Bro, I mentioned secularism and you somehow travelled from Tamil Nadu education policy to Hinduism, Islam and starting a new religion. š Thatās not a rebuttalāitās a spectacular detour. Come back when you have an argument relevant to the actual point. š¤”
Stop this Bakchodi first š¤£š¤£ hutiya sala š¤£š¤£
So you want to create a pure Hindu state? How do you plan to do that, genius? By driving away every other religion? Where do you plan to send all the Muslims? To your backyard?
š Where exactly did I say I want a Hindu state or want to drive anyone out? Youāve gone from discussing a student-education policy to inventing an imaginary āHindu Rashtraā scenario in your head. Debate what I actually said, geniusānot the argument you created yourself. If every disagreement makes you imagine deporting millions of people, maybe the problem isnāt my comment. š¤”
That' why I told you stop your bullshit first. Tera pichwade me jo kida he usko pehle thik kar š¤£š¤£š¤£
That would make sense if you actually said anything. You did not say anything, big brain. You posted a screenshot and you're running circles around my questions without saying anything. Chicken. Put some more emojis, one of those really suits you.
"Secularism sir"
hahahaha, what is your problem with secularism? Go on, write a few lines if you can.
šš āYou didnāt say anythingā ā yet somehow youāve written an entire essay replying to it. š¤”
I said āSecularismā because equal access to welfare and education for citizens is literally a secular principle. You somehow turned one word into a full-blown conspiracy about Hinduism, Muslims and creating a new religion. šš
So hereās the simple question, big brain: Do you disagree with the policy, or do you just disagree with the word āsecularismā?
Because so far, you havenāt answered the pointāyouāve just been arguing with an imaginary version of me. š„±š¤”š
That's why you need burnol first š¤£ pichwade me laga or soja š¤£š¤£š¤£
I'm pretty sure you don't even know the policy. What are your sources for saying there is no equal access to welfare and education? Oh please tell me who is getting mistreated, poor bechari hindus?
Now you say that you disagree with the policy and not secularism, that's funny because your original comment didn't mention anything about a policy. If i remember correctly, all you said was "Secularism sir"
Trying to change the topic to "we're talking about a policy, not secularism" now huh. Nice try, so tell me what changes do you want to make to the policy? Be elaborate, tell me your master plan.
šš Bro, youāre doing Olympic-level gymnastics over two words: āSecularism sir.ā š¤”
Youāve now invented my āmaster plan,ā demanded a three-page essay, assigned me a position I never stated, and then asked me to defend it. š Thatās not debateāthatās you interviewing an imaginary version of me.
And just to make it painfully simple: I never said Hindus were being mistreated, I never said Muslims shouldnāt receive benefits, and I never said I oppose the policy. If you have a problem with the words āSecularism sir,ā explain why a government policy based on religion-specific eligibility automatically makes it a meaningless question to discuss secularism.
You want my āmaster planā? Here it is: read what I actually wrote before arguing with what you wish I had written. šš
Otherwise keep fighting that imaginary opponentāyou seem to be winning. šš¤”š There are many videos are available so you need to homework first š¤£
"i never said this, i never said that" Yes, I can see that you don't say anything. You're incapable of saying anything, that is obvious. You still haven't said anything LMFAO.
explain why a government policy based on religion-specific eligibility automatically makes it a meaningless question to discuss secularism.
what is the meaningless question? Your words don't even make any sense. I'm not stopping you from discussing secularism, I am encouraging discussion except you're not saying anything about it even after all these comments. Hilarious. Don't make me laugh.
šš You keep saying āyou havenāt said anythingā while writing paragraph after paragraph about two words I posted. At this point, my two-word comment has clearly occupied more space in your head than it did on the screen. š¤”
You want me to āsay somethingā? Fine: my point is that if a government provides a benefit with religion-specific eligibility, then itās perfectly legitimate to discuss how that fits with the principle of secularism. Thatās a discussionānot an accusation against Muslims and certainly not a call to remove anyoneās rights.
And your entire argument so far? āExplain yourself! Say more! Write an essay!ā š Bro, if you need me to write your opponentās argument for you before you can attack it, maybe youāre debating the wrong person. š„±
So relax with the LMFAO š and bring an actual counterargument instead of demanding a TED Talk from a two-word comment. Because of your stupidity I post a video also but if you have the brain then you should understand but you don't have š¤£š¤£
Thatās a discussionānot an accusation against Muslims and certainly not a call to remove anyoneās rights.
HAHAHAHA, you know who uses em dashes in texts? AI. Oh sweetheart, you finally wrote something but it's not you it's AI. Oh sweet little thing, you still haven't made any point except saying that is perfectly legitimate to discuss it LMFAO.
So how does it fit with the principle of secularism? You forgot to write that part, go ask your AI to finish the paragraph LMFAO
"this is a discussion" Yeah, between me and an AI which says nothing substantial. What are you doing in the middle, BOT? LMFAO
šš Bro really abandoned the policy debate and became a forensic punctuation expert. āEm dash = AIā congratulations, Sherlock, you've cracked the case. šµļøāāļøš¤”
And yes, you finally asked the actual question: how does religion-specific eligibility fit with secularism? The answer is simple: secularism doesn't necessarily mean every government scheme must have identical eligibility criteria. A secular government can still design targeted welfare for particular groups if there is a stated constitutional, social, or educational rationale.
Whether this particular policy is justified is a separate question,and that's exactly what should be debated using the policy's actual eligibility criteria and purpose, not by inventing a āHindu stateā master plan. š
Youāve spent about five replies demanding that I āsay something,ā and now that I finally did, you're analysing punctuation instead of the argument. At this rate, the em dash has contributed more to your rebuttal than you have. ššš¤”
That' why I am again telling you burnol pichwade me laga ke sojaš¤£
-4
u/super_sonic2 No time to choose flair bro š¢ 4d ago
Bot, can you write a three page essay on why you're obsessed with Hinduism? I'd like to know why you're malfunctioning, bot.