Bwaaaaa
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UobbY9R2uJo[/youtube]

Does the Swami also want to need to to acknowledge Ganesha as I eat my curry?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqgYyZFrNgQ[/youtube]

There has been charlatans in the Hindu business long before yoga centers...

I will have to meditate on this before replying...Hummmmmmmmmmm

Hindu anger?

How's that deduced knowing that Hindus' don't have an institutionalised clergy for articulating the religion's views. Swamis of temples don't have the authority like the church or ulemas of islam. Is it done by interviewing a few "spiritual leaders" who will always find a reason to be outraged and then publicise their personal opinion as the religions' ?

advaitya wrote:Hindu anger?

How's that deduced knowing that Hindus' don't have an institutionalised clergy for articulating the religion's views. Swamis of temples don't have the authority like the church or ulemas of islam. Is it done by interviewing a few "spiritual leaders" who will always find a reason to be outraged and then publicise their personal opinion as the religions' ?

well, could you be clear then to tell us as to when exactly should we characterize something as being hindu?. Does someone being a hindu and claiming to speak on behalf of it not be enough to characterize so, atleast preliminarily?

cavarka9 wrote:


well, could you be clear then to tell us as to when exactly should we characterize something as being hindu?.

I am not in the "characterization" business. You are. Don't blame me for your limited intellect and failure to come up with a "rational" framework to "characterize". My job is point and ridicule your "rational methodology" to malign an entire community with 1) microscopic sample, and 2) without ascertaining the motivations and knowledge of this limited sample.

cavarka9 wrote: Does someone being a hindu and claiming to speak on behalf of it not be enough to characterize so, atleast preliminarily?

No.

Can I tomorrow convert to islam and spout nonsense on its behalf and would the world buy that?

advaitya wrote:I am not in the "characterization" business.

No; you're in the protectionism and overreaction business. The news report said that many American hindus are upset about secular yoga. I really doubt that it's that many, but anyway, nobody has come even close to saying that it represents Hindu attitudes as a whole.

Still, this anger exists in at least one person, and that person is a Hindu speaking qua a Hindu, so according to the rules of English, the title is correct. You have interpreted it much more broadly, presumably to have something to get angry about.

And yes, this does happen quite a lot with Islam and Christianity and atheism and a hell of a lot of other groups. Seems to be especially Islam around here, where people go out of their way to interpret any negative statement about any Muslim at all or about Islam as hideous Islamophobia against every single Muslim on the planet. All it really proves is that they are anti-rational and anti-skeptic.

Frank Zappa wrote:The basic function of any ethnic protective PR organization is to do what Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-California) suggested on the Larry King show -- "maintain the fiction." (He used it in the context of protecting the Reagan administration during the Iran-contra scandal, suggesting it was our duty as Americans to support The President by looking the other way.)

Italians have an organization which seeks to 'maintain the fiction' that no Italians are in the Mafia, nor do they sell drugs while engaging in murder for hire. If you want to believe that, fine -- welcome to Fantasy Land.

advaitya wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:


well, could you be clear then to tell us as to when exactly should we characterize something as being hindu?.

I am not in the "characterization" business. You are. Don't blame me for your limited intellect and failure to come up with a "rational" framework to "characterize". My job is point and ridicule your "rational methodology" to malign an entire community with 1) microscopic sample, and 2) without ascertaining the motivations and knowledge of this limited sample.

cavarka9 wrote: Does someone being a hindu and claiming to speak on behalf of it not be enough to characterize so, atleast preliminarily?

No.

Can I tomorrow convert to islam and spout nonsense on its behalf and would the world buy that?

thanks, you have explained yourself and more importantly demonstrated something which I see in Hindus,
no institution = no blame!.

epepke has added something very important by pointing to "maintaining the fiction". someone should enter that in wiki argument tricks list.

epepke wrote:No; you're in the protectionism and overreaction business. The news report said that many American hindus are upset about secular yoga. I really doubt that it's that many, but anyway, nobody has come even close to saying that it represents Hindu attitudes as a whole.

Where and whom am I protecting?

epepke wrote:Still, this anger exists in at least one person, and that person is a Hindu speaking qua a Hindu, so according to the rules of English, the title is correct. You have interpreted it much more broadly, presumably to have something to get angry about.

If the rules of language were followed the title would read, "a few hindu men angry". There's no such thing as hindu anger, an inanimate ideology/religion/concept cannot be angry. It's a vague concept invented to impose guilt on a community for the acts of a few. It is, let me use that word, irrational.

cavarka9 wrote:

advaitya wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:


well, could you be clear then to tell us as to when exactly should we characterize something as being hindu?.

I am not in the "characterization" business. You are. Don't blame me for your limited intellect and failure to come up with a "rational" framework to "characterize". My job is point and ridicule your "rational methodology" to malign an entire community with 1) microscopic sample, and 2) without ascertaining the motivations and knowledge of this limited sample.

cavarka9 wrote: Does someone being a hindu and claiming to speak on behalf of it not be enough to characterize so, atleast preliminarily?

No.

Can I tomorrow convert to islam and spout nonsense on its behalf and would the world buy that?

thanks, you have explained yourself and more importantly demonstrated something which I see in Hindus,
no institution = no blame!.

epepke has added something very important by pointing to "maintaining the fiction". someone should enter that in wiki argument tricks list.

So essentially you've got nothing to say on the merits of the argument. All you're capable of is to take a little sample (random and unscientific) and draw conclusions based on that. Because clearly that's how "rationalists" roll?

It seems like at least one Hindu is angry, but as it is an infinitesemal sample, the reaction can probably be ignored...

advaitya wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

advaitya wrote:

I am not in the "characterization" business. You are. Don't blame me for your limited intellect and failure to come up with a "rational" framework to "characterize". My job is point and ridicule your "rational methodology" to malign an entire community with 1) microscopic sample, and 2) without ascertaining the motivations and knowledge of this limited sample.



No.

Can I tomorrow convert to islam and spout nonsense on its behalf and would the world buy that?

thanks, you have explained yourself and more importantly demonstrated something which I see in Hindus,
no institution = no blame!.

epepke has added something very important by pointing to "maintaining the fiction". someone should enter that in wiki argument tricks list.

So essentially you've got nothing to say on the merits of the argument. All you're capable of is to take a little sample (random and unscientific) and draw conclusions based on that. Because clearly that's how "rationalists" roll?

X does not need to convince Y, X only needs to argue with Y and hopes that the people reading so can decide for themselves, hoping that they reason.

But the X or the Y or whoever the hell you are is NOT arguing or reasoning. He's impugning an entire religion based on evidence and logic that'll embarrass a high school student.

advaitya wrote:But the X or the Y or whoever the hell you are is NOT arguing or reasoning. He's impugning an entire religion based on evidence and logic that'll embarrass a high school student.

if people claim to belong to a religion and make a case on behalf of it, then it is patently clear that there is at least one religious person who makes that case. The case hindu anger is true because hindus are saying it on the basis of hinduism and for its sake.

cavarka9 wrote:
if people claim to belong to a religion and make a case on behalf of it, then it is patently clear that there is at least one religious person who makes that case. The case hindu anger is true because hindus are saying it on the basis of hinduism and for its sake.

No such thing is "patently clear" unless one is a simple minded buffoon. Or a zealot.

Assume I am the Hindu in that video and my motive for the outburst is anything but religious. I am motivated to get visibility as a potential leader of the Hindu community and I believe (perhaps mistakenly) that making noise against the yoga studios will help me in my goal. Such being the case, am I really speaking as a Hindu?

advaitya wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:
if people claim to belong to a religion and make a case on behalf of it, then it is patently clear that there is at least one religious person who makes that case. The case hindu anger is true because hindus are saying it on the basis of hinduism and for its sake.

No such thing is "patently clear" unless one is a simple minded buffoon. Or a zealot.

Assume I am the Hindu in that video and my motive for the outburst is anything but religious. I am motivated to get visibility as a potential leader of the Hindu community and I believe (perhaps mistakenly) that making noise against the yoga studios will help me in my goal. Such being the case, am I really speaking as a Hindu?

There wouldnt be if the person infact is a simple minded buffoon or a person trying to refute an argument.

advaitya wrote:Where and whom am I protecting?

Hinduism as a whole.

If the rules of language were followed the title would read, "a few hindu men angry". There's no such thing as hindu anger, an inanimate ideology/religion/concept cannot be angry. It's a vague concept invented to impose guilt on a community for the acts of a few. It is, let me use that word, irrational.

No. The other interpretation of the title is perfectly rational and acceptable. You've chosen one interpretation. It gives you something to be pissed off at. Big deal.

Advaitya,

The title doesn't necessarily mean all hindus, maybe the semantics is a little off, but does it matter that much? I don't think anyone here genuinely thinks this guy speaks for all hindus.