<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I respect a person for what he stands for and what he has done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->My respect for any <i>persons</i> is contingent upon my first agreeing with the *motivations* underlying their actions and the stances they take, regardless of however much the actions themselves may agree with me.
Different motivations may still result in people undertaking the same actions, and though I may approve of an action in itself, it does not mean that I approve of all motivations that could have led to that same action (and hence it does not automatically follow that I approve of any <i>person</i> who happened to undertake the right action). This idea is already partially there in The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend. Temporary friend.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Sankaracharyas and the Acharya Sabha agree that Dr.Swamy is a good man and does a great job.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The job is useful, certainly.
(Shankara)acharyas find many people good. Their reasoning is not the same as mine. They frequently think that actions are transparent indicators of motivations (because their own are), when this is *not* true in the general case. They also overlook some things because they are essentially good people - this makes them often incapable of seeing certain kinds of flaws.
BTW, your attempts to sway me with reference to others' opinion (however respectable they may be) will remain ineffectual in my case: I don't work that way.
<!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Dec 25 2008, 07:33 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ Dec 25 2008, 07:33 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->You and I have many things in common, we are anti-secular for secularism is anti-Hindu. You and I wish to uphold Hindu Dharma.[right][snapback]92234[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Things in common? So you <i>say</i>. You have yet to convince me of it.
Also, I am not anti-secularism. I am anti-pseudosecularism (which *is* anti-Hindu). There is a gaping divide between the two.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->for what his daughter has done or anyone else has done<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->If some person allowed their nazi kid to remain in his household, that tells me that he condones such behaviour and is willing to live with/tolerate(/accept?) such an ideology.
And christoislamicommunism and psecularism *are* the same as nazism: christoislamicommunism is an ideology for genociding people, while psecularism is one that provides the apologetics for this ideology of genocide. Barely to be differentiated.
I do not need to side with anyone permanently - including Swamy - for me to be <i>temporarily</i> supportive of what they do. Therefore, why are you canvassing for <i>permanent</i> support? I can tell you quite openly that unless he <i>continuously</i> says and does things that I agree with, there *will* be no such guaranteed support from me. And one of the first things he will have to do for me to know he is remotely serious is deal with that hyper-pseudo-secular daughter of his. And her penchant for islamania. And why doesn't he first try his experiment of "Indian muslims have forgotten they are Hindus and need only be reminded of it, for all things to become peachy again" on his son-in-law? When his daughter's husband publicly forswears islamania (thus becoming an apostate), I may reconsider Swamy, but only if his daughter simultaneously starts publicly defending Hindu Dharma *and* also retracts any offences against Hindu Dharma that she may well have made earlier.
Hmmm, yes, I think that may put me in a better mood concerning Swamy. I still won't know he is sincere of course (as regards his *motivations*), but I may approve more thoroughly of his *actions* then.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What you and I do not have in common is a personal tirade against Dr.Subramanian Swamy.
[...]
Therefore, I do not wish to hang him for what his daughter has done or anyone else has done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->A "tirade" no less.
And "hanging"? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> I don't understand why you are using this word. Until your strange denial, no one could have suspected you of wanting to hang anyone. But if you were trying to impute a desire of "wanting to hang Swamy" onto anyone here, I should perhaps warn you that your statement is very dangerously constructed and has an unintended(?) side-effect. Because, an alternate but still direct implication of the logic in your unnecessary sentence is that - in explicitly saying you do not wish to hang Swamy for his daughter's (or anyone else's) actions and by omitting a corresponding explicit denial of wanting to hang her for the same - it leaves open how you may yet choose to hang her instead! <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The moral: to think carefully about constructing roundabout accusations, else they may come back full circle.
Different motivations may still result in people undertaking the same actions, and though I may approve of an action in itself, it does not mean that I approve of all motivations that could have led to that same action (and hence it does not automatically follow that I approve of any <i>person</i> who happened to undertake the right action). This idea is already partially there in The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend. Temporary friend.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Sankaracharyas and the Acharya Sabha agree that Dr.Swamy is a good man and does a great job.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The job is useful, certainly.
(Shankara)acharyas find many people good. Their reasoning is not the same as mine. They frequently think that actions are transparent indicators of motivations (because their own are), when this is *not* true in the general case. They also overlook some things because they are essentially good people - this makes them often incapable of seeing certain kinds of flaws.
BTW, your attempts to sway me with reference to others' opinion (however respectable they may be) will remain ineffectual in my case: I don't work that way.
<!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Dec 25 2008, 07:33 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ Dec 25 2008, 07:33 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->You and I have many things in common, we are anti-secular for secularism is anti-Hindu. You and I wish to uphold Hindu Dharma.[right][snapback]92234[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Things in common? So you <i>say</i>. You have yet to convince me of it.
Also, I am not anti-secularism. I am anti-pseudosecularism (which *is* anti-Hindu). There is a gaping divide between the two.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->for what his daughter has done or anyone else has done<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->If some person allowed their nazi kid to remain in his household, that tells me that he condones such behaviour and is willing to live with/tolerate(/accept?) such an ideology.
And christoislamicommunism and psecularism *are* the same as nazism: christoislamicommunism is an ideology for genociding people, while psecularism is one that provides the apologetics for this ideology of genocide. Barely to be differentiated.
I do not need to side with anyone permanently - including Swamy - for me to be <i>temporarily</i> supportive of what they do. Therefore, why are you canvassing for <i>permanent</i> support? I can tell you quite openly that unless he <i>continuously</i> says and does things that I agree with, there *will* be no such guaranteed support from me. And one of the first things he will have to do for me to know he is remotely serious is deal with that hyper-pseudo-secular daughter of his. And her penchant for islamania. And why doesn't he first try his experiment of "Indian muslims have forgotten they are Hindus and need only be reminded of it, for all things to become peachy again" on his son-in-law? When his daughter's husband publicly forswears islamania (thus becoming an apostate), I may reconsider Swamy, but only if his daughter simultaneously starts publicly defending Hindu Dharma *and* also retracts any offences against Hindu Dharma that she may well have made earlier.
Hmmm, yes, I think that may put me in a better mood concerning Swamy. I still won't know he is sincere of course (as regards his *motivations*), but I may approve more thoroughly of his *actions* then.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What you and I do not have in common is a personal tirade against Dr.Subramanian Swamy.
[...]
Therefore, I do not wish to hang him for what his daughter has done or anyone else has done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->A "tirade" no less.
And "hanging"? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> I don't understand why you are using this word. Until your strange denial, no one could have suspected you of wanting to hang anyone. But if you were trying to impute a desire of "wanting to hang Swamy" onto anyone here, I should perhaps warn you that your statement is very dangerously constructed and has an unintended(?) side-effect. Because, an alternate but still direct implication of the logic in your unnecessary sentence is that - in explicitly saying you do not wish to hang Swamy for his daughter's (or anyone else's) actions and by omitting a corresponding explicit denial of wanting to hang her for the same - it leaves open how you may yet choose to hang her instead! <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The moral: to think carefully about constructing roundabout accusations, else they may come back full circle.