Family vehemently criticised for not standing during the playing of the national anthem

[crashnburn]

someone said that supreme court is the best institution in the country. lol.

its the worst. They literally prodded the govt to do NRC when even the BJP was dragging its feet on that.

that's how disgustin Indian supreme court is. the entire country is run by psycopaths.

[Pillipilla]

Just now, crashnburn said:

The war India is waging is not a defensive war. its not even a war. Its colonial subjugation of kashmiris. I've never been so ashamed of my Indian heritage. and wish India fails.

Was the British subjugation of India legal, yes. Was it ethical, most people would say no. If you were to ask the same question about India's subjugation of Kashmir, people who are oppressed would say it's not ethical, but the larger majority of the country who are not oppressed would say it's ethical. The difference between both the cases is the question of how demographics influence the ethics. That's the same problem you see, may it be Jews in Israel/Palestine or the Chinese in Tibet/Taiwan and Hongkong, it's always the same problem. It's about changing demographics and hence the need for freedom. Who is right and who is wrong is always questionable. Anyone from Israel will defend their stand attributing to the changed demographics and anyone from Palestine wouldn't defend their stance because of human rights violation. It's not an easy problem. 

[Pillipilla]

8 minutes ago, crashnburn said:

There's nothing to love about India anymore for me. 

I like the place I grew up in, my college and the people there. It reminds me of what my past is, and how it influences my thinking process. 

[lovemystate]

4 minutes ago, Pillipilla said:

No, I am suggesting that ethics as you define it to a person is different from ethics as you define it to a country. I only gave an example of animals to suggest that ethics are different depending on how you see it. But as a country, war ethics are not necessarily always in favor of protecting humans. If that were the case, no country will have an army, no country will wage a war. 

I suggest you understand the difference between a country, a nation, a state and an empire. Most of the modern world beleives in a nation having soverignty and that a nation having right to self determination is a cardinal principle of international law and UN. Kasmiris  are by any defintion a nation therefore entitled to right to self determination and clearly qualify to establish their soverignity in whatver means of governance they prefer. There is no confusion here.  What you are arguing is the authority derived for a "realm" or control over an area (which is how indian govt treats kashmir - an area not people) - thats the logic of an empire and repugnant.

[DummyVariable]

6 minutes ago, crashnburn said:

not interested. 

Thought so. 
 

Don’t have anything to back it up but accuse people willy nilly.

[Pillipilla]

6 minutes ago, crashnburn said:

the existence of country is itself unethical dude. It has some utility, thats all.  and it will outlive its utility the longer it exists.

as for India, it has neither utility nor ethics. southern states will attain south east asian levels of prosperity if they had their own currency they could manipulate. Its obvious from all policy choices they made since 1980

The existence of the country is definitely legal... And like I said, how do you define if it's ethical or not? Might not be ethical to to, but might be ethical to someone else. 

[lovemystate]

1 minute ago, Pillipilla said:

I like the place I grew up in, my college and the people there. It reminds me of what my past is, and how it influences my thinking process. 

Again you need to differentiate India as a state and india as a geography and again India as a collection of nations. India as a state is pathetic and hateful. indians living in india are not all like that. And several nations within india are pretty nice like Telugu nation or tamil nation - I like them

[crashnburn]

2 minutes ago, Pillipilla said:

Was the British subjugation of India legal, yes. Was it ethical, most people would say no. If you were to ask the same question about India's subjugation of Kashmir, people who are oppressed would say it's not ethical, but the larger majority of the country who are not oppressed would say it's ethical. The difference between both the cases is the question of how demographics influence the ethics. That's the same problem you see, may it be Jews in Israel/Palestine or the Chinese in Tibet/Taiwan and Hongkong, it's always the same problem. It's about changing demographics and hence the need for freedom. Who is right and who is wrong is always questionable. Anyone from Israel will defend their stand attributing to the changed demographics and anyone from Palestine wouldn't defend their stance because of human rights violation. It's not an easy problem. 

it is not questionable who is right and wrong is.The state with insane powers at its disposal has limits placed on it by civilized society to use that power sparingly and with purpose. what happened to 'muscular policy' of Modi in kashmir in 2014? do they agree that its a failure? they should answer this before devising another strategy. not pump in more occupying forces to cover their failure

you should aviod politics with me. you pretend like you lack a specific moral frame, but let me guess, if there's a suicide attack tomorrow you'll rail against it. which means you side with the govt for watever reason - emotional or utilitarian.

 

that's why I told you long back, that I have nothing to talk to you.I respect you precisely because you never hid behind the db to mock me. and I dont mind if you mock me about material science or quantum dots or whatever. its still way way better than everyone in this db. keep doing that. its much more fun than politics.

 

[crashnburn]

7 minutes ago, DummyVariable said:

Thought so. 
 

Don’t have anything to back it up but accuse people willy nilly.

you are an idiot who thinks he can set the terms for the discussion.

after I've explicitly stated that the colonization of kashmir is wrong, whats the point of digging up rape statistics? grow a brain.

[Pillipilla]

4 minutes ago, lovemystate said:

I suggest you understand the difference between a country, a nation, a state and an empire. Most of the modern world beleives in a nation having soverignty and that a nation having right to self determination is a cardinal principle of international law and UN. Kasmiris  are by any defintion a nation therefore entitled to right to self determination and clearly qualify to establish their soverignity in whatver means of governance they prefer. There is no confusion here.  What you are arguing is the authority derived for a "realm" or control over an area (which is how indian govt treats kashmir - an area not people) - thats the logic of an empire and repugnant.

I agree with that, but even the international law says that there is a spectrum of self determination. Now, the question here is if Kashmiris are fighting for an internal self determination or external self determination. I believe that Kashmiris and most other liberal groups in the country are fighting for internal self determination against the Government. Correct me if I am wrong on this. But if they were to fight for external self determination, it will be difficult to defend then at the United Nations, given how demographics plays a role here. That's why Palestine is not contested but Taiwan is contested in the United Nations. 

[crashnburn]

9 minutes ago, Pillipilla said:

The existence of the country is definitely legal... And like I said, how do you define if it's ethical or not? Might not be ethical to to, but might be ethical to someone else. 

I don't think moral relativism works in the way you think it does. a country's actions cannot be decided in terms of ethics. it has laws to follow. It has to.

[lovemystate]

3 minutes ago, Pillipilla said:

I agree with that, but even the international law says that there is a spectrum of self determination. Now, the question here is if Kashmiris are fighting for an internal self determination or external self determination. I believe that Kashmiris and most other liberal groups in the country are fighting for internal self determination against the Government. Correct me if I am wrong on this. But if they were to fight for external self determination, it will be difficult to defend then at the United Nations, given how demographics plays a role here. That's why Palestine is not contested but Taiwan is contested in the United Nations. 

No there is no spectrum of self determination. Right to self determination for any nation is absolute. What is perhaps can be loosely called a spectrum is how this right manifests - this can manifest as absolute soverignity in which case it will be an independent country or manifest as federal soverignity in which case it accepts soverigntiy of other power like india in some areas while retaining absolute soverignty in othe areas like articl 370. But that too is for kashmiris to decide.

[DummyVariable]

1 minute ago, crashnburn said:

you are an idiot who thinks he can set the terms for the discussion.

after I've explicitly stated that the colonization of kashmir is wrong, whats the point of digging up rape statistics? grow a brain.

Dissent against authority is normal. People die opposing authorities that they don’t like. Rape is a different ball game. It tells that the state is trying to oppress people. You said that Indian soldiers are raping Kashmiris. Back it up because something like that will be very high if the state is the one that is aggressive.

[Pillipilla]

3 minutes ago, crashnburn said:

it is not questionable who is right and wrong is.The state with insane powers at its disposal has limits placed on it by civilized society to use that power sparingly and with purpose. what happened to 'muscular policy' of Modi in kashmir in 2014? do they agree that its a failure? they should answer this before devising another strategy. not pump in more occupying forces to cover their failure

you should aviod politics with me. you pretend like you lack a specific moral frame, but let me guess, if there's a suicide attack tomorrow you'll rail against it. which means you side with the govt for watever reason - emotional or utilitarian.

 

that's why I told you long back, that I have nothing to talk to you.I respect you precisely because you never hid behind the db to mock me. and I dont mind if you mock me about material science or quantum dots or whatever. its still way way better than everyone in this db. keep doing that. its much more fun than politics.

 

If your question is if I would be sad if the government is overturned, my answer is no. Honestly, I don't like most of the policies of the Government, especially social policies, beaf ban, fake sense of patriotism or lynching of minorities. However, I would rather have a Government that takes a strong stance at the international stage than have a dummy Government that exists to appease minorities and not take action. I never voted in India, and if I had to, I wouldn't. 

[crashnburn]

3 minutes ago, Pillipilla said:

I agree with that, but even the international law says that there is a spectrum of self determination. Now, the question here is if Kashmiris are fighting for an internal self determination or external self determination. I believe that Kashmiris and most other liberal groups in the country are fighting for internal self determination against the Government. Correct me if I am wrong on this. But if they were to fight for external self determination, it will be difficult to defend then at the United Nations, given how demographics plays a role here. That's why Palestine is not contested but Taiwan is contested in the United Nations. 

 

16 minutes ago, lovemystate said:

I suggest you understand the difference between a country, a nation, a state and an empire. Most of the modern world beleives in a nation having soverignty and that a nation having right to self determination is a cardinal principle of international law and UN. Kasmiris  are by any defintion a nation therefore entitled to right to self determination and clearly qualify to establish their soverignity in whatver means of governance they prefer. There is no confusion here.  What you are arguing is the authority derived for a "realm" or control over an area (which is how indian govt treats kashmir - an area not people) - thats the logic of an empire and repugnant.

There's no such thing as 'international law' that can be enforced. Kashmiris are a nation, because India agreed that they are a separate nation. That's why they have their own constituent assembly. dissolving it is not under purview of the Indian govt.