'Hindu nation' established on island off coast of Ecuador

Tools    





https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.times...w/72361204.cms

It has been established by an Indian guru by buying an entire island from Ecuador. Only problem-- the establisher is a fugitive from law .



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



Something interesting about India, not sure if you ever watched. Starting at 48:50...



How closely the affluence of the few is tied to the misery of the many.

I'd say completely tied, and anyone would need severe amount of arguments to make me believe otherwise, I'm conscientious and ashamed to know, for a very long time, that, the way of living I have and I my family can have in Europe is arranged by creating misery of the many, people that don't know if they will be able to eat tomorrow. It's shameful and it reminds me the famous Fidel Castro speech in the UN.



I'd try to persuade you otherwise, because the evidence is positively overwhelming, but I assume the word facts would be put in quotes at some point and somehow none of that evidence would count, so I won't bother.

For everyone else, though: the number of people in extreme poverty has dropped by about a billion over the last few generations. Wealth is not zero-sum.
__________________



Yeah, because you can misstate what you call fact every way you want. Like your last paragraph. That last paragraph of yours is from World Bank Group’s, how smart, but I won't even start questioning the source, but I could. Quoting your source: In 2015, 736 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day, down from 1.85 billion in 1990. This is pretty much irrelevant for reasons you're smart enough to understand, money flotation, $1 in 1990 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $1.84 in 2016, and that keeps increasing I assume, I'm not an expert. Sub-Saharan Africa was and is the poorest region in the world, and since 1990 the number of poor people in the region increased by 9 million, but I guess that's the same as money flotation, the world population is also increasing. You and everyone else have a tendency to shape the "facts" to the picture you want to believe, and you forget they are not even facts. Facts and statistics are nice with a full stomach.



And even, let's assume that the numbers of extreme poverty are decreasing worldwide, I can agree they are, I think they actually are decreasing, they better be, how does that refutes what I quoted before: How closely the affluence of the few is tied to the misery of the many.



Yeah, because you can misstate what you call fact every way you want.
...and you can say something like this in response to every fact you don't like, whether you have much reason to doubt it or not.

Of course, if you ever move beyond non-specific, arbitrary skepticism, you'll quickly realize that the implication of your position is that tons of people are faking statistics, and that you basically have to believe in the biggest conspiracy in world history to maintain your position that we don't have fewer poor people now. Which is obviously not plausible or reasonable.

Like your last paragraph. That last paragraph of yours is from World Bank Group’s, how smart, but I won't even start questioning the source, but I could. Quoting your source: In 2015, 736 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day, down from 1.85 billion in 1990. This is pretty much irrelevant for reasons you're smart enough to understand, money flotation, $1 in 1990 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $1.84 in 2016, and that keeps increasing I assume, I'm not an expert.
What do you mean "quoting my source"? I didn't even list one. I can, but I didn't.

And no, my claim is not contingent on pretending inflation doesn't exist, either. That'd be a silly error. Though I find it weird that you believe those numbers, presumably because they're potentially useful to you in this context. See what I've said previously about selective/arbitrary skepticism.

It's not clear what any of this has to do with the thread topic, either. Did you just hear the word "India," and it reminded you of some video, so you posted it?



And even, let's assume that the numbers of extreme poverty are decreasing worldwide, I can agree they are, I think they actually are decreasing, they better be, how does that refutes what I quoted before: How closely the affluence of the few is tied to the misery of the many.
Well, first off, there's nothing to refute, because no testable claim has been presented. And any time I try to move a discussion into the realm of the testable or empirical, I get back something about how facts aren't real, so it's not even clear what kind of refutation you'd accept, even hypothetically. Please give me an example of what a refutation to something like this would look like.

Second, your claim suggests a correlation between affluence for one person and misery for many others. The fact that there are dramatically fewer economically miserable people seems like a pretty straightforward refutation of that. But I can't really respond more specifically unless the claim itself gets more specific. Which affluent people do you mean, which miserable people do you mean, and how is the affluence of the former tied to the misery of the latter?



@Yoda, the name India itself has connotations of poverty for some , such is the media image of my country.

Coming back to the main topic, this new 'nation' will be the only hindu nation in the world if it's legitimacy is accepted by the world. Of course the founder is an outlaw so that has very slim chances . Nepal was a hindu kingdom till it's king was ousted but now is a secular republic and India is a secular republic right from its founding in 1947 though it has a hindu majority.



I am the Watcher in the Night
But India is not secular in any real terms.
__________________
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

"I need your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle"



But India is not secular in any real terms.
We have never been secular. Being secular means not recognising religion while making laws. But we have laws specifically defined by religions.

The terms secular and socialist were forcibly inserted in our constitution by Indira Gandhi (Not related to Mahatma Gandhi) during the emergency she imposed.

We are a plural nation that recognises all religions and supports their practices.