[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH ARTICLE : Who decided that all vaishnavs are not hindus?
In article <ghenDvCC27.I61@netcom.com>,
Roy Raja <rajaroy@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
> because it is proven
> fact that Vaishnavs are a sect of Hindus. I can quote you several
> authorities to this effect.
I can quote you several authorities who've said all sorts of things,
but just because they said them doesn't mean that they were
correct. This discussion isn't some popularity contest to see who can
get how many people to say what. Either you have a rigorous definition
by which your argument can be shown correct, or you don't.
>>Interesting - you want to say what other people are, despite what they
>>themselves say. If you recall, the British called all of us heathens
>>and barbarians. I assume that you would have approved of that?
>
> Don't twist the argument. If tomorrow you start to say that you are not
> human being, but you are a monkey, then am I supposed to accept that
> I am arguing with a monkey on the net?
I apparently am doing so...
However, if you want to speak of twisting arguments, don't you find it
a bit odd that you're trying to state that there's some parallel
between the human/monkey argument and the other one? I can quite
clearly show you that a human is not a monkey. Biologists have
relatively straightforward ways of determining this using a
classification system.
You, on the other hand, have failed to produce any sort of test to
determine who is and isn't a Hindu according to you. Come up with one,
and we can continue this discussion. If you keep on hand-waving and
arguing by repeated assertion, then I'm afraid you're going to be
stuck where you are.
-Vivek
