วีดีโอ

Great Video !! And great way of brainstorming and analyzing.

The title itself is wrong Astrology is wholly scientific

Disagree

Why no new video is there?

"Gender studies degrees!" Just check your dang britches for an innie or an outie! It's obvious!

😄😄

Comments posted by HP:- I think it went well. Only perceived mistake was that the other person thought I called him bigot and I warmonger. I didn’t use bigot or bigotry word anywhere. Though I used warmonger in a sentence at 1:16:22 that too referencing to a movie placing “IF” in front of the sentence address general public. But then again we are all on side of getting the quality of debates better and more friendly. I think countering a point with words like I disagree with previous speaker rather than calling the person’s name and pointing it out might not be a good choice especially if you were very much against the point. It is a safe choice :) Response posted by Samarth:- I take a different view of how the debate went…..at more than 1 instance, the debate took a worrisome turn…….in my opinion, the opposing speaker thought i expressed views which called for instigating disharmony among religions n felt n reacted strongly against it……this can be seen clearly at approx. 1:28:00 when he refers me by the term “people like you’’…. The reason for this perception from his side is, in my opinion, him strongly disagreeing with my characterization of Kashmiri pandit exodus in the 1990’s as an example of ‘ethnic cleansing’….this disagreement about characterization can be seen at approx 1:25:00 and approx. 1:37:10…..The opposing speaker takes exception to such characterization as he believes that it will put the community to which the perpetrators belong , namely Kashmiri muslims, at risk of serious harm…..and goes far as to state at ,approx. 1:47:30, that any consideration of how this atrocity might be a prime example of systemic discrimination is virtually advocating for the entire oppressor class to be driven out (to put it euphemistically)…. For this, I state now like I have already done in the concluded session, any call for examining instances of systemic discrimination is not advocacy for in turn discriminating against the alleged oppressor…. throughout the debate, people believed as such and arguments made were with this underlying assumption.… people brought up instances of various types of systemic discrimination related to caste and gender, nobody thought to callout the speakers for bigotry when these were brought up (there was no need to)….but the trouble arose because of the example which I brought up….apparently, the opposing speaker favours some oppressed people over others(I don’t mind this)….to the extent of unfairly maligning with those he disagrees with (I do mind this). My view on all this is, firstly, complicity to systemic discrimination comes in many degrees of culpability…..it’s important to draw this distinction because you never know which form of systemic discrimination you might be, living your everyday life, unwittingly participating in……secondly, let’s keep the discussion as civil and focused on the argument as much as possible and refrain from personal attacks (I hope everyone will agree to this)…..finally, the opposing speaker expressed his desire to have more mature conversations in the future to which I wholeheartedly agre

Definitely overhyped!