having voted for someone has nothing to do with experience. i know some people in their late 30s who never vote, but they have more experience about democracy than someone younger than them. I think it comes down to this: younger ppl are generally less interested in topics like politics, forms of government, political philosophies and such. therefore, they dont know as much, about these particular issues, as someone who is older and has actually 'experienced' these things. when you're young, ur not concerned with taxes, ur not concerned with government policies because these dont affect u....they affect ur parents. obviously young ppl can talk about it, but dont be negative or whatever if uve never had to deal with particular policies. i think that's what's meant by experience. If ur young and interested in politics, like shsnawada seems to be, then good on u and hopefully u'll remain interested and try to do something...the biggest problem is apathy...
Nottyesque? Errr ........ :think: Fatkax: is that all you wanted to say? I thought you had more up your sleeve.
I don't wanna interfere in yo argument .. But didn't a 5 year old child drive a maruti van .. u might have seen that news .. also there are grandmasters in chess at the age of 12 .. I jz don't buy this point of urz .. EDIT: I didn't bother to read the earlier posts .. but whoever made the point that 16 year old cannot understand is invalid ..
^^ LOL BJR was asking rather than claiming. Rather that was a subtle (infact rhetoric to me) question.
^^^Maybe .. but i'l still not bother to read the earlier posts as i've mentioned muh point in the EDIT n coz This thread is being taken down to the streets now ..
SO, wht's ur point again? i dont see any relation with the topic of the thread.... Wht are r trying to prove here by this post? tht u have better understanding of things? or u r a better human being when it comes to dealing with kids?? Or may be u r trying to prove u r an expert at the complex knowledge of Use of Smilies?? Abt your ur imagination of wht the essence of my statement was...i have only one line for u...the advice u gave me in ur previous thread.. "wtf...you can't know what I'm feeling. You're not me." This applies perfectly here...try and listen to ur own advice before giving it out. If u have something meaninfgul to discuss then post and that too things that are relevant to the threads otherwise PM. once again, PM. And ur obsession with smilies...that u have showcased in numerous other threads..advicing people why they shud not use smilies... Discussing wht kinda smiley i should and i shouldnt use is not ur business neither is it a great way to argue. And seriously, one advice for u .... STOP GIVING ADVICE TO PEOPLE! Congratulations!...one more thread has gone down the drain... :rock: (does this smiley fit well with the the post ? : )
^ AFAIK, the thread has nowhere gone down teh drain. So stop the accustaion. :RollLol: This just reminds me of somehting hilarious. :RollLol: Is this guy neo in disguise?
Congratulations. You have attempted to address every issue in my post except the one around which it was centred. I shall not ask you to clarify again. The fact that you have neatly avoided the issue is enough for me....Of course, that is with the assumption that a person can not make an intelligent argument one minute and then turn blind to an issue raised by another immediately after. What I'm trying to prove here is that age is not an issue in a discussion on an internet forum. The difference between what you said in your post and what is apt can be highlighted by the post made by nabzy where he says... He pretty much reaches the correct conclusion and you do not even though you (probably) share opinions. This has nothing to do with dealing with kids nor does it have anything to do with smileys. It was a lame attempt to "attack" where you had no case. Oh dear God....context! What I inferred was not with any assumption. That was directly from your post. What you inferred was from the assumption that age is an issue in discussions (which is what I felt strongly about). If this is difficult for you to understand, perhaps we should not have a discussion at all. The point about the smileys (no matter how valid) was a moot point and considering that you have not addressed the main issue in my post, I am forced to assume that you had no answer to it and thus tried to inflate a smaller one to larger proportions. I am on this internet forum to air my rather pompous opinion and if you are not comfortable with the way I argue, you are free to ignore my posts. actually, no.
While I do not deny that I enjoy seeing people needle you on this site, I assure you that I have usually been rather buddhist towards your posts. It would be unfair to say I chose that expression out of spite....it was more because it was apt. See....there are issues we can agree on :beer:
U know what .. u hardly matter .. Great to see u utilize yo aptitude to create such resourceful words. . U really are apt!
:RollLol: :dance:...Pramod mahajan's gonna die....:dance: @Alpha - man - im in a hurry these dez....will catch up l8er ciao
Amazing how you can take pains to incorrectly quote a person who hardly matters and then also say you are disagreeing with him when you were essentially agreeing. In my Utopia, people who hardly matter are ignored. I'd love to make you look stupid but this post of yours seems to do a better job than I possibly could so I shall not even bother.
^^^Oh now does that post make me look stupid ?? I've clearly mentioned in the EDIT that Whoever has said that originally .. i disagree with him .. Its jz that i didn't bother to read the earlier argument .. so quoted u .. n regarding quoting a person who hardly matters .. U do that more often than me i guess ..
To comment without bothering to read an earlier argument makes you look stupid enough considering that is what lead you to miss the context of what I said. I never quote people who hardly matter. I choose to ignore them.
Okay, to go the full circle....I shall bring the topic back to the original post in my inimitable way. I'm also merging the arguments of two threads into one and change the original thread topic. I was watching the news today and I heard about specialists from London being called in from London for Mr. Pramod Mahajan. Since the government has made reservations for the SC/ST in government organizations, does it not mean that it endorses that these people are perfectly capable doctors who are as qualified as their "general" category counterparts? I remember not so long ago when the bird flu started, the minister-in-charge ate chicken despite being a vegetarian just to endorse the view that eating chicken was safe. So, in order to convince the general public that these SC/ST quota generated resources are not really as bogus as they are thought to be, is it not fair that there be a rule that all members of the house must be treated by the SC/ST doctors as an endorsement? Shouldn't Pramod Mahajan be under the scalpel of a Chandi Das rather than a London based expert? If Chandi Das is good enough for the common man, he should be good enough for the man the common man chose to represent him. So...opinions?
Korrekt. But then remember politicians are the present day rulers. Not servants. Ofcourse, courtesy Indian public. So why should they follow what you suggest?
I cleared out very well that whoever said that 16 yr old cannot understand is wrong .. Context doesn't affect here .. muh argument is based only on this statement .. I agree I quoted u out of context .. but people who're involved in this thread .. n those who've read muh complete post .. will realise what I'm sayin .. Continuing the discussion .. Pramod mahajan has the power n Money to check himself up from some london specialist so he'd rather go for him instead of even a General category doctor .. like sachin, shahrukh n many personalities do .. n if anyone tries to do what u said .. like endorsing SC/ST by makin them operate on someone .. Politicians r so worse they might even prove such pressure as racism ..
You still don't get it....and I won't even try since I know the way arguments with you go. Yes but the common man does not have the luxury of choice, does he? So the decision makers are inadvertently forcing them to be operated upon by the SC/ST doctors, are they not? If they as decisionmakers feel that the SC/ST doctors are good enough to operate on the lower classes, surely they should endorse this view by putting their lives in the same hands?
Yeah .. I'm really bad at arguments .. since fools do it .. anyway .. Even if SC/ST get admission due to reservation .. only the talented ones will survive the academics isn't it .. the way it is in engineering .. SC/ST get admission somehow .. but many fall out .. n only the worthy ones become engineers .. so U can't say they're incapable .. what u can say though is its unfair on the general category students who've missed it becoz of reservations .. PS-I'm against educational reservations for SC/ST .. They should be helped in different ways ..
