesting .Sounds like a vaguely similar argument by Pakistanis to deny forced on conversion on the basis that india is still hindu majority after 600 years of muslim rule.

Have you ever been to konark ?? The world famous temple complex you see there a ruin of the old original sun temple . There is a history behind its ruination.

Why should a newcomer talk rubbish? Are newcomers allowed a sowing of their oats period, during which they can come out with any nonsense whatever, and everybody else waits for them to cross one hundred posts before telling them where to get off? Please don't add sanctimoniousness to your other problems.

While we are on the subject, what did you find insidious about my comment? To refresh your memory, the meaning of insidious:

Hmm, as a senior member you are supposed set right examples and possibly show more maturity . But what did you do instead ??

You said this " there seems to be no reason for anyone to draw himself up with the prim outrage of a spinster pinched on the derriere and start intoning maledictions." You went on for sarcastic comment that borders vulgarity.

I thought he was an idiot, and I called him an idiot. What was gradual or subtle about it? Or what was treacherous or crafty about it? If you wanted to use a nice-sounding word, should you not at least look up the meaning before you make a public exhibition of yourself.

Okay,wise *** you don't understand subtlety 'cause are a pathetic moron trying to hard to come across as some freaking intellectual. You want more bluntness ?? Ask me.

 

[anonymus]

I am sorry if you did not understand my post, I truly am.

I also am convinced that you do not support Dictatorships and by extension, any form of Totalitarianism. Therefore you are unlikely to support anything that will be forced down the throats of anybody.
By the way, the Indian Constitution pretty much says the same thing (in broad terms). So we need not have much reasons to fear anything!

About holding oneself back in the face of provocation: since I did not have the benefit of studying psychology, I believe that I only need to have "common sense". For the following reasons:
To understand what is the nature of the provocation,
to understand whether it merits any response,
to understand what that response should be,
to understand how far that response should go,
And most of all, whether to respond at all.

I may be able to manage all that with just "common-sense"; or so I hope.

Yes,i am against any form of totalitarianism.That would have been clear from my previous post itself.The was the reason that i did not understood your post because if they were the points that you have to make i was left wondering as to why did you responded at all.


See the problem with common sense is that it is not too common.

A single man with AK or a sword is stronger than 100 peace loving people.

 

[Subramanian]

Bad for you...!

i was kidding man,i am an iyer.brahmin.

Which one? Kazhakoottam,Ramanathamadam, Chempazhanty,kudamon,Venganur, marthandam, Palichal or Kolathur??

Which one? Do u still have grudge against Travancore kingdom ?

sorry man,i am iyer,brahmin.

I know ettu veetil pillaimars who kidna dont like the travancore kingdom.

Yes,i am against any form of totalitarianism.That would have been clear from my previous post itself.The was the reason that i did not understood your post because if they were the points that you have to make i was left wondering as to why did you responded at all.


See the problem with common sense is that it is not too common.

A single man with AK or a sword is stronger than 100 peace loving people.

It is not about loving or hating peace,if u want peace tomorrow u shud fight today,else if u think finally i have got peace,thats it,then tats about it.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Yes,i am against any form of totalitarianism.That would have been clear from my previous post itself.The was the reason that i did not understood your post because if they were the points that you have to make i was left wondering as to why did you responded at all.


See the problem with common sense is that it is not too common.

A single man with AK or a sword is stronger than 100 peace loving people.

But does everything in life need to be tackled with AKs or swords, even more so when dealing with peace loving people?

 

[Joe Shearer]

and you are the king of mindless verbosity,like most of your pals in JNU and Media.

I personally feel the JNU,Most academics,anthropology researchers,Palaeontologists,Media, Indologists are heavily funded/tricked into feeling ashamed their own culture and are fed a false notion of their history and cultural values and essentially the last siege to finish common sense paganism off the face of India.

I have certain proof of this and i know people who have gone to USA,done research and the problems that comes when you try and defend ones own religious,philosophical thoughts.

The biggest example is how when Dharmic religions had a conflict they never used violence and rather debate to resolve their differences.

Sometimes, it does seem that you are the best person at confusing yourself, and that nobody needs to do that for you.

Academics, anthropology researchers, palaeontologists, Indologists, and the media, to assemble your very curious aggregate, happen to be people who are professionally trained to analyse their subject area with regard to the scientific spirit. This professional training consists of the undergraduate, post-graduate, doctoral and post-doctoral phases. It is interesting that you feel competent to judge their motives and their biases without having gone through this process yourself.

What is your competence to judge them and their work?

Further, you started by accusing me of mindless verbosity. That is all right by itself, and nothing that I take offence at, considering that it is the last refuge of a demagogue bereft of ideas. But you went on to suggest that people from JNU were also people who indulged in mindless verbosity.

Which part of your trenchant criticism above deals with verbosity? Which deals with mindless?

Your arguments merely suggest that they acquire unscientific biases in their work due to financial blandishment and bribery, or due to some other reason. However, they have nothing to do with mindlessness, nothing to do with verbosity. Do you just chuck accusations around as they occur to you or do you think about what you write, occasionally?

Coming specifically to the disciplines you have mentioned, what part of those disciplines have offended you? What have anthropologists said to offend you? What, for Heavens' sake, have palaeontologists done? What could they possibly study that clashes with your beliefs, unless you are a Christian believing in intelligent design? I can understand your anger against Indologists, as they do not support the Hindutva believers faith that civilisation began in India and spread outwards from here. Apart from that, what on earth do you find objectionable? Are you even aware of what offends you and what does not? Can you list them down, grouped by discipline?

Why, for that matter, are you annoyed with the media? What have they done except reflected what actually happens, in fact, in public?

Lastly, your example eludes me. What is that supposed to mean? That individuals belonging to the Dharmic religions (presumably you mean Indic, and forgot the phrase in the white heat of your response) do not use violence? It is difficult to think of anything more absurd, considering my grounding in history.

And secondly i find the contributions of Abrahamic religions which came with heavy violence,no ideas to be minimalistic and negative to the sub continent's people.

I feel they are further hell bent on using all kinds of methods to undermine dharmic faiths and trust me i have done my time rebelling,arguing,countering my parents and i have come a full circle.I have seen futility of this logic and reasoning debate,intuitve realisations go far and wide.

Now,i would rather make the right choice under force rather than screw myself of my own free will (which is obviously influenced by media and my circle).

I feel most idealistic notions serve no purpsoe in life as equality of x y z ll always be a dream and instead of feeding people bullshit we should rather give them a realistic picture.

The Ghazis tried to convert us by force and the Mlechchas tried it by propoganda.

We are just pawns in their number games and more and more excuses we find to justify our poor choices,the worse it gets.

I am not here to defend the Abrahamic faiths, and will let somebody else try to do it, if they should please to take up that thankless task in the teeth of the thinking of a bigot like you.

Suffice it to say that you have given sufficient evidence of being a disturbed personality, and one who wishes to bring a false sense of order into the external world in order to compensate for the disturbances in his internal world. It would be better if you were to seek professional help rather than vent your frustrations and your personal angst on the world around you. It certainly helps to explain your interest in the Internet and in a forum such as this. Clearly, you have not the slightest interest in matters military, and merely joined here to take part in quarrels with Pakistanis = Muslims.

Is the freedom of Indians not important in Hindu Majority regions?

No,not important.

it is not like people are making others starve,they are just asking them not eat one specific thing.

Honestly if there is demand,things ll automatically happen.

No need for statements.

This is the most extraordinary, naked display of fascist ideology that it has been my misfortune to read.

I don't quite know how to deal with this, although some random thoughts do come to mind.