I Hate Indians

[Daktoria]

Indian Indians, not Native Americans.

Every couple years, I forgive them, but there's always some incident where they interrupt nonstop, make a shitton of noise, play coy up the wazoo, and just mess everything up with their stupid social political games.

A lot of people behave like this, but Indians are the worst, and they're a prime example of how salesman psychology influences cultural development. Always gotta be a wise guy and set traps that only tear apart holistic development. This post was edited by the moderator..

Discuss.

[Daktoria]

Maybe that's why Malthus was really right. When all that's left are coy salesmen in the world, nothing new will be generated because competition will be all about refinement and nothing about innovation.

Stupid histrionic shit. That's what it is.

[Michael]

Discuss.

What are we supposed to discuss? Why you hate Indians? :ummm:

[The Drunk Girl]

Indian Indians, not Native Americans.

Every couple years, I forgive them, but there's always some incident where they interrupt nonstop, make a shitton of noise, play coy up the wazoo, and just mess everything up with their stupid social political games.


Sounds like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to me :lol: (even though I'm not so forgiving of the two).

Ahh..two peas in a pod.

[dilettante]

Indian Indians, not Native Americans.

Every couple years, I forgive them, but there's always some incident where they interrupt nonstop, make a shitton of noise, play coy up the wazoo, and just mess everything up with their stupid social political games.

A lot of people behave like this, but Indians are the worst, and they're a prime example of how salesman psychology influences cultural development. Always gotta be a wise guy and set traps that only tear apart holistic development. This post was edited by the moderator.

Discuss.

Out of curiosity, do you contribute this deficiency to culture or genetics?

[Daktoria]

Probably culture, but I think there's more to it than that. It's a personality thing, and it's possible that competitive personalities influenced culture and directed the gene pool in a certain way.

I don't know though. It's just that whenever I have to deal with or be around Indians, they're the most annoying people around because they behave like wise guy little kids who are only trying to make a buck no matter the social expense, and their personalities are the most bipolar, twofaced, manipulative ones around.

I don't even want to talk about it because just thinking about them gives them attention and drives me further to wanting to beat the crap out of em, but the only way to eliminate their annoyance is to eliminate them from life altogether. Not even to compete or outperform them because that gives them information, but to just either completely lock them out or annihilate them.

Upon which yet another wise guy says that's what life's all about, being a wise guy to make the buck, an idea that there's nothing more cynical than.

There's actually a quote this reminds me of by Hans Herman Hoppe: (http://books.google.com/books?id=zRyOSljcB0AC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=There+can+be+no+tolerance+toward+democrats+and+ communists+in+a+libertarian+social+order.+They+wil l+have+to+be+physically+separated+and+expelled+fro m+society.+Likewise,+in+a+covenant+founded+for+the +purpose+of+protecting+family+and+kin,+there+can+b e+no+tolerance+toward+those+habitually+promoting+l ifestyles+incompatible+with+this+goal.+They+%E2%80 %93+the+advocates+of+alternative,+non-family+and+kin-centred+lifestyles+such+as,+for+instance,+individu al+hedonism,+parasitism,+nature-environment+worship,+homosexuality,+or+communism+% E2%80%93+will+have+to+be+physically+removed+from+s ociety,+too,+if+one+is+to+maintain+a+libertarian+o rder.&source=bl&ots=aVPVz7kKtK&sig=GN5mHlxCYAkvS2KOG5es6-FBN_E&hl=en&ei=AuYFS_WpPMiTlAfWv4DECw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=There%20can%20be%20no%20tolerance%20toward%20dem ocrats%20and%20communists%20in%20a%20libertarian%2 0social%20order.%20They%20will%20have%20to%20be%20 physically%20separated%20and%20expelled%20from%20s ociety.%20Likewise%2C%20in%20a%20covenant%20founde d%20for%20the%20purpose%20of%20protecting%20family %20and%20kin%2C%20there%20can%20be%20no%20toleranc e%20toward%20those%20habitually%20promoting%20life styles%20incompatible%20with%20this%20goal.%20They %20%E2%80%93%20the%20advocates%20of%20alternative% 2C%20non-family%20and%20kin-centred%20lifestyles%20such%20as%2C%20for%20instan ce%2C%20individual%20hedonism%2C%20parasitism%2C%2 0nature-environment%20worship%2C%20homosexuality%2C%20or%2 0communism%20%E2%80%93%20will%20have%20to%20be%20p hysically%20removed%20from%20society%2C%20too%2C%2 0if%20one%20is%20to%20maintain%20a%20libertarian%2 0order.&f=false)

There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

It's weird cuz this sounds pretty straight forwardly fascist especially since it doesn't consider people learning lessons from their mistakes, but whenever I read this part of his book, it spurs the idea that there are just some personalities out there that are incompatible with freedom and peace and prosperity because they're so inclined towards being wise guys, wise guys that ruin the system because they care more about attention and appearances than actual achievement (upon which they use relativism to question what "achievement" really is).

Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy is another good book. I don't have a quote in mind, but there are parts in it that ring the same bell.

It's difficult to explain what Hoppe's saying here, but the best way I can do so is by saying there are certain personalities who can live and prosper among those of their own kind on all levels from security to transcendence. Other personalities need to parasite instead, and they do so under the guise of synthesis or symbiosis which their hosts accept because of easy intimidation. These parasites even continue doing so until the world is so infested that it's impossible to feasibly become independent anymore for indefinite futures such that the descendants of their hosts end up becoming societally and mentally enslaved as well (yet given economic space in order to give the appearance to sheep that no real violation is ever taking place).

[Donkey]

The white man's burden is a heavy one.

[Greendruid]

Indian Indians, not Native Americans.

Every couple years, I forgive them, but there's always some incident where they interrupt nonstop, make a shitton of noise, play coy up the wazoo, and just mess everything up with their stupid social political games.

A lot of people behave like this, but Indians are the worst, and they're a prime example of how salesman psychology influences cultural development. Always gotta be a wise guy and set traps that only tear apart holistic development. This post was edited by the moderator

Discuss.

Welcome to my ignore list - you're actually the first but I don't give you long on this forum. However, that's not my decision to make.

[Zarquon]

Indian Indians, not Native Americans.

Every couple years, I forgive them, but there's always some incident where they interrupt nonstop, make a shitton of noise, play coy up the wazoo, and just mess everything up with their stupid social political games.

A lot of people behave like this, but Indians are the worst, and they're a prime example of how salesman psychology influences cultural development. Always gotta be a wise guy and set traps that only tear apart holistic development. This post was edited by the moderator

Discuss.
First, you're guilty of generalization, just because a few Indians you encountered or observed are like that, doesn't mean all 1.1 billion of them are(!); and second, you haven't evidenced your claim for us to judge it, or explain exactly what this salesman psychology is or what it is that you've experienced that has lead you to your view.
And on exactly what basis do you connect and extend this experience to your political and economic views?:ummm:
Also, you're attributing certain motives to an entire group of people, which you cannot possibly substantiate or know of.
And exactly how is eliminating an entire nationality a solution to this problem, which , as you admit, is universal?
Wouldn't you have to annihilate everyone who's not like you?
And who on earth are you to judge whether other people are moral or fit to live?
You need some fresh air, and honest reflection.

[The Drunk Guy]

There's actually a quote this reminds me of by Hans Herman Hoppe:


Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy is another good book. I don't have a quote in mind, but there are parts in it that ring the same bell.


What, Alex Jones doesn't have a movie about this grand Indian conspiracy? :ummm:

[Daktoria]

First, you're guilty of generalization, just because a few Indians you encountered or observed are like that, doesn't mean all 1.1 billion of them are(!); and second, you haven't evidenced your claim for us to judge it, or explain exactly what this salesman psychology is or what it is that you've experienced that has lead you to your view.
And on exactly what basis do you connect and extend this experience to your political and economic views?:ummm:
Also, you're attributing certain motives to an entire group of people, which you cannot possibly substantiate or know of.
And exactly how is eliminating an entire nationality a solution to this problem, which , as you admit, is universal?
Wouldn't you have to annihilate everyone who's not like you?
And who on earth are you to judge whether other people are moral or fit to live?
You need some fresh air, and honest reflection.

Well no shit it's a stereotype, to believe that nobody ever uses (ethnic or not) stereotypes would be incredibly naive, and the same goes for not understanding what salesman psychology is.

Really, how can you claim I need fresh air when you can't come up with a profile of what salesman behavior is like, and on top of that, who are you to shun me for judging?

Heck this is the entire point - just because someone's innocent doesn't mean the person deserves respect, something that's especially true when nations are forged from cultural associations directed by power anyway....

...and where did you come up with the idea that I want "to annihilate everyone who's not like [me]?" That's a totally twisted strawman from what I've said (and it sounds like it came straight out of the ass of some third grade teacher's multicultural lesson book).

I'm hardly a judgmental person, and just because I have experiences with Indians that convinces me that Indians on a whole are annoying doesn't mean I treat individual Indians like they're pests nor does it mean I automatically inject or anticipate some sort of profile handicap when approaching an Indian. Am I skeptical of certain kinds of behavior? Yes, but I don't act on that suspicion until its confirmed in certain circumstances. The same goes for salesmen in general, I don't get bothered by them until they start heckling nonstop with fluff, fluff, and more fluff.

[Donkey]

I'm hardly a judgmental person
No, you just hate an entire people.

[dilettante]

Some of this is rather disturbing, Daktoria.

Perhaps you could specify whether you're expressing hatred toward some specific individuals (who happen to be Indian), or toward [some aspects of] Indian culture and its affects on individuals and society, or toward Indians as a national or racial collective.

In particular the following comments seems to be, if not advocating some sort of "annihilation", at least lauding the benefits of such a thing. Depending on who you're referring to and what "annihilate" means in this context, such notions are, to varying degrees...disturbing.

[Michael]

Please note that any speech in favor of genocide against any identifiable group is unacceptable at this forum. No exceptions. It is a matter of law.

I have edited all the offending posts to remove such references.

[Daktoria]

Some of this is rather disturbing, Daktoria.

Perhaps you could specify whether you're expressing hatred toward some specific individuals (who happen to be Indian), or toward [some aspects of] Indian culture and its affects on individuals and society, or toward Indians as a national or racial collective.

In particular the following comments seems to be, if not advocating some sort of "annihilation", at least lauding the benefits of such a thing. Depending on who you're referring to and what "annihilate" means in this context, such notions are, to varying degrees...disturbing.

It deals with particular individuals over 8-10 years and how I've been around very few Indians who are considerate and not opportunistic.

Let me try to remember.

[Donkey]

It deals with particular individuals over 8-10 years and how I've been around very few Indians who are considerate and not opportunistic.

Let me try to remember.Do you know a lot of Indians?

[Daktoria]

Over the years, I'd say I've gotten to deal with a couple hundred on a personal level in different environments at least. Some stick out more than others, but there are definite common characteristics among them all or most of them.

[Michael]

It deals with particular individuals over 8-10 years and how I've been around very few Indians who are considerate and not opportunistic.
I could say the same - mostly because the vast majority of Indians I personally meet are immigrant taxi drivers or other lowly menial job positions. I expect opportunistic (or lackadaisical) attitudes from that type regardless of ethnicity. Indeed, the Somali taxi-drivers are probably worse.

I don't consider that a valid basis for sweeping generalities about that nationality. Lowborn working class white trash tends to be equally opportunistic (and often criminally inclined) - but I don't think that reflects ill upon the caucasian race.

[Lily]

Indian Indians, not Native Americans.

Every couple years, I forgive them, but there's always some incident where they interrupt nonstop, make a shitton of noise, play coy up the wazoo, and just mess everything up with their stupid social political games.

A lot of people behave like this, but Indians are the worst, and they're a prime example of how salesman psychology influences cultural development. Always gotta be a wise guy and set traps that only tear apart holistic development. This post was edited by the moderator..

Discuss.

You should probably stay away from them, then. I would suggest moving to Utah. Salt Lake City is 76% white and Provo is 80% white. Sandy, Utah is 89% white. I'm guessing none of those cities have many Indians. Perhaps you'd like it there. Oh, are you Mormon by any chance?

[Michael]

There's actually a quote this reminds me of by Hans Herman Hoppe:

There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

That ain't no libertarianism. Indeed, that looks like Plato's paradise!

"A covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin" is not a "libertarian social order" in any way, shape or form. It is authoritarian by definition. And being authoritarian, that's exactly why those liberties must be banished (and the argument used is the same one Plato used).

That's all well and fine if you support authoritarian 'family-values' type social systems. But lets call a spade a spade here and admit that this Hoppe fellow is expounding pure authoritarianism without any pretence of libertarianism.

From a libertarian perspective, I can't imagine why anyone would care about hedonists, homos, commies, tree-huggers, or whatever. The only 'real' danger to libertarian liberties are the authoritarian family-values people.

It's weird cuz this sounds pretty straight forwardly fascist especially since it doesn't consider people learning lessons from their mistakes, but whenever I read this part of his book, it spurs the idea that there are just some personalities out there that are incompatible with freedom and peace and prosperity because they're so inclined towards being wise guys, wise guys that ruin the system because they care more about attention and appearances than actual achievement (upon which they use relativism to question what "achievement" really is).
Celebrity culture is very popular. And lots of people are idiots. :shrug:

Are we talking about Balloon Boy's family here?

Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy is another good book. I don't have a quote in mind, but there are parts in it that ring the same bell.
Yes, the idea of 'creative destruction' does seem to be a somehow appropriate way to describe the attractions of authoritarianism. Both are exercises in applying power against others for the sake of ego.

I don't see either as being particularly productive of anything meaningful.

In general, I'd say that egos ought to be redirected or sublimated, never to be fanned or encouraged.

It's difficult to explain what Hoppe's saying here, but the best way I can do so is by saying there are certain personalities who can live and prosper among those of their own kind on all levels from security to transcendence. Other personalities need to parasite instead, and they do so under the guise of synthesis or symbiosis which their hosts accept because of easy intimidation. These parasites even continue doing so until the world is so infested that it's impossible to feasibly become independent anymore for indefinite futures such that the descendants of their hosts end up becoming societally and mentally enslaved as well (yet given economic space in order to give the appearance to sheep that no real violation is ever taking place).
I don't think such choices of 'parasite' or 'producer' are a function of biology or genetics. I believe both terms are relative, subjective and culturally defined - and usually socio-economically determined.

[Daktoria]

In general, I'd say that egos ought to be redirected or sublimated, never to be fanned or encouraged.

Being a bit lazy here in picking at this one line, but it's an insightful position especially when combined about what you said on your conservative investing father in the other thread.

Why should egos never be fanned, and isn't the very definition and regulation of fanning an encouragement of egos?

-----

After looking at your post a second time, I think there are some other areas that can expand on what I've said above. The above is still the most important point though, so I'd prefer if you don't respond to what's below and just reflect upon them as rhetorical questions instead of giving them more attention than what's above.

That ain't no libertarianism. Indeed, that looks like Plato's paradise!

"A covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin" is not a "libertarian social order" in any way, shape or form. It is authoritarian by definition. And being authoritarian, that's exactly why those liberties must be banished (and the argument used is the same one Plato used).


Why aren't progenitors entitled to parent their children as we currently organize procreation? Should (general) indirect ancestry be preferred over (specific) direct ancestry such that generation wide elders get to influence children freely?

This isn't entirely absurd, but it seems that such a world would be too anarchic for your paradigm's satisfaction. Children would ultimately learn the hard way and have to make final decisions on their own even while vulnerable. Also, bear in mind that many children would be exploited for sex while immature and those children would (possibly) receive entitlements to influencing future generations too hastily. On the flip side, how could adults that never had children be trusted to influence or even coexist with children, and how do we draw the chronological line for when children should transform into adults?

From a libertarian perspective, I can't imagine why anyone would care about hedonists, homos, commies, tree-huggers, or whatever. The only 'real' danger to libertarian liberties are the authoritarian family-values people.

Again in dealing with entitlement, why shouldn't progenitors be given the default benefit of the doubt in constructively developing their children; who's supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt for being more wise, organized, or prepared to replace parents?

Celebrity culture is very popular. And lots of people are idiots.

Are we talking about Balloon Boy's family here?

I think every parent who has children intentionally wants them to garnish attention one way or another though. It's a way of reflecting upon and confirming our identities and prosperous, successful, important, justified, resolute, etc.

Call it an ego trip, there are far far far worse parents in the world than those, heh.

I don't think such choices of 'parasite' or 'producer' are a function of biology or genetics. I believe both terms are relative, subjective and culturally defined - and usually socio-economically determined.

Is there no general definition for a parasite or producer? Do those semantics not identify certain self-explanatory roles?

The concept on "whether or not semantics are the only things that exist" probably deserves a thread unto itself, so I'd rather not bury the first point in this post under this (or any other secondary point), but without universal and dynamic axioms, how is anyone supposed to ever cooperate from mutual understandings?

[Michael]

Being a bit lazy here in picking at this one line, but it's an insightful position especially when combined about what you said on your conservative investing father in the other thread.
My conservative father who was into investing in the stock markets was merely an example of the 'cognitive dissonance' that is so common amongst conservatives.

My father hated bureaucracies and red tape and decided that all of it should be gone - except for those bureaucracies and red tape that personally benefited himself.

Likewise I'm reminded of all those grey-haired teabaggers, living on Social Security and dependent upon Medicare, ranting and raving about the evils of government socialism.

These are examples of cognitive dissonance, nothing more, nothing less.

Why should egos never be fanned, and isn't the very definition and regulation of fanning an encouragement of egos?
Egos should never be fanned because egotists themselves do nothing but fan their own egos. It is never enough for these egotists, so they then move on to demanding fanning of their ego from others. Egotists are quite predictable if nothing else.

There is nothing socially, economically or politically productive about fanning egos. Indeed, most evidence suggests that big egos do quite a bit of social, economic and political damage. Egotists of course don't care because that's not their problem (egotists only think about themselves by definition).

That is to say, there is little or nothing to be gained by fanning anyone's ego and at the same time, there is lots of potential damage from fanning egos. Ergo, fanning egos is generally not a good plan.

After looking at your post a second time, I think there are some other areas that can expand on what I've said above. The above is still the most important point though, so I'd prefer if you don't respond to what's below and just reflect upon them as rhetorical questions instead of giving them more attention than what's above.
No.

In your rhetorical questions, you are once again playing that annoying game of asserting absurd positions upon me and I have ZERO tolerance for that.

Why aren't progenitors entitled to parent their children as we currently organize procreation? Should (general) indirect ancestry be preferred over (specific) direct ancestry such that generation wide elders get to influence children freely?
WTF?

Can you stop doing that? I've asked a dozen times already and it is getting tiresome. You are once again taking my objection to one point and automatically jumping to some ludicrious extreme as the polar opposite and asserting that I have some duty to defend the point as my motive/viewpoint. This is nonsense.

Progenitors can parent their children any fucking way they wish within a very few narrowly defined legal limits.

But that doesn't give these 'progenitors' dictatorial rights to rule society. That's nonsense.

THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT MEAN I SUPPORT THE STATE TAKING YOUR BABIES AWAY.

Do you accept this precise point? Will you acknowledge that I can rationally object to letting 'progenitors' have dictatorial power over society without holding to the argument that the state has a duty to take your children away from you?

This isn't entirely absurd, but it seems that such a world would be too anarchic for your paradigm's satisfaction. Children would ultimately learn the hard way and have to make final decisions on their own even while vulnerable. Also, bear in mind that many children would be exploited for sex while immature and those children would (possibly) receive entitlements to influencing future generations too hastily. On the flip side, how could adults that never had children be trusted to influence or even coexist with children, and how do we draw the chronological line for when children should transform into adults?
MY FUCKING PARADIGM? :mad:

WHAT FUCKING PARADIGM IS THAT? :mad:

That is PRECISELY what I'm getting at - over and over.

You cite a link by some author who claims he's a libertarian (his words, not mine) and I rip his argument because the basic premise of his argument violates a fundamental principle of the idea of liberty and libertarianism. I'm calling the idiot out for being untrue to his own stated philosophy.

HOW THE FUCK IS THAT MY PARADIGM? :mad:

This is the third fucking time I've addressed this same point. :mad:

Either you stop assigning some bizarre motive to me for every single discussion or we stop having discussions. It is as simple as that.

[Donkey]

I would say that flattering other people's egos is a perfectly valid technique for self advancement.

But that's another story. ;)

[Michael]

I would say that flattering other people's egos is a perfectly valid technique for self advancement.

But that's another story. ;)
Yes, such an act can be productive for the one doing the flattering, but only in the short term.

That is to say, flattery of egos is much like egos themselves, they serve only private purposes.

From the perspective of public policy, I oppose flattering anyone's ego.

[Daktoria]

Egos should never be fanned because egotists themselves do nothing but fan their own egos. It is never enough for these egotists, so they then move on to demanding fanning of their ego from others. Egotists are quite predictable if nothing else.

There is nothing socially, economically or politically productive about fanning egos. Indeed, most evidence suggests that big egos do quite a bit of social, economic and political damage. Egotists of course don't care because that's not their problem (egotists only think about themselves by definition).

That is to say, there is little or nothing to be gained by fanning anyone's ego and at the same time, there is lots of potential damage from fanning egos. Ergo, fanning egos is generally not a good plan.

OK, so getting a little more specific, is fanning egos amoral because it leads to a vicious cycle, because it's not productive, or both?

[Americano]

I would say that flattering other people's egos is a perfectly valid technique for self advancement.

But that's another story. ;)

Until they either realize it or it no longer suits their purposes. Ass kisser is a difficult label to remove.

[Donkey]

Until they either realize it or it no longer suits their purposes. Ass kisser is a difficult label to remove.
Truth.

[Michael]

OK, so getting a little more specific, is fanning egos amoral because it leads to a vicious cycle, because it's not productive, or both?
First of all, I didn't say "amoral" or "immoral" or mention "morality" at all in my reply.

I specifically predicated my point on the utility of public policy. I left room to admit for different personal/subjective choices. Nothing is intrinsically right or intrinsically wrong. In the relative circumstances of our present society, I counsel no fanning of egos for public policy reasons. If we lived under an absolute monarchy, I might offer a different counsel.

As such, I don't really care if the non-fanning of egos is defined as immoral or ammoral (or morally good).

In reply to the question, I'd say that fanning egos is generally undesirable due to the generally undesirable prospective (public policy) outcomes. I don't care about the egotist themself (that's mostly none of my business).

[Daktoria]

According to moral relativism though, isn't morality just a subjective set of preferences?

Likewise, what are these undesirable prospective outcomes you're talking about?

[Michael]

Btw, if we're going to pick on Indians, can we at least all agree that Bollywood films are the absolute worst, cheesiest, hookiest and most melodramatic movies in the world?

Bollywood movies are so bad they are actually funny to watch. The acting is overblown, the scripted dialogues are always wooden, the action and special effects are pure low-budget crap and every movie involves a wedding scene where everyone sings and dances.

[Michael]

According to moral relativism though, isn't morality just a subjective set of preferences?
Not necessarily.

Relativism only holds that no single morality may proclaim itself as inherently superior to all others.

No reason that morality can't come from a book or be taught by elders.

Indeed, that all morality is relative doesn't preclude a majority from believing otherwise.

Likewise, what are these undesirable prospective outcomes you're talking about?
Public policy choices that can be measured and quantified.

[Donkey]

Btw, if we're going to pick on Indians, can we at least all agree that Bollywood films are the absolute worst, cheesiest, hookiest and most melodramatic movies in the world?

Bollywood movies are so bad they are actually funny to watch. The acting is overblown, the scripted dialogues are always wooden, the action and special effects are pure low-budget crap and every movie involves a wedding scene where everyone sings and dances.
I'll agree with that if you take out the "worst."

[Zarquon]

Btw, if we're going to pick on Indians, can we at least all agree that Bollywood films are the absolute worst, cheesiest, hookiest and most melodramatic movies in the world?

Bollywood movies are so bad they are actually funny to watch. The acting is overblown, the scripted dialogues are always wooden, the action and special effects are pure low-budget crap and every movie involves a wedding scene where everyone sings and dances.
You're generalizing here as a few of the movies made this decade are rather sober and relatable, and there has been a trend towards more 'realistic' fare.
With that said, however, you're characterization is accurate for about 90% of the films of even this decade, and I haven't seen a Bollywood film in a theater in years.
The worst thing about the industry is their knack for masaala films(formulaic potboilers); whenever someone is successful with a novel concept/story, you can be sure that it will be applied to death.
And one of the most annoying features of Bollywood is their practice of shamelessly adapting 'successful' Hollywood movies to Indian tastes(make it more melodramatic and less edgier, and take out the sex).

[Daktoria]

Not necessarily.

Relativism only holds that no single morality may proclaim itself as inherently superior to all others.

No reason that morality can't come from a book or be taught by elders.

Indeed, that all morality is relative doesn't preclude a majority from believing otherwise.

What's the difference between this description and "a subjective set of preferences"?

Public policy choices that can be measured and quantified.

I don't see how relativism can accommodate this since quantification requires values that are independent of human experience.

[Donkey]

Your problem is that you are such an absolutist about relativism.

[Daktoria]

=P

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.

There.

[Donkey]

=P

Very eloquent.

[Daktoria]

Depends on ur interpretation, but ty. =/