If such a thing really happens, then I wouldn't mind the species going extinct due to it.

I expected him to come in a battle or something, leading an army of some sort... and more stuff would happen.

But, anyway, he isn't coming back. People can wait all they want if 2 millenia aren't enough to convince them, but such lunatics shouldn't be counted as part of civilisation.

I hope that Pakistan stops annoying us. Thanks to China, they now even have a nuclear arsenal. But it doesn't seem like they ever would...not like they can win, for they're basically barbarians. They're always doing something or the other to annoy India, from producing terrorists to violating peace treaties. If our government wasn't so abiding to international peace, we could easily annex Pakistan.

Bangladesh isn't so important...though it should have been a part since India liberated it from Pakistan's rule (in the war I talked about) by putting at stake a much greater war in a small army with some of the countries that had defeated Hitler's alliances and later the Soviet Union. Most of those were India's allies. But for what one might expect, our relations with Bangladesh are rather formal.

Pakistan, it seems, hates India for no important reason, and loves China a bit too much. They aren't too infrequent, either, for example, this is the last one I heard about

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pakistani-troops-violate-the-ceasefire-along-the-loc-in-rajouri-district/article18075400.ece

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/mutilation-of-soldiers-an-inhuman-act-beyond-any-norms-of-civility-indian-army-dgmo/article18351256.ece

Yes, it is indeed an interesting article.

Even many here would prefer Pakistan to join India, despite what they've made of themselves. But China won't let that happen... if they had not always been unfriendly to India and later allied with Pakistan, the connected land of [Greater] India, China and Russia would have been mutually better allies and much more powerful. But anyway, Pakistan is built of those who wanted a Muslim rule rather than a secular one. It's lucky that the British couldn't achieve so much with the Christianity they tried to preach.

It's rather painful to see that our former constituents of Pakistan and Bangledesh are now counted as poor countries.

Yes, especially now that Trump is elected and is mocking the entire human pursuit of knowledge. It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Now that I see it, I should have completed the description of the attack by some additional statements - If Russia (Soviet Union) had not intervened timely and caused their Navy to return by coming, say, it was delayed or something, the war could escalate enough that we wouldn't have a Pakistan on the map and America would have one more angry enemy in the Cold War. India already hated US-UK so much that many had considered joining the Axis in WWII just after independence from UK.

Just something you might prefer to know if you want to interpret Indian nationalism.

What about Ireland, though? All I know about it are the liberation movements of the Northern Ireland from UK... they probably want it to join the republic. It never came up in what I learned about Western History.

The radical restriction supporter wastes our time once more. Just remember, you are one of the insert arbitrary figure here of Americans who lacks the simplest of humanity to understand we need no restrictions on slavery of owned healthy humans for any reason.

What a total inhuman extremist!

That's just an example, maggot. Try bringing against me the best of you, and it shan't last more than a touch. For that was too easy.

Also, unsurprisingly, it's actually a quite conservative position, and not merely a hypocritical one at that - the places are the most conservative ones in the country.

For ages, I'd heard about the western countries, mainly US, being liberal and rational utopias in most regards. But now I see that it was mostly false, probably a part of American propaganda and influence. Now it's just a country based on the fear of communism, whereas the Indian Constitution openly proclaims socialism since the 42nd amendment, 1977. That's just a few years after US and UK had allied with Pakistan and tried to attack India... the diplomatic situations were complex then... though one couldn't guess it by looking now.

I doubt that it can... Here's a link explaining some of it,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination againstgirlsinIndia

They have banned everything from dowry to pre birth sex determination, allowed women a part in the owned property of deceased parent, but still I've heard that the situation isn't so good in many remote areas.

The gap here between the both types of areas is actually impressive.

Yes, he is extremely obsessed with supporting the republicans of America. It's pretty annoying.

Though elective abortions are illegal in India - you still can have them done if you're lucky enough to find a corrupt doctor or something within 12 weeks. But can't blame them... Many abortions were forced on the woman if children were to be female. They had to illegalise pre birth sex determination too. It's pretty rough.

Ah, maggot, my challenge still stands. Any argument of yours in the past 6 months, I could use for slavery. I've not been here before that to judge the earlier ones.

It stands only because you couldn't dare to do it earlier and just downvoted me as always, rather than me caring to offer it again when you're defeated already.

Your intellect would be pitiable if you were worth it.

Your arguments are more pro slavery than anyone I've noticed on this site.

It'd be strangely hypocritical to accuse others if it weren't for you using it - in that case, it's your usual hypocrisy.

Then that means some of them are designed really badly. Probably an incompetent designer, (or it was made random.)

Policies require a much bigger number than under 20%, don't they?

So I don't think they could.

I'd say that's still a small number.

Unless that's all part of the elected.

We can call it a semi-contradiction. Or something else.

Perhaps not.

After all, it isn't a nation of atheists, materialists AND logicians we're talking about.

Probably quite the opposite.

No.

If anyone has to use a "born in the wrong body" excuse, then they should be exiled.

You certainly can, mate, but I wouldn't recommend that.

I'd be a fool to contradict myself so clearly that even you could see it.

It's more likely that I accidentally cut my tongue with a dagger.

I am not making any explanation for you. (Ideally, I wouldn't have said even that, but you don't seem particularly bright.)

you dismissed yourself

Another one of your pathetic lies, just like all that up there.

I understand ad hominems much better than you can ever hope to.

But I'd rather not explain that any further. As I said, you're dismissed. You're insulting yourself by each reply here now.

Yes, that one.

I thought him to be rather smart, though. It's a pity that he turned out to be a coward.

Instig8or, to be precise.

He was removed for exploiting a vulnerability in the website which allowed him to delete any comment.

Or so I heard, somewhat, from Hellno and addltd. Hellno himself has gone, probably blocked due to something he said to Atrag.

You're disgusting and a pathetic liar.

I don't consider you worth a link from my profile, especially on the allies list. It looks disgraceful there. We don't really have the feature right now, though, so you're acting more like a sticky parasite there. Luckily, I'm not in too much of a hurry about that.

Now fade away. You're dismissed.

With a grammar of comparable complexity?

I know many don't, but their syntax is much simpler. Many don't even have plural forms for most words.

Also, English is perhaps the only language that does not have gender for objects even with such a grammar.

You should not because I would never (which is actually your first 3 paragraphs combined)

Seriously, who let you on a computer that connects to the Internet?

same for someone with a physical disability like lets go on a walk, oh wait.

The joke's on you.

And for the race thing ofc I will deal with different races differently most races have different cultures so it would make little sense to behave the same way around every culture.

Great. You post definitions without reading them.

Yes, he's someone I'd rather not have at my side anyway, except as a little pawn. They make the positions derogatory.

I don't care about any other part you've said here...

I don't like to nit pick about grammar but the entire statement except the claim is off.

You're the one who doesn't seem to know the littlest things about syntax and structure (not to mention formatting). Try doing your nit picking (seriously?) and show where I was grammatically wrong.

It's just your opinion is not a universal refutation of freaking logic.

And that's even worse than just mindlessly crying that you refuted me, without any reason.

So, you are dismissed. I have already said that I am not replying to that there, if you couldn't comprehend that.

Now fade away.

My claim here didn't really need your demonstration, but whatever.

They did, in 2001.

I've heard that it didn't go well. You'd remember, you're old.

I don't care to know why. Structuralism is dead.

I'd say it depends on how much you want them to forgive you.

As a side note, it'd remind you of something if the website always had a weekly points leaderboard.

Seems like you're obsessed with getting to the top of the leaderboard this time.

Well, I've been around the top for months.

Don't worry about him. He already has hard time figuring out what is said.

We always come far enough from originally intended meanings of words. That's inevitable.

I can't say for sure... I've only heard rumours about people arguing in the corners of the Internet, such as the YouTube comments section.

But from what I've heard, it seems pretty much insane.

Yes, usable information, or pragmatic truths, is a rare thing to come by from them. They seem to reflect more of insecurity than persuasion. Like they want to win over some crowd, as is the case of public debates. But still, with a lot of insecurity.

I wouldn't call it an argument, but the exact word evades me.

Anyway, this is the definition, from the Oxford Dictionary of Law,

A defect of reason, arising from mental disease, that is severe enough to prevent a defendant from knowing what he ...

The one from that page isn't clear enough - it goes into the legalities too soon.

Man, you've been paying him so much attention?

I'd say he must be flattered.

So, the correct term is perseveration.

Also, you know, the problem of induction. Just because something happened doesn't mean that it always will.

I guess I didn't include it earlier. Well, it just sounds rude if you're worth anything.

I'm not replying anymore in this thread unless you can present an argument against me.

I don't care about your random objections - they're meaningless, irrational and worthless.

It is just your opinion that you have refuted...worthless for consideration.

Unless you can present it as an argument.

As a recap,

I said something.

You asked where I said anything.

I told you that.

You asked where I explained it.

I told that and explained that too.

Now you're just crying over how you refuted everything I said.

Here's a little game for you.

Try refuting ANYTHING that I've said.

If you'll just cry over how you refuted everything, which you clearly couldn't even be close to doing, then you're dismissed.

You've said nothing which challenges me. Thus, I have no reason to defend.

But if you need guidance, then you can see my profile.

I wonder... I've already made my claim and shown you how I did that. So for all purposes of this thing you posted right now, you're dismissed.

Anything else I've said there is in support of it. You can read other of my arguments if you want it much longer. You're free to browse them all.

Or you can put your reasoning here if you disagree with mine, and I might destroy your claims if they seem worthy of attention.

I'd recommend you read more carefully than that.

(Hint : IT'S LITERALLY THE FIRST FEW WORDS.)

I wonder about that.

You know what, perhaps you're right.

Books? You don't need books there.

We will have all the great philosophers there. And souls are, of course, timeless (let's ignore all the absurdities - I believe they have some tricks to ignore them in Christian theology) so you'll have a complete existence.

All that'd remain is to party.

I'll be at the eternal party.

There are drinks, which don't harm you (for obvious reasons). And no hangovers, because spirits don't need to sleep.

Oh, that's strange.

Oh, that's strange.

Well, could itself is generally used as a modal in past tense.

You're confusing stuff for the readers.

All crusades weren't against Muslims.

It was your Dark Ages, anyway. If Islamic empires could do that, then about any empire across the world could enslave you.

Don't worry about such little stuff about heart attacks in heaven. I wouldn't have one, even if I see you sitting on the back of Christus. My heart is strong.

It's still better than the religions. I could create better fairytales on the same drugs, yet they're the ones people follow, and take as their opium.

Though it'd be better if we got to say that. But sadly, it won't happen.

Is that, like, your orgasm face?

Seems like it.

I'm Zeus. Didn't you see my picture?

Incidentally, I've been living, without that, for a long time.

No, they don't.

Some can always think anything - contrast is the most efficient strategy for progress.

Well, we're the only country that has a bill of rights for cows, or so I've heard.

You can't find beef. All of the foreign chains offer just cocks/hens and goats here. Or perhaps seafood.

The only real thing is what is happening. Everything else is imagination, anticipation or memory.

Unless, of course, what is happening is a delusion.

Some might do. There are even street cows here - some sort of curse on cows by some demigod.

2 of the biggest deities - Krishna and Shiva, had a special thing for cows.

I don't, though. Except that my name is a reference to Shiva.

No, I don't. I'm pretty much vegetarian. Hindus don't eat beef - it's probably even illegal to sell in India, for I have never seen such.

So does mine.

But I don't like religion enough for my mood to be that way for long.

So you intentionally made it vague.

It does seem to.

It does seem to.

In the times of the universal deceit, truth shall be the new hate speech.

Oh, I thought for a while that you were talking about the LGBTQ community.

Yes, they were forced against their natural instincts. The things I said in the last line.

Yes, they were forced against their natural instincts. The things I said in the last line.

Well, that's not how it works. You'll also need rocket, fuel and other things.

As to the LG part, that should probably soon go extinct if it is something genetic.

The same is possible for the entire community, though, but perhaps not so probable.

Sounds like a win-win scenario.

But sadly, the homophobic fundamentalists are also those people who don't understand natural selection. Ideally, they would have been the first ones to go extinct.

Oh, Guardian. That's one of the 3 publications of written journalism that I prefer (the other 2 being Economist and Hindu).

But you might also want to look at it from the other side, which doesn't think of it as dangerous or unnatural at large in detachment. And that's the transhumanist side. Especially the way I look at it.

An introduction to it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

No, I don't.

It is still the same mind as far back as memory stretches.

So, what type of a name would you like?

Biological sex doesn't matter if it isn't needed.

But no, it won't work like that. As I told you, we wouldn't be changing our minds.

I doubt that.

You're forgetting something - transhumanism.

It also happens to be the side that I support.

Now that I think of it, it does have those Antichrist vibes. Whatever, the Christians are too busy wondering about Islam.

I doubt that.

You're forgetting something - transhumanism.

It also happens to be the side that I support.

Now that I think of it, it does have those Antichrist vibes. Whatever, the Christians are too busy wondering about Islam.

I'm afraid (not really) that such crazy wishes of yours will have to stay unfulfilled. Forever. (Especially yours.)

Ah man...whats your problem with ma surname....what do you need it for...

You seemed confused over whether surnames are real, chimp.

Come on! Your skin colour looks like faeces and pig skin coloured. Who is better?

I wonder what colour you are referring to.

As to the better one, chimp, I am, of course.

Jatin is a Hindu name of Indian origin. It means the one who has matted hair (Hindi: Jatadhari), i.e. Lord Shiva. Sanskrit: Śiva,.............

Okay... So it refers to the greatest saint that ever was.

And, apparently, if you knew enough, you'd know that it can still mean saint by that definition.

You are no more hindu but you use two hindu names.

So, you have no surnames in Ghana?

Mine is a special one because it actually means something. With that new piece of knowledge, I know that my full name is a reference to Lord Shiva.

Even if that were the case i ain't gay.

Though you certainly are, I won't be doing it with a chimp. Not to mention that I am almost purely straight.

Oh, so hair of a fish somehow represent blind men painting the sky.

As to my name, Jatin means a Saint, and Nagpal means a one who pets venomous snakes.

What about yours? Is it entirely meaningless?

Oh, so you aren't a total conservative.

Well, I consider myself somewhat liberal - only as much is directly against the traditional part of conservatism. Except that, I'm a minarchist.

Why? Conservatives are about upholding traditional values, which is fundamentalist christianity.

No, this part I was referring to.

many believe the universe to be just 6000 years old and that some omniscient, omnipotent overlord in the sky made it all.

So, all conservatives (in America) are not like that?

Well, that's what it seems like on this website.

Like a blind man trying to paint the sky......he will always paint it thick dark cloudy,

I wonder about that.

In case you might never eventually come to notice, there is a link in the description.

That's the reason for the question.

I wouldn't have written that if I could see who it was.