[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
GERALD J. LA CORTE wrote:
> : No, that is just <name> using a classic Hindu distraction maneuver to
> : move the discussion away from something he is uncomfortable with dealing
> : with. It is frequently the case that Hindus pull this kind of nonsense
> : to shout their opponents down. It is a very clever tactic...
>
> That the aforementioned person is uncomfortable with the said topic, I can
> understand. OTOH "It is frequently the case that Hindus pull this kind of
> nonsense to shout their opponents down" is outright belligerent and asking
> for a fight.
Well, not to point fingers, but your response that a posting preaching
such sentimental intolerance would be better off at SRV wasn't
particularly nice either...
If the statement above sounds belligerent, please believe me when I
say it was not intended as such. On the other hand, when one has
repeatedly received this kind of treatment, and appeals to reasoning
have failed, it becomes rather frustrating to put up with it. It
really saddens me that the Hindu society has become so degraded that
intelligent Hindus seek to avoid thoughtful discussion by painting
their opponents as fundamentalists.
The initial post didn't catch my attention, perhaps you
> could restate it. (I substituted <name> for the person's name out of
> manners and because I like the person.)
For me, it is not a question of like or dislike. There are very few
whom I can truly say that I dislike, but even then what I usually
dislike is their behavior rather then their selves. And if there is
one thing I dislike, it is the kind of behavior exhibited earlier in
this thread (which is not unlike the behavior of many of the more
hot-headed proponents of political correctness on college campuses).
I think you saw the original post by Dhruba which said (paraphrase)
"HKSji, allow me to summarize your views. Gaudiya Vaishnavas are the
only ones who follow sanaatana dharma and all others are wrong." The
statement came absolutely out of nowhere, since we were talking about
the means to define Hinduism. Worse yet, it was a complete distortion
of what I did hold to be true. There was no reason for Dhruba to have
said it, other than to try to make me look bad so that I might stop
analyzing his opinions. After all, if I happen to show by reason and
argument that certain views of his are ill-conceived, and he is too
attached to those views to change them (and unable to establish his
position by reason), then what could be more convenient than to
silence me by putting incriminating words in my mouth?
