RoR: Forum

Aneesh,

About the wealth remark - India's GDP as a percentage of the world economy was reduced from the pre-British figure of 22 % ( at that time , the whole of Europe accounted for 23 % ) to 2 % at the time of independence . So yes , India was wealthy .

I don't know how much stock I would put in pre-modern economic figures like the one you cited here. However, I won't dispute that there was a great deal of wealth in the Indian subcontinent compared to Europe up through the 18th century. But the reason why India fell far behind the West economically was not British exploitation but the Industrial Revolution. Europe and North America embraced it. China, India, and Latin America did not.

I should add that it is very good thing that India is now rapidly industrializing. It is nothing but a boon for everyone that India's industrialization is adding hundreds of millions of middle-class consumers to the world market. The world's largest democracy could very well be the world's largest economy before this century is over.

Andy

(Edited by Andy Postema on 9/02, 6:05am)

Post 101

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 7:23am

He doesn't understand why we think he is equating Islamists and the British, but then writes: "Still , the Islamists were much , much worse..."

Both Islamists and Brits were rotten invaders whose purpose was to "...crush whatever little [wealth and culture] remained."

But no, he is NOT equating them. Thanks goodness for nilhilist philosophy, for contributing doublespeak as reasoned discourse.

Also, way to ignore any benefits India gained by its forced association with the Brits. Right up there with "America is irredeemable because it broke some treaties." Awesome.

Post 102

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 9:28am

Steven,

I really do wish to discuss real things, not imagined ones.
Therefore, Steven must have an unhealthy soul.
You claim those are my words. Even Scott seems to think they are.

They aren't.

They are your words that you want to put in my mouth.

Ain't gonna happen with my sanction. I have clearly stated the contrary, but for some reason you just don't get it. Even Scott doesn't get it. So let me state it again.

I do not think that Steven must have an unhealthy soul.

Got it this time? Scott, you too? Is it unclear? Is there any part that is vague? Something misspelled, maybe? Dayaamm. Makes me wonder...

Now if you want to discuss other things, like definitions, emotional content of words and images, cultural context, that sort of thing, we can. Hell, find my words that you keep harping on about. I might even be interested in seeing how such a stupid mistake can keep on recurring with an apparently intelligent person.

So long as you insist in making this blatant mistake, refusing to see it, and there are others like Scott interested in seeing this mistake become a fact, you are right. We are wasting each others time.

But I even said that already. I said we both have better things to do amd we probably will not budge each other.

I certainly see now why you are completely blind to any subtext type message your article might have conveyed. (Hell, you even called the concept "Freudian" as if that would make it go away.) From the way this argument developed, you have substituted bias for reason. Self-inflicted blindness.

You claim things that do not exist, state that you logically deducted them, have absolutely no proof of such except your own feelings of somehow being attacked, then go on from there.

Feelings are not tools of rational cognition. But they are present in communication and how they are is a valid area of discussion. You may ignore that fact, but it will not go away because you do not wish to think about it. (I am pretty amused that the mistake you keep making with me comes precisely from this, but you apparently do not believe that it exists.)

So if you wish, let us probe the wound. Let's go beyond even communication and get all the way down. Please answer the following question (if you wish).

Do you enjoy watching the life drain out of a living creature with a higher consciousness level (livestock, for example, and human beings)? I am asking about the fact of life draining out in itself.

If so, please tell me how such enjoyment could ever be healthy.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/02, 9:31am)

Post 103

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 10:07am

Steven,

I don�t know how many times or how many ways I have to say this:

I DO NOT THINK THAT YOU MUST BEAT YOUR GIRLFRIEND.

I never said that. Those were your words.

If you wish to continue this conversation, answer this question: Do you enjoy the pain and agony present in the face of a woman being beaten? I mean the pain, in itself.

How much of that do you think is OK to enjoy?

Jon

Post 104

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 10:58am

Well I guess I've been trounced, huh?

Michael

Post 105

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 4:35pm

"You claim those are my words. Even Scott seems to think they are. "

No one said those were your exact words. I do not agree with that proposition.

Post 106

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 4:36pm

"I DO NOT THINK THAT YOU MUST BEAT YOUR GIRLFRIEND."

Hey, if she's mouthy, a little beatin' goes a long way...

Post 107

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 4:41pm

Scott,

I do not agree with that proposition.

Thank you.

Michael

Post 108

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 11:29pm

Steven,

I'm sitting here, semi-reluctant to write this post because of so much hostility that has occurred. But I promised I would do it, so here goes.

I suggest we go back to the beginning and start all over again.

But first I want to clean up a misconception. I was reluctant to go all the way down on the up close and personal level with you before on purpose. You might have presumed that it was due to being fearful of your arguments, not having any of my own or something like that.

It wasn't.

It was love of the USA and respect for your position as a soldier of the armed forces. I did not want to take this thing all the way down because of that. I did not want to disrespect what I so dearly love and respect, and the discussion was headed in that direction.

I have a suspicion that now there might me a chance to finish the unresolved issues. That would please me greatly on an intellectual level, especially if we could do this cordially.

I suggest two rules to start with. We answer each others questions (not ignore them), and we define our terms - and keep defining them until we agree or at least understand the other.

Are you game? (If not, please yourself. I have no problem with that, either.)

Michael

Post 109

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 7:18am

Wonderful idea, Michael. I think that would be grand. Please, by all means, let me know what questions I have not answered and what terms I need to define, and I will do so, in neither a sarcastic or snide fashion, just honesty.

Thanks for the respect, but you really do not have to treat me differently because of my own choices.

Post 110

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 12:42pm

Wonderful, Steven,

Give me a day or two to go back over the article and read all the posts again (I have a day job and limited time right now, so please bear with me).

I also extend the invitation to answer any doubts on definitions and questions you may have - and I also intend to answer them with nothing but intellectual honesty, minus anything snide and sarcastic.

On the respect thing, I don't do that because I have to. It's more selfish than that. I do it because I want to. I happen to love and respect the organization you work for and the spirit behind it.

Michael

Post 111

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 2:55pm