Evil Celebration

Courtesy - fAmEnXt

Dear All,

On the moonless holy eve of Diwali, I have this gloomy feeling within my heart being unable to wish you a happy Diwali. Do you realize that all your celebrations lead to misery for others and all that you do to celebrate are nothing but acts of evil?

The crackers you burst are the cause for panic among dogs, birds, other animals and causes pain in the heart of animal-loving humans.

Often, children are employed and exploited in cracker manufacturing units and scores of such innocent children die before experiencing puberty in deadly accidents in the ill-equipped factories.

The sweet that you devour to add sweetness in your life are made of milk and sugar, both bitter causes of pain to cattles and humans alike. Production of milk is at the heart of all inhuman treatment of cattles, who are made to produce calves each year like machines, injected with chemicals to produce more and more milk, and finally butchered when no longer productive.

The sugar mills are famous for exploitation of sugar cane farmers paying them less and less for sugarcane and mill workers as well who work in near slavery conditions.

The fine new outfit you wear on festivals is made of cotton. The same cotton in pursuit of which thousands of farmers take loan each year dreaming of a bumper crop and finally end their lives drinking pesticides when they find themselves unable to pay back the loan.

And your fine new outfit is made in the sweat shops of Southern India or Bangladesh where men, women, and children work 16-hour shifts in congested textile mills in inhuman conditions, leading a life of slave.

The lights that you decorate your house with requires power. Power that is produced from hydroelectric projects by building dam on a river, submerging the whole forest, and destroying the ecology of the river or by burning fossil fuels injecting enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Your need for more power, more food, more clothes is leading to destruction of the environment, in turn causing catastrophic climate change endangering lives of billions of people living in the coastal area.

Do you understand now that your mere act of celebration is causing misery and death throughout the world. Would you please your celebrations for the sake of innocent childrens, poor farmers, animals, and to prevent the earth from doom's day.

Moral Lesson: Show middle finger to all those who preach their brand of cheap morality with only superficial if any understanding of the world. Tell them to fuck themselves who come and advise you on the righteous way of leading life.

Unsocial Networks

Courtesy - Effbomb

Taking turn on the bed, searching for the elusive sleep, I picked up the mobile and reached for my ex-girlfriend (presently my wife). As I dialed her number, I was presented with a pleasant female voice, much sweeter than my sweetheart's although mechanical, stating it wouldn't be possible to connect to my beloved as she was on a different mobile network!

Since marriage, we never gave a thought to being on the same mobile network to reduce call cost. It wasn't necessary, after all one doesn't talk much post marriage and in fact, the focus is on how to avoid conversions.

I called the customer care and expressed my frustration at not being able to connect to someone on a different network. The 20-something, I imagined, with image of Pamela Anderson in mind, executive, with an aura of dumbness, was patiently reading me the same paragraph from their trouble-shooting guide, albeit with change of tone, traversing from unconcerned to bored to irritated.

Sir, it is the new policy of Supreme Mobile, she explained, to stop all off-net calls, incoming as well as outgoing, keeping the interest of customers in mind. Interest of the customers, I baffled, but how? I mean, what interest are you talking about? Sir, even though technically feasible, off-net calls cost more to the company compared to the on-net calls. With profits margins improving, the company would be in a position to reduce on-net call rates further and offer exciting games completely free! Hence, it was done in the best interest of the customers, she added exuberantly. In fact, given that our network is the biggest one in the nation, one should not be complaining about not being able to call one particular number, she added. We've got 750 mn users, sir, which gives you 750 mn numbers to call. Isn't that exciting! Why would one even think of calling someone on a different network? Besides, you can always invite your family and friends to switch to Supreme Mobile and enjoy the low call rates and amazing games. Inviting your friends to Supreme Mobile is as easy as sending an SMS! Just type...

It was unbearable by now and I had to disconnect abruptly, without the polity of thanking her. Dumbstruck, I wondered whether my judgment of the world was impaired due to overdose of homeopathic candies last week or the business community of the nation was under terrorist attack by biological weapons which left them incapable of sane thinking resulting in such policies.

You must be wondering where on earth this Supreme Mobile operates, why no action is initiated against its monopolistic policies, how can it be called a communication firm when its chief function is to limit communication. Certainly, there should be wide-spread condemnation of such policies in the media and people would leave such a mobile network. Well, that is not reality. In fact, people are pouring in day in and day out to get a subscription of Supreme Mobile because it gives you free games to play and you can call an astonishing 750 mn numbers. Damn those who are not on Supreme Mobile. They would eventually be forced to sign in because they too can't communicate with those 750 mn individuals. Soon, you would have none but Supreme Mobile as the only mobile company left in the nation.

Now, it isn't a made up story, it's reality, it's happening now and probably you are reading this shit on such a monopolistic platform. It may not be your voice calls that are being limited, but you don't share your thoughts just through you voice, you type text, you click photos as well. Do you realize that!

Cares who, we just fucking love Supreme Mobile and its policies. Monopolistic, huh...

Absence of Darkness

In wake of the brutal gang rape in Delhi and the consequent protests, the social media too flared up and we expressed our views on the matter and on all related matters. Once such meme circulating in the social media is:

"The problem is men... Men shouldn't be allowed to step out of the house after 9pm unless accompanied by his mother, sister or wife !!!" - henceforth to be referred as original phrase.

Many shared the post, some shared the thought as well though seemingly unlikely to be true. Some thought it's funny, some shared it out of concern for women, some seriously believed in it. I have something to say to those who considered this post worthy to any extent.

How would you react if I say "always satisfy your wife's jewellery needs, else she might fuck other men to get those", i.e., ALL WOMEN are potential whores. That's gross, disgusting, and would make no sense to anybody whatsoever. One might say that these words can come only from the minds of a psychopath.

Now, consider the original phrase. Doesn't that mean "ALL MEN are potential sex offenders." This too is equally gross, disgusting, in the same manner. And yet, I see morons liking and sharing this meme all over the social media. It is a proof that most people don't scratch beyond the surface when it comes to thinking and reasoning.

Both the sentences are absurd. The first one may sound funny but is equally sexist and gross as the second one. It is an irony that the same people who think this way also shout that racism is bad. What it is if not racism?

Opposite of darkness is not absence of darkness, but presence of light. There is no such thing as absence of darkness. We often fail to understand this fallacy in our logic. The irony of liberalism is that those who think they are liberal, go to such extent to oppose conservatism that they themselves become conservative of opposite color. Those who oppose superstition with blind faith in science are superstitious as well. Freedom to women doesn't mean curtailment of freedom of men.

Women who hate men are considered feminists  and the society projects an image of feminists as anti-men, men hater who vow to keep distance from men. That's an illogical perception. A women who hates men might not be interested in welfare of women (except self welfare) at all and a women interested in women's welfare might be in deep love with a man as well.

Our prejudiced society gives us molds and we try to put everybody around in one or other mold, and often end up putting ourselves in one such mold.

One can either go with those predefined molds, think, talk, and do what everybody else is doing or think for herself/himself and decide. Those who liked, shared, and loved the original post had given no thought to what it actually means.

We love outsourcing, but don't do it with "thinking."

Have Faith In Science

Courtesy: lifestylekick.com

Now, that title is an oxymoron. Science is understanding the world through observation and emperically evidence and faith is "complete trust or confidence in someone or something disregarding contra-evidence.

The origins of this post is a facebook discussion initiated by an intellectual friend, Tathagata, the enlightened one. The question he raised is as follows:

‎"The earth revolves round the sun and the sun does not revolve round the earth" This I learnt in my school days. heard that science has also proved it. Such proof is valid only for them who can understand such proof. I do not have enough knowledge of Mathematics or Physics to understand the proof. I have never been to the outer space to see such phenomenon with my eyes. Never seen any video sent by satellites. Now, is it fine that I believe in such phenomenon?

To rephrase his question:

"Is it okay to believe science since science itself advocates in evedentialism especially given that it is beyond the capacity of an individual to prove all the so-called scientific facts?" To re-rephrase the question, "is believing in scientific fact same as believing in religious fallacies?"

I tried to answer this question in this post.

Footnote (in the header): I am not a philosopher and do not have the mental capacity to logically connect all the dots of knowledge correctly to reach an answer which would be devoid of any fallacies. Nonetheless, I would try my best to put across all the sense that I can make of all the nonsense collected over decades.

My Answer: To start with, I must tell you that your premise is wrong. The earth doesn't revolve around the sun neither the sun revolves around earth. Basically, sun pops out of my ass when I fart early in the morning. And sunset is when I dip sun in my cup to boil water for my evening coffee.

You would do perfectly fine believing in this theory of sunset/sunrise if sun's schedule doesn't hurt/affect you in any way. For example, you never go out of your sealed house where you download all your food and other needs from internet. However, if it does affect, then knowing the truth about the theory is paramount to your well being. For example, if you are a potato farmer and more sunlight (longer day time) results in a better crop, then it would be in your interest to please me to fart a little earlier and have tea little late. So, you might like to offer me a bribe of puri-aaloo dam. Alternatively, if you are a thief, you might like to have longer night hours and bribe me for the same.

Now, suppose that another person, say Bibhas, claims that it is he from whose ass the sun pops out and in whose tea cup the sun drowns. In support of his claim, he says that he is more handsome than me, taller than me, has longer hands, longer legs, and longer everything else, and consequently has better gastronomical system than mine to house the sun. Also, the sun sets in his tea cup because tea requires higher temperature and long boiling duration than coffee.

Now, you are in trouble as you don't know who is saying the truth and knowing it is important to avoid wastefully bribing a person from whose ass the sun doesn't emerge.

Since you are either a potato farmer or a thief, you have little knowledge about human anatomy and have no instruments to inspect human body. So, now you hire a veterinary doctor to examine both asses and find out whose claim is right. Since the doctor can be bribed by me or Bibhas to give a false finding, you would want the test to be double blind, that is me/Bibhas would not know who is examining us and the doctor would not know whom s/he is examining, etc.

In today's hi-tech world, it still leaves some chance of corruption. So, you hire another vet doc to independently examine both of us to be doubly sure of the results.

Basically, you hired the expertise and services of vet docs to give you an understanding on anatomical truth as you lack understanding in that field. You "BELIEVED" the docs because you lacked knowledge in that field. We need to believe a lot of people because it is not possible to acquire all the knowledge in this universe. However, we still utilized our common sense and make sure the study was double blind and repeatable by different persons at different places. 

Once you are confirmed about who is the person in whose intestine the sun resides, you cut the deal with him. However, from time to time, you hire a vet doc and repeat the examinations in light of the current knowledge/understanding of the time to be sure you are not unnecessarily bribing someone.

This is how exactly human knowledge works.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. Science is about seeking knowledge with empirical evidence which can be independently verified.
2. Believing is a shortcut to knowledge because our mind would do a lot of processing and generate a lot of heat if we have to process entire knowledge tree to come to a conclusion. For example, when someone asks you what is 5 x 5, you jump to say 25 not because your brain gives empirical proof, but because your brain just "believes" it. To give an empirical proof, you would first need to calculate 5, i.e., 1+1+1+1+1, calculate 5 again, add these two 5's, calculate another 5, add this 5 to the previous sum and so on. In nutshell, empirically calculating 5 x 5 would be something like this - (1+1+1+1+1)+(1+1+1+1+1)+(1+1+1+1+1)+(1+1+1+1+1)+(1+1+1+1+1) and this is what dumb computers do. We humans take the shortcut, we just believe.
3. We depend on knowledge base created by generations and generations of human beings that existed on this earth. Newton could discover his laws only because some unnamed human, living thousands of years in the past, had figured out that apple could be eaten. Otherwise, no one would have planted an apple tree for Newton to sit under.
4. So, we do "believe scientific knowledge" apparently in contradiction to the very condition science puts in front of us, i.e., to go only by emperical evidence. However, this belief is only a shortcut as mentioned under #2 and because of reasons as mentioned under #3.
5. Scientific facts are put to test from time to time and we continuously try to falsify them so as to unearth newer avenues of knowledge. This is what differentiates science from non-science, science takes pride in self falsification.
6. Under no conditions, this belief can be held true if emperical evidence advises otherwise. Also, this belief/shortcut needs to change if evidence to falsify the underlying fact is found. Again, this is not the case of other types of beliefs, i.e., religious beliefs.

It All Goes Back In The Box

I first learned it from my grandmother. Now, my grandmother was a wonderful person. She taught me how to play the game monopoly. She understood that the name of the game is to acquire. She would accumulate everything she could and eventually she became the master of the board. And then she would always say the same thing to me. She'd look at me and she'd say, "One day, you'll learn to play the game."


One summer, I played monopoly almost everyday, all day long and that summer, I learned to play the game. I came to understand the only way to win is to make a total commitment to acquisition. I came to understand that money and possessions, that's the way that you keep score. And by the end of that summer, I was more ruthless than my grandmother. I was ready to bend the rules, if I had to, to win that game.


And I sat down with her to play that fall. I took everything she had. I watched her give her last dollar and quit in utter defeat. And then she had one more thing to teach me. Then she said, "Now it all goes back in the box – all those houses and hotels, all the rail roads and utility companies, all that property and all that wonderful money–now it all goes back in the box. None of it was really yours. You got all heated up about it for a while, but it was around a long time before you sat down at the board, and it will be here after you're gone. Players come and players go. Houses and cars, titles and clothes, bulging portfolios, even your body. Because the fact is that everything I clutch and consume and hoard is going to go back in the box and I’m going to lose it all.


So you have to ask yourself when you finally get the ultimate promotion, when you have made the ultimate purchase, when you buy the ultimate home, when you have stored up financial security, and climbed the ladder of success to the highest rung you can possibly climb it, and the thrill wears off - and it will wear off - Then what? How far do you have to walk down that road before you see where it leads? Surely you understand it will never be enough. So you have to ask yourself the question: What matters?


- A transcript of the film "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward" penned by John Ortberg

In Conversation - Freedom, Faith, and Right to Invade

Ravi: Even M F Hussain's body refuses the soil of #India. It's a reflection of the treatment the soul has undergone in the land of #hypocrisy.

Sunil: If M F Hussain was honest, he would have gone through court trial. Why did he run as coward? Why only Hindu Gods, why not Allah and Jesus?

Ravi: Why do you worship Hindu gods, not Islamic or Christian gods? The reason may be the same, but only M F Hussain's knew.

Sunil: It's my personal choice and no one in India got right to question. Moreover, its my religious freedom. Am I insulting anyone by law?

Ravi: Well, same holds true for M F Hussain's. It's his freedom as well.

Sunil: Freedom by insulting the nation? You might accept nude Mother India like M F Hussain, but most of them object. It's insult to nation.

Why don't you publish nude picture of your family & post it on Internet. Sorry to ask you, but it is relevant to what you are supporting.

Ravi: Because they are not beautiful enough and nobody would look at them, even nude.

Sunil: Nudity in public is against law in India. How come M F Hussain escaped from law by drawing nude Mother India and Hindu gods.

Ravi: Then it must be insult to depict Kali as nude or depicting gods nude in ancient Hindu temples. Doesn't that insult nation?

Then why are the idol makers of Kali left free and why haven’t the ancient temples been declared as monuments of shame and destroyed.

Sunil: Those temples are century old and built before Indian constitution ever existed. Law can't apply to things which were before law.

Ravi: What are laws but consciousness of men, about their opinion on right and wrong. Government can pass law to destroy such temples with nudity.

Sunil: No one in this world sees beauty in nude mother. If you do so, then I petty you.

Ravi: If one sees nation as mother, humanity would pity such enslaved souls who is in blissful ignorance of its slavery.

Sunil: It's really funny. If you see people who believe in mother India as a slave, then what about you being slave of your believes.

Ravi: I'm devoid of any beliefs.

Sunil: When we go to temple, we see divine god and don't see the nudity as it is in a shrine. Things existed before law are national treasury.

I want to reiterate that we don't see nudity in a shrine. Where as when it is made to public gallery, it is treated as insult.

Ravi: It means, your mind is pure in shrine, but corrupt and lustful outside which sees the vulgarity of nude mother India, not purity.

Sunil: The idols are nude but they are decorated with costumes and ornaments.

M F Hussain said after drawing Hitler nude that he wants to humiliate him with his paintings. He did same with Mother India and Gods.

Ravi: Don't know what he said and what he didn’t, so can't comment.

Sunil: Just Google it and you will know the facts.

You see yourself nude at home and if same is shown in public, how is your feeling? Here its not about lust and don't change it. Sunil: I am devoted to my mother land.

Ravi: That's your personal choice, I don't mind, but you shouldn't mind my personal choices either.

Sunil: As long as personal choices don’t hurt others, it’s good. I am not talking about you but about M F Hussain’s personal choice.

Ravi: We need not know what MFH said, the discussion is on whether or not it's immoral to depict gods as nude.

Sunil: What M F Hussain said is relevant as artists intentions are more important to his paintings.

Ravi: Then you have to find out every thing he has said in his life before coming to a conclusion about his thoughts on mother India.

But anyway, this is irrelevant to the discussion topic as one couldn't know what was in the heart of a man with surety.

Sunil: When personal choice become public, then people got right to express their objection as they are no more personal M F Hussain’s paintings.

Ravi: Why would his choice hurt you? You can always avoid looking at his works.

Sunil: How can I ignore when it is public. Ignorance is not the solution when my beliefs are insulted and humiliated.

Ravi: You mean to say that if I write n publish some nonsense which someone doesn't like, then it must not be allowed to be published?

Sunil: Not exactly. People got the right to say their opinion on it and if it is something like Danish cartoons and M F Hussain’s paintings, then yes.

Ravi: I'm talking about publishing books like Satanic Verses and Lajja. Is it okay to publish them as they offend so called public opinions?

Sunil: I can't comment on it as I don't know about the books.

Ravi: They are books that are offensive to certain sections of the community. What's your opinion on such books?

Sunil: Unless and until I know more details, I can't comment.

Ravi: So, you have objections on paintings, but not on books?

Sunil: You r not getting my point. I can't give my opinion on topics which I don't know. I have to know how much realistic those books are.

Can you give me your opinion with a single line description on "Vimochana Dinam"? It's a freedom struggle of a region.

Ravi: Got your point, lets drop the book thing as it is more confusing and not relevant.

What would u say if I object the images of gods depicted as killing asuras coz it hurts my feelings of nonviolence.

Won't it be justifiable to ban such images of Durga, Kali, Narasimha that go against the faith of nonviolence and peace.

Sunil: Criminals in jails who are isolated should be release as its against humanity. Do you think we should release them?

That's the reason constitution take cares all these stuff. You got freedom as long as you are within law and order.

Ravi: Exactly! For the same reason, some picture or book cannot banned just because someone doesn’t like it.

Sunil: At the same time, if same picture brings communal difference then it should be.

Ravi: Then ban all religious books which teaches nothing but gibberish, causes communal difference between believers and nonbelievers.

Sunil: If I want I can also divert the topic and we end up with unrelated topic. Don't you think many people are offended by nude picture or not?

Sunil: If someone like M F Hussain does same to your family members, will you still defend the artist? Sorry to raise this again and again, but it is relevant.

Ravi: It would be a thing to celebrate. Wont it be great that one of your dear ones get portrayed in M F Hussain’s work.

Sunil: If U really stand by and do what you said here, then I admire you, but many people don't want to be in naked picture.

But you haven’t answered my question?

Ravi: Which question? By the way, gotta go to sleep now. Will continue tomorrow.

Sunil: Assume our PM visits a country and an artist portrays naked picture of PM and presents to our nation. What is your reaction? Sincere answer please.

Ravi: Well, it is for the PM to react, its his personal matter whether he likes to be portrayed nude or not. I'd love to be painted like that.

Biased Logic

Q1: Do you think that there is a chance that life (living beings) exists in any of the stars that you see in the sky every night? If you say yes> Go to Q2. If you say no> Go to conclusion. Q2: Do you think life exists on sun? If you say yes > Go to conclusion. If you say no > Go to Q3. Q3: Do you think life doesn't exist on sun because its hot and boiling. If you say yes > Go to Q4. If you say no due to some other reason > Still go to Q4. Q4: Isn't sun a star itself and hence if life can exist on star, it can exist on sun also? Conclusion: If you said "no" to the first question and reached here, you probably thought a bit before answering. My point is to demonstrate our logical bias that makes us think stars to be inhabitable since they look similar to moon and earth, cooler in appearance. If you said "yes" to Q1 and Q2 and reached here, then probably you think like me. Science says sun is too hot for life to exist. But I think scientific knowledge is limited whereas reality is not. If science is not able to prove the existence of something, it does not mean non-existence of that particular thing. Its like saying that life does not exist in water since humans and other terrestrial animals cannot live in water before seeing aquatic life.