Originally posted by <Pakka Desi>:
1. The original poster meant, I think, to say that other people discussing on this forum have internet access and can know stuff without actually setting foot in another country just Jason or Thomas are doing.
2. I'll bet that his question, "What percentage of your population has access to the Internet?" was not a genuine request for information but a satire. I think that because this question has no relevence in the discussion. Also, I don't think that you are so naive to believe that his was a genuine request for information.
Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
Maybe you guys just don't not understand each other. Its so very complex.
No english. Its really interesting. I thought to post here my own traduction, but then I forgot. I will post if I find it.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
"we know what's best for the poor and tribals and we will dictate for them"
Originally posted by <Pakka Desi>:
1. The original poster meant, I think, to say that other people discussing on this forum have internet access and can know stuff without actually setting foot in another country just Jason or Thomas are doing. May be they have been to other countries but not in India about which we are talking about here.
2. I'll bet that his question, "What percentage of your population has access to the Internet?" was not a genuine request for information but a satire. I think that because this question has no relevence in the discussion. Also, I don't think that you are so naive to believe that his was a genuine request for information.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by <Pakka Desi>:
1. The original poster meant, I think, to say that other people discussing on this forum have internet access and can know stuff without actually setting foot in another country just Jason or Thomas are doing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you are mistaken.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Wrong again.
However, what I and others have been arguing against this entire time is bigotry, extremism, supremacy, and this attitude that "we know what's best for our poor".
These issues transcend national boundaries and do not require any particular insight. As these issues are universal, national sensitivities or justifications for such actions are irrelevant for any reason other than to understand the possible origins of such beliefs.
Originally posted by <Pakka Desi>:
I believe you are refereing to me but I did not say that.
In fact, you guys have a complex of knowing what is best for the world. You have your own notions of morality and of right and wrong and you want to apply that to all cases.
I have no objection to what you think is best for your country, and on the same note, I also believe that I have the right to decide what is good for my country.
And when I say, "I", I do not mean it as a dictator. I mean it as a citizen of my country. And I will execise my right by supporting and voting the party that I think is right.
The original discussion started when you, Jason, applied your logic to prove that giving a justification is as good as supporting it.
In spite of the fact that fact that several other people such as Map, have trashed you theory, you are still persisting with it. Fine, that's your call.
I never said that I supported buring the missionaries alive but you are hell bent on proving that I do support it.
What I said before, and what I am saying it again, is WE DO NOT WANT CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES or MULLAHS. Their "help" at the cost of conversion is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
It has been made clear to them in no uncertain terms throught the very obvious hostility of the local population. And as you know, not everybody in villages is educated (that's the reason missionaries went there, right? to show the light of Jesus? Right?).
So, in their fit of anger or what ever, if they burn the missionary alive, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE.
While I did not and will not instigate anybody to do that,
I have no sympathy towards the vitims beyond what is there for anybody who accidentaly dies in fire at work. It is a hazard that comes with the job of converting tribals. If you can't take it, get out of there. Nobody forced you to be there.
Originally posted by Mark Milan:
Jason, from my understanding, the original poster was not you, so you can only offer your opinion on the matter. This opinion may or may not agree with Pakka's, but it is only an opinion. The only one who can say what the original poster meant is the original poster - Ashok.
Originally posted by <Pakka Desi>:
Yes, I, as a citizen, know (that is my belief, like it or not) what is best for my country and this includes rich as well as poor.
If I don't know, how do YOU know what is best for my country???
I believe, you are completely wrong. You cannot apply the same set of parameters of right and wrong to everywhere. And so you cannot apply the same solution to all the places. Different issues plague different countries, and their solution does require a deep insight into the social, economical and political condition of that country, which you do not have about India, while I do. As you said, your understanding is limited to reading etc., you cannot comprehend the complexity of the situations in India.
[ flickr ]
Originally posted by <Pakka Desi>:
Yes, I, as a citizen, know (that is my belief, like it or not) what is best for my country and this includes rich as well as poor.
If I don't know, how do YOU know what is best for my country???
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
What is wrong is wrong. Murder is always wrong. Suppressing freedom of speech is always wrong. Suppressing freedom of religion is always wrong. Suppressing freedom of the press is always wrong.
[ flickr ]
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Originally posted by Mark Milan:
Pakka, you then say that Jason can not comprehend the complexity of the situation here in India. What that sounds like to me is that he does not have the intelligence to - well, basically you just called him stupid. "I'm right because you're stupid" - in the interest of fair debate, please come up with a better argument than that.
Originally posted by Ashok Manayangath:
Well, I will shrug it off my shoulder with good belief that it is still better than that small highly biased CNN window view of India that you have and at least as much as you know about other things in the world. We have that thing called 'internet' in India too, if you haven't noticed yet!
Originally posted by me:
What percentage of your population has access to the Internet?
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Or perhaps you didn't like the answers so you ignored them. Why not ask the questions again and we will see if we can answer them?
[ flickr ]
My objections were to a poster's support for people who murder innocents.
Someone made a comment about the rate in the US suggesting that India did not have this problem. The overall teenage pregnancy rate in the US is about 8%. The overall rate in India is about 14%.
Originally posted by Pranav Jaidka:
Well Pakka, Jason is Encyclopedia Britannica personified so he knows what is best for you and your country and what is causing the problem (Thsi might be attributed to the fact that even though he has not been to India he knows more about your country because he has a Computer Science curricullum in his college and he talked to people on chat) .
Originally posted by <DKL>:
Jason, why do you thik that all missionaries are perfect. If missionaries are doing good job and appreceated by everybody here doesn't mean that they are doing good job across whole world. They are human beings and they *may* make mistakes. If somebody has seen personally what they are doing why can't you accept it.
Originally posted by <DKL>:
Pakka Desi, why do you think all missionaries are bad.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I won't argue with you. Certain things are or should be very black and white though. Not everything is a shade of grey. If we go back to the begining, or at least take a good look at what I've been saying throughout, my objections were to a poster's support for people who murder innocents. The reasons given by him and the people who rushed to support his position were often blatant displays of bigotry, extremism, and supremacy. The fact that one group is of one religion and another group is of a different religion means little to me. My opinion is the same regardless.
Now the topic has meandered since then, and some of us who have an understanding of Christianity have been commenting on how we disagree with their characterization of what forced conversion is. This lead us to see that in addition to the bigotry, extremism, and supremacy, there was blatant classism (caste-ism if you prefer) and a lack of willingness to respect the personal choices of others. There was also shown a very high-handed "we know what's best for the poor and tribals and we will dictate for them" that has been repeatedly displayed.
They constantly throw together actions which are taken by some Indian Christians along with all missionaries. They seem to be one and the same to them. Do I doubt that there are some unethical activities undertaken by Christians in India? Not at all. What I do doubt is some of the blanket characterizations that have been made, as well as their characterizations of the motivation behind attacks on Christians and missionaries.
There are certain moral positions which people shouldn't waiver from, imho. If that comes off as something being viewed in terms of black-and-white, so be it. If arguing against things like extremism, bigotry, and supremacy pisses people off, I sure won't lose any sleep over it.
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
By stirring up hatred against the missionaries, you are indeed responsible for their murders.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
We are debating moral absolutes and you are trying to say they don't apply to you.
Originally posted by <Paka Desi>:
No, I did not mean that he cannot comprehend because he is stupid or unitelligent. In fact, I also gave the reason a sentence before that for why he cannot comprehend. The reason is his knowledge is limited only to reading books and meeting people who have been to India. This is all third and second hand information. This information is as much misleading as it is leading. To get a true picture and understanding about a complex country like India, I believe, you have to live there for years. And that too not only in 5 start hotels but living like an ordinary citizen. And I guess, that would be true for any country not just India.
[ flickr ]
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I then went on to say the issues we are talking about have little to do with India and in fact transcend national boundaries.
Originally posted by Mark Milan:
Pakka:
Thanks for your clarification. By saying "Jason can not comprehend India", and leave it at that, that's where I got confused.
Originally posted by Ashok Manayangath:
Context: General argument from may posters - Religious tolerance is what missionary work is all about, and missionaries teach the same.
Question: Are the missionaries tolerant to the religion poor and needy already follow, that is economically poor and needy?!
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Your ability to interpret seems challenged. Again, let me help you out. I first claimed that my knowledge of India was very finite. I then went on to say the issues we are talking about have little to do with India and in fact transcend national boundaries. Try to comprehend this because it seems a difficult concept for you: these are moral issues that are universal regardless of location. We are debating moral absolutes and you are trying to say they don't apply to you. Nobody is buying that.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
In reference to the NI comments, I'm sorry if you lack the ability to objectively study history. But back to the topic at hand... I never claimed anything about "Hindu society". I did claim that apparently secularism in India is a myth. You seem to be backing that up by equating India to Hindu society. If secularism were more than a catch phrase, I'm don't think we have that mistake made. If you are not equating India to Hindu society, then you must be saying that there exists a greater Hindu society inside India, which somehow must stand apart from the secular Indian society. If that were the case, then again secularism would be a myth, as the various religions choose to hold themselves apart from society as a whole.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Christianity teaches tolerance for others. At the same time it teaches that the word of Christianity must be spread. You can tell a missionary that their religion is not right for you, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want to hold a conversation with you anyway and extoll the virtues of Christianity. This doesn't mean he doesn't respect your viewpoint, merely hopes that he can talk to you about what he believes is a better way.
Think of it this way. Let's say that you live and breathe Java. Nothing interests you more than Java. Do you not take every opportunity to talk to people who might be interested about Java and say how great it is? You might take the opportunity to post on message forums dedicated to C++ and other languages saying how great Java is, and how you feel it's best in most circumstances. Sun even gives you a little Sun sticker which they hope you will display, thereby encouraging you to spread the good word of Java. Does this mean you are not tolerant of people who've only programmed in Perl, or C++? Not at all, you just hope to show them a better way. It's pretty much the same for most missionaries I would expect.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Think of it this way. Let's say that you live and breathe Java. Nothing interests you more than Java.
[ flickr ]
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
blah blah .....
.......Java........Java .......C++ .........Java .........Sun.........Java.........Perl, or C++
Not at all, you just hope to show them a better way. It's pretty much the same for most missionaries I would expect.
Originally posted by Ashok Manayangath:
[QB]
That's a really bad example, Jason. What if I like my mother a lot? Should I go around my friend's houses and say how great my mother is? Doesn't that imply how not-so-good their mom's are?
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The US number come from the CDC. Indian numbers from here: Verma, V; Das, K B.: Teenage Primigravidae:A Comparative Study.Indian Journal of Public Health. Apr-June 1997. 41(2).p.52-55.
The International Planned Parenthood Federation puts the teenage pregnancy rate for India at 14.7%.
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
If a C++ programmer has a job and you give him lecture about Java, he will laugh at you as he is still in the job and Java guys are without job.
But if a C++ guy is without job and he wants job in C++ and at that time if you say that look becasue you know C++ thats why you dont have job. Come I will get you a job but you have to learn Java. I also have a job requirement which need skill of C++ but I wont give you that. I want you to learn Java.
This is BAD.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Christianity teaches tolerance for others. At the same time it teaches that the word of Christianity must be spread.
[ flickr ]
Originally posted by Sankar Subbiah:
What is wrong with the Project manager example I gave
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The International Planned Parenthood Federation puts the teenage pregnancy rate for India at 14.7%.
[ flickr ]