I had to laugh...
-
You've missed the point: presumably history and irony pass you by.
-
Sadly you have it bang on the nose. Bear in mind, however, colonial, that you wouldn't have a country right now if it wasn't for the British. And where the fuck is our tax???
digital man wrote:
And where the f*** is our tax???
The cheque is in the mail. And the tea is in the harbor.
-
Or you f**king British could have left the rest of the world alone and not colonized India/Pakistan. Now your colonials are reverse colon-izing your sorry arses and you don't appreciate the f**king irony.
There was no Pakistan to colonize. :)
Cheers, Vikram.
The hands that help are holier than the lips that pray.
-
once. so? as far as misinformaton, Americans themselves know less about their own country than others.
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
once.
I asked you how much time not how many times. As usual, you're either too dense to understand the question or are deliberately misinformative.
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Americans themselves know less about their own country than others.
Bullshit, Adnan. You certainly don't know squat about it. You only get your information from the local terrorists. Go back to worrying about your cricket team and forget the rest of the world. You'll never understand.
Helium Rhenium Titanium Carbon
-
There was no Pakistan to colonize. :)
Cheers, Vikram.
The hands that help are holier than the lips that pray.
India/Pakistan is what I wrote.
-
There was no Pakistan to colonize. :)
Cheers, Vikram.
The hands that help are holier than the lips that pray.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
There was no Pakistan to colonize.
Technically, there was no single-India either :-) Just a bunch of disconnected kingdoms.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link -
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Imagine how it'd be if American women moved to Saudi Arabia and insisted on driving cars, not wearing veils and travelling with men? I am sure they'd all be sentenced to death.
yet another proof of ignorance. American women troops in in KSA don't wear Hijab so the other foreign women in Riyadh and other don't practise Islamic dress. I think you guys trust in media more than your past religion X|
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
American women troops in in KSA don't wear Hijab so the other foreign women in Riyadh and other don't practise Islamic dress. I think you guys trust in media more than your past religion
I know a few people (from my state) who have lived/worked in Saudi and the women had to wear the hijab when they went out and also could not drive. That's what I based my observations on. If this has now changed, that's great news then.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link -
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
American women troops in in KSA don't wear Hijab so the other foreign women in Riyadh and other don't practise Islamic dress. I think you guys trust in media more than your past religion
I know a few people (from my state) who have lived/worked in Saudi and the women had to wear the hijab when they went out and also could not drive. That's what I based my observations on. If this has now changed, that's great news then.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com linkThe reader might recall that it was only a few years ago that the "religious police" in KSA -- agents of the State -- forced girls back into a burning building, rather than allow "immodestly dressed women" into public. Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue[^]
-
The reader might recall that it was only a few years ago that the "religious police" in KSA -- agents of the State -- forced girls back into a burning building, rather than allow "immodestly dressed women" into public. Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue[^]
Ilíon wrote:
The reader might recall that it was only a few years ago that the "religious police" in KSA -- agents of the State -- forced girls back into a burning building, rather than allow "immodestly dressed women" into public. Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue[^]
:wtf: That's so completely inhumane!
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link -
Ilíon wrote:
The reader might recall that it was only a few years ago that the "religious police" in KSA -- agents of the State -- forced girls back into a burning building, rather than allow "immodestly dressed women" into public. Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue[^]
:wtf: That's so completely inhumane!
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link -
It's not ad-hominem since I was stating a well observed fact.
-
ad-hominem, unless I am mistaken, is a personal attack, not necessarially obne which is false, just personal, so I believe Adman is right.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
ad-hominem, unless I am mistaken, is a personal attack, not necessarially obne which is false, just personal, so I believe Adman is right.
You're mistaken, and Adnan is wrong. But then, so is Zero, the Littlest Digit. An insult and an ad hominem are two different things, beginning with: and ad hominem is an argument (and it isn't *necessarily* invalid), but an insult is merely an assertion.
-
fat_boy wrote:
ad-hominem, unless I am mistaken, is a personal attack, not necessarially obne which is false, just personal, so I believe Adman is right.
You're mistaken, and Adnan is wrong. But then, so is Zero, the Littlest Digit. An insult and an ad hominem are two different things, beginning with: and ad hominem is an argument (and it isn't *necessarily* invalid), but an insult is merely an assertion.
Really, your head must look a fucking mess from the inside.# I just stated ad-hominem is a personal attck, biot a fallacy, you call me wrong, and then state the same thing. (Thats defining 'personal' as 'of the person' or 'individual' not 'personal' as 'insult' which seems to be your deffinition)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
There was no Pakistan to colonize.
Technically, there was no single-India either :-) Just a bunch of disconnected kingdoms.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com linkThe lands of the present republics of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and much more, were collectively known by various names (all approximating India) far before the British even knew of them. They just weren't a single political entity.
Cheers, Vikram.
The hands that help are holier than the lips that pray.
-
Really, your head must look a fucking mess from the inside.# I just stated ad-hominem is a personal attck, biot a fallacy, you call me wrong, and then state the same thing. (Thats defining 'personal' as 'of the person' or 'individual' not 'personal' as 'insult' which seems to be your deffinition)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Really, your head must look a f***ing mess from the inside.# I just stated ad-hominem is a personal attck, biot a fallacy, you call me wrong, and then state the same thing. (Thats defining 'personal' as 'of the person' or 'individual' not 'personal' as 'insult' which seems to be your deffinition)
No, Lardy_boy, you are mistaken. Or, since this seems to be all that you understand:
fat_boy wrote:
Really, your head [really is] a f***ing mess from the inside.#
A 'personal attack' is not an argument. An 'ad hominem' *is* an argument. And, whether the content of the 'ad hominem' argument is true is a different issue than whether the argument is valid (valid in general as an argument, and validly used in the circumstance).
-
fat_boy wrote:
Really, your head must look a f***ing mess from the inside.# I just stated ad-hominem is a personal attck, biot a fallacy, you call me wrong, and then state the same thing. (Thats defining 'personal' as 'of the person' or 'individual' not 'personal' as 'insult' which seems to be your deffinition)
No, Lardy_boy, you are mistaken. Or, since this seems to be all that you understand:
fat_boy wrote:
Really, your head [really is] a f***ing mess from the inside.#
A 'personal attack' is not an argument. An 'ad hominem' *is* an argument. And, whether the content of the 'ad hominem' argument is true is a different issue than whether the argument is valid (valid in general as an argument, and validly used in the circumstance).
-
"Brittish law is oppressive"[^] Yes, it made you dress up as Darth Vader didnt it?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
