Why have ‘liberals’ reduced themselves to being anti-nationals?

[Kshithij Sharma]

Good Morning Kshithij,

This tread was created because of what happened the other day between good selves and me AND Ashwins response.
You feel aggrieved that Ashwin attempted to stay neutral. Because you didnt get the desired outcome - you think you can highlight it and make the assumption that Liberals are anti - nationals. Clever - not so. Its so transparent that its hilarious.
I hold an opinion and speak for just myself - and no one else. I dont have allegiance to Islam - even though im a Muslim - i try to be objective and call a spade a spade. Read my posts to verify this.

I stand by what i state and wish to discuss all topics with people with various views and opinions. I dont and wont allow preferential treatment and if i step out of line - expect to be banned. However i can see when someone is irritated by my presence. Allowing me a platform to debate - doesnt make the Admin Liberal - it just creates a platform for debate.

Peace.

This thread was a response to spamming of infowarrior with politically motivated posts. I just wanted to show that two can play the game. I am not making any thread in response to you. I am open to you speaking or debating despite any differences. However, infowarrior was spamming front page with motivated headlines and hence I decided to react.

I support your and anyone's right to discuss or debate but not someone who intends to cause pollution (noise pollution, spamming etc) in the name of opinion. I am not irritated by your presence and I have never claimed that I am uncomfortable by someone's presence.

 

[Infowarrior]

I dont have an issue with patriotism - being passionate about ones nation is no crime. When it becomes blind - then its dangerous.
I dont have an issue with ANY religion. My partner is a staunch strict Hindu. I respect and love him and vice versa. We never disrespect each other beliefs.

I'm all for patriotism, But labeling genuine dissent as anti-national is a crime.

How many Indians are mature enough, to not succumb to blind ultra-nationalism and, to not get used by political parties and other groups.

Politicians are like vultures who pray on innocent people. They keep searching for some soft corner or nerve to manipulate people.

 

[Infowarrior]

This thread was a response to spamming of infowarrior with politically motivated posts. I just wanted to show that two can play the game. I am not making any thread in response to you. I am open to you speaking or debating despite any differences. However, infowarrior was spamming front page with motivated headlines and hence I decided to react.

I support your and anyone's right to discuss or debate but not someone who intends to cause pollution (noise pollution, spamming etc) in the name of opinion. I am not irritated by your presence and I have never claimed that I am uncomfortable by someone's presence.

‘India first’ only religion of government, Constitution its only scripture: Modi
‘India first’ only religion of government, Constitution its only scripture: Modi

Do you agree with Modi ?

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

‘India first’ only religion of government, Constitution its only scripture: Modi
‘India first’ only religion of government, Constitution its only scripture: Modi

Do you agree with Modi ?

Constitution is changeable. What is the point here?

 

[Infowarrior]

Constitution is changeable. What is the point here?

Basic structure of the constitution cannot be changed. including the words socialist and secular ... I'm sure that around 50% of India will oppose it.
Basic structure doctrine - Wikipedia

 

[Superkaif]

This thread was a response to spamming of infowarrior with politically motivated posts. I just wanted to show that two can play the game. I am not making any thread in response to you. I am open to you speaking or debating despite any differences. However, infowarrior was spamming front page with motivated headlines and hence I decided to react.

I support your and anyone's right to discuss or debate but not someone who intends to cause pollution (noise pollution, spamming etc) in the name of opinion. I am not irritated by your presence and I have never claimed that I am uncomfortable by someone's presence.

I suggest we agree to disagree.
I dont see @Infowarrior as spamming. I see him having a different opinion to yourself hence the reason why you are irritated. Because his view doesn't align with yours - doesn't make him anti national.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

I suggest we agree to disagree.
I dont see @Infowarrior as spamming. I see him having a different opinion to yourself hence the reason why you are irritated. Because his view doesn't align with yours - doesn't make him anti national.

Spamming is posting individual articles as separate thread which are based on opinion and not concrete action. You can post your bullshit in a single thread instead of writing these stuff on separate articles every now and then by copying from newspapers. It is spamming as the articles appear on the front of the site and hence unduly catches attention. I complained to mods to not allow any tom dick and harry article to take front page just because they were the latest one. Instead merge them according to topic. But mods didn't listen. So, I had to write several articles to show that I can play the opinion games too.
I simply want this forum to not give any highlight to opinions. Opinions are pollution and should be given least importance no matter whose it is. So, I spammed with my opinion based article to prove the point. It is you who are showing intolerance by criticising me for a just reaction.


@Infowarrior basic feature is nonsensical construct by Supreme Court. Supreme Court has no powers to make laws or amend constitution. But the government of India back then were filled with traitors who had no ground support or cause and if they challenged Supreme Court, then they themselves would lose credibility. A government which was merely running on the inertia of people and their reluctance to rebel against establishment could not afford to appear taking on the establishment like the court themselves. That might have awoken people. Hence the traitorous government back then didn't have the spine to bring forth a referendum and mass public gathering to bring drastic changes. Government can change the entire constitution if they have people's support. Tis includes abolishing of republic and establishing presidential election, abolishing Supreme Court and almost everything. 80% people will support this move far beyond 50%.

 

[The enlightened]

Basic structure of the constitution cannot be changed. including the words socialist and secular

So there can be no change i.e addition or deletion, in said basic structure. Are you sure?

 

[Bharath]

Basic structure of the constitution cannot be changed. including the words socialist and secular ... I'm sure that around 50% of India will oppose it.

as an Indian. I will always want to ask -


by opposing hardline religious sentiments - arent we actually saving secularism?
in other words - secularism calls for opposition to any elements that are a threat to secularism - meaning, anyone who says they do not respect others religion is guilty as per the constitution (meaning of secularism - all religions are equal) . correct?

 

[Arbit]

That is a genuine conundrum. Congress has 0 credibility. BJP invariably emboldens the fringe and lunatic right. In Maharashtra, Fadnavis has done a good job - no scandals, genuine attempt at bringing e-governance to the fore and an impetus to infrastructure - I will vote for BJP at the State level. Even in Modi's Government - I certainly prefer that my coal and power minister is Goyal rather than Shibu Soren - pretty much the same goes for all ministries. But I think morons like Satyapal Singh and thugs like Amit Shah should be shown the door - the former is a fool, so one can forgive. But I think Amit Shah is the guy who will eventually sink Modi. If I vote for BJP in the Lok Sabha polls - it will only be because of lack of options.

I sometimes feel we are conditioned to be embarrassed to support anything remotely nationalistic. Anything useful will attract garbage around its edges. BJP is like that only, Gujarat gave a good govt for 15 years, Bihar also gave a kind of govt for nearly 15 years. which would you prefer. Lets not make best the enemy of good.

BJP by nature of its politics attract right wing thugs, congress by virtue of its policy attracts leftist thugs, guys like Owaisi support PFI.
These things are inevitable, but folks like us, you and me can be the moderating influence so that modi comes to power and Togadia is marginalised.

Supporting BJP is not because of any lack of option, it itself is a good option. We just need to keep it away from rot.

BTW I differ from the shah sinking modi. If he didn't sink modi in last 20 years, he aint gonna do it now.

 

[Arvind]

by opposing hardline religious sentiments - arent we actually saving secularism?

And what are your means to do so? Rise of opposite religious hardliner who support extermination of all other religions if they do not convert?

Be cautious be very cautious in selecting the tool to oppose hardliners. When hardliners belong to minority, they are manageable, but once the table turns, doom day follows. Look at middle east and Arab.

 

[Bharath]

And what are your means to do so? Rise of opposite religious hardliner who support extermination of all other religions if they do not convert?

Be cautious be very cautious in selecting the tool to oppose hardliners. When hardliners belong to minority, they are manageable, but once the table turns, doom day follows. Look at middle east and Arab.

the means to do so is to oppose the appeasement and appeasers.
the means to do so is to call out the rogue seminaries, religious institutions that sow seeds of resentment.
the means to do so is to show how certain religious ideologies are inherently unsecular while some are and calling them out is NOT being unsecular or intolerant.

 

[Superkaif]

the means to do so is to oppose the appeasement and appeasers.
the means to do so is to call out the rogue seminaries, religious institutions that sow seeds of resentment.
the means to do so is to show how certain religious ideologies are inherently unsecular while some are and calling them out is NOT being unsecular or intolerant.

Please enlighten me to which certain ideologies you are insinuating here?

 

[Superkaif]

And what are your means to do so? Rise of opposite religious hardliner who support extermination of all other religions if they do not convert?

Be cautious be very cautious in selecting the tool to oppose hardliners. When hardliners belong to minority, they are manageable, but once the table turns, doom day follows. Look at middle east and Arab.

Be careful friend. The vultures will start circling again.

 

[Arvind]

the means to do so is to oppose the appeasement and appeasers.
the means to do so is to call out the rogue seminaries, religious institutions that sow seeds of resentment.
the means to do so is to show how certain religious ideologies are inherently unsecular while some are and calling them out is NOT being unsecular or intolerant.

None are means but moto. I support the moto, I am curious about the means.

 

[Arvind]

The vultures will start circling again.

I haven't done my breakfast either.

 

[Aravind]

Basic structure of the constitution cannot be changed. including the words socialist and secular ... I'm sure that around 50% of India will oppose it.
Basic structure doctrine - Wikipedia

Words Socialist &
Secular were introduced in 1974 during Emergency Indira gandhi.
Who is Socialist now? When she can change Constitution anyone can. The only ones opposing will be Congis lefties who are a minority now as they fail to even make a mark in elections.

 

[Bharath]

Please enlighten me to which certain ideologies you are insinuating here?

any ideologies that say "everything else is false, we should make everyone listen to us" , if padmaavat agitations are wrong (they are) then so are agitations against tasleema nasreen and salman rushdie
are you gutsy enough to stand against the ban on books of salman rushdie and tasleema nasreen?

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

Thee is nothing called hardliners. It is either truthful people who do what they say or hypocrites and prostitutes who don't do what they say or have no reason to live and hence adjust with anything and everything.

Words must not be spoken like what Nawaz Shariff famously said "dehati aurats'. Words must be a means to communicate actionable plans and ideas which are meaningful in achieving long term result and ensuring stable environment to achieve goals over generations.

There are 2 types of evil:
1) Agents of absolute chaos who cause wanton destruction without any end result
2) Agents of slavery who impose their opinions on others by means of force, deception or other breach of trust.

These two evils must be destroyed no matter what the cost. The agents of slavery are those who force vulnerable young children into being brainwashed into their opinion, using force to subject someone to vile practices. This is clearly visible in certain civilisations of today.

Speaking of secularism is like speaking of colour blindness. Two things which are not equal can't be considered as equal. Would you allow me if I say that the traffic signal is considered same because I am secular in terms of colour?

There are some dehati aurats who don't speak in actionable terms and just keep causing pollution (noise and spam). They are also agents of evil as this pollution is an act of chaos. There is no point discussing with such people

the means to do so is to oppose the appeasement and appeasers.
the means to do so is to call out the rogue seminaries, religious institutions that sow seeds of resentment.
the means to do so is to show how certain religious ideologies are inherently unsecular while some are and calling them out is NOT being unsecular or intolerant.

 

[Bharath]

Obviously every muslim is a convert

Every convert is one who betrayed their ancestors and truth for cowardice and greed.

please refrain from painting an entire faith as betrayers. please refrain from comparing religions. there are bad apples every where - I request that the fight should be against evil, not the people doing the evil. the effort should be to explain, not to label people as ignorant or traitors.

also request you to edit your post bashing all muslims.