Signatures 23 total
Page: 1
-
1
Name: Paramjeet Singh on Jan 14, 2013Comments:Flag
-
2
Name: JASPREET SINGH on Jan 14, 2013Comments: Shame on SGPCFlag
-
3
Name: B.S.Khalsa on Jan 14, 2013Comments: ਜਦੋਂ ਇਕ ਧਾਰਮਿਕ ਜਥੇਬੰਦੀ ਦੂਜੇ ਧਰਮ ਦੇ ਸੰਮੇਲਨ ਵਿਚ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਇਸਦਾ ਭਾਵ ਦੋਗਲਾਪਣ ਤੇ ਦੁਬਿਧਾ ਹੈ। ਜਿਸ ਗੱਲ ਤੋਂ ਗੁਰੂ ਸਹਿਬ ਨੇ ਰੋਕਿਆ ਹੋਵੇ ਉਹ ਕਰਕੇ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਗੁਰੂ ਹੁਕਮਾਂ ਦੀ ਅਣਦੇਖੀ ਵੀ ਕਰੋਂਗੇ ਤੇ ਸਿੱਖ ਕੌਮ ਨੂੰ ਵੀ ਉਲਝਣ ਭਰਿਆ ਸੰਦੇਸ਼ ਦਿਓਗੇ। ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਏਡੇ ਵਡੇ ਰੂਪ ਵਿਚ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਗੁਲਾਮੀ ਨੂੰ ਕਿਸੇ ਵੀ ਹਾਲਤ ਵਿਚ ਸਵੀਕਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ। ਸਿੱਖ ਸਿਧਾਂਤਾਂ ਉਤੇ ਪਹਿਰਾ ਦਿਉ ਤੇ ਸਿੱਖੀ ਨੂੰ ਗੁਲਾਮ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਵਿਚ ਸਹਾਇਕ ਬਣਣ ਦੀ ਬਜਾਏ ਸਿੱਖੀ ਨੂੰ ਬਚਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਵਾੜ ਦਾ ਕਾਰਜ ਕਰੋFlag
-
4
Name: Manmeet Singh on Jan 14, 2013Comments:Flag
-
5
Name: Jatinder Bir Singh on Jan 14, 2013Comments:Flag
-
6
Name: Gurdeep Kooner on Jan 14, 2013Comments: V R n0t h1nduFlag
-
7
Name: Kulwant Singh on Jan 14, 2013Comments: very unfortunate decisionFlag
-
8
Name: Harwinder Singh on Jan 14, 2013Comments: Dass, Avtar Makkar and Co. nu lakh lakh lahnat bhejda hai tuhade is nave karname te...Flag
-
9
Name: Kuldeep Singh on Jan 14, 2013Comments: donot goFlag
-
10
Name: Anonymous on Jan 14, 2013Comments:Flag
-
11
Name: Tejinder Singh on Jan 14, 2013Comments:Flag
-
12
Name: Navjot Kaur on Jan 14, 2013Comments: we need to stop this madness.Flag
-
13
Name: Navjot Kaur on Jan 14, 2013Comments:Flag
-
14
Name: Anoop Singh on Jan 15, 2013Comments: Kumbh is hindu festival sikh is seprate faithFlag
-
15
Name: J Sareen on Jan 15, 2013Comments: Wake up SIKHs and HINDUs . Stop fighting among yourself . INDIA is under the seize of ISLAMIZATION and CHRISTIANIZATION. 2011 INDIA CENSUS statistics... MUSLIMS population growth 40% CHRISTIAN population growth 35% HINDU population growth 20% SIKH population growth 15% INDIA will be a majority MUSLIM country by year 2035. Every 3 out of 10 kids born in India are muslim. Wake up . If my sikh brothers don't like HINDUISM, then convert all the HINDUS to SIKHs. A lot of people are already seeing this clearly what is happening in India. Congress govt is full of muslims and christians. Save your motherland from these devil people of books. Look into youtube,google even SIKHS are being targeted to convert into Christians. Wake up.Flag
-
16
Name: Anonymous on Jan 21, 2013Comments: Nice read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing some research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch! buy wow gold http://www.wow-gold-team.comFlag
-
17
Name: Paramjeet Singh on Jan 21, 2013Comments:Flag
-
18
Name: Anonymous on Jan 23, 2013Comments: Just wanna state that this is invaluable , Thanks for taking your time to write this. Rosario Radle http://www.promar.axfree.com/maly-czy-duzy-zlewozmywak.html/Flag
-
19
Name: Manohar on Mar 4, 2013Comments: I want to reylcce glass in HK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111環保支持者 says:March 24, 2011 at 2:32 am本人一向於環保上作出努力, 減廢, 回收, 節省 及 再用.但玻璃回收就本人及其他大眾可說是不太方便. 醬油樽, 紅酒樽, 酒樽. 於每星期生產的垃圾體積可說是不少.特此希望貴機構可設置玻璃回收箱於每個 / 多個大型屋苑. 以減少垃圾產量, 減輕香港垃圾堆填區負擔.I want to reylcce glass in Hong KongFlag
-
20
Name: Dhyuxxgk on Mar 5, 2013Comments: Jkh6ze , rqbdvruhxpvc, nvoxsmwffclj, http://ckhhwxznwdge.com/Flag
-
21
Name: Sagrario on Mar 7, 2013Comments: I guess I used the Dobzhansky et al quotes to raise our cuiisorty and to get us to look at the question. But to my mind, Russell betrays his position. To get a sense of what is meant by being morally right or wrong, or morally better or worse, in a subjective framework, consider this analogy. When we say ‘up’ or ‘down’, or ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ we are implicitly using an absolute standard – a standard that is outside of us and which we measure ourselves against. The standard of course is height from earth’s surface measured in the earth’s gravity field. The distance from the earth’s surface is the standard by which we say something is ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ than another thing, or that a certain object went ‘up’ or ‘down’. Now imagine a person in deep space, far away from any planet or star where he feels no gravity and there is no surface. What is ‘up’ for him? What does ‘higher’ mean? He may choose to designate ‘up’ or ‘higher’ to be based on his long body axis as he floats through space. But if he floats along and meets another person who happens to be in a reverse position from him, his ‘up’ would be the others ‘down’. In that situation it would be apparent that terms like ‘up’, ‘down’, ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ would really be relative or subjective to the person. These terms would only have meaning based on randomness of how they happen to individually rotate and float through space.When Russell uses moral reasoning to say ‘The mayor is wrong to be dishonest’, ‘The newspaper should have courage in fighting for truth’, ‘The department was corrupt’ he is comparing actions against an absolute standard that transcends his and (more importantly) their personal preferences – like a ‘moral’ planet that their actions should align with to give an ‘up’. Only then do statements of moral ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ have any meaning. But moral relativists are saying that moral statements are really ‘in space’ with no standard to compare them against except ourselves or conventions of society – i.e. how most of us ‘floating in space’ seem to line up. But that does not fit with how morality works in us; ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ operate within us in an absolute sense, from a standard that is outside of ourselves. Russell may deny it, but his moral protests prove otherwise.My experiences just considering a subjective vs. objective view of morality are for sure a filter in my mind. I was a live-in superintendent at university residences for several years, responsible for discipline and order with a hundred or so university students. I was also a sessional university instructor. In both of these contexts I noticed that most students, when we talked about ethics and morality from a detached point-of-view of their philosophy of morals, insisted that there was no real or objective right and wrong. There was no absolute sense of fairness or right conduct. In their minds it all reduced down to social conditioning and personal preference. They were free to make up their own standard of fairness and decent behaviour. In this thinking they were expressing the academic spirit of our age. But, if they felt that they were unfairly treated in some way (by me in my position) they were quick to complain ‘That’s not fair’, and call on an absolute sense of fairness to bear on their grievances. It seems to be very difficult (impossible?) for a person to consistently live out a philosophy of ethical relativism or subjective morals when wronged. Russell, to my mind, is doing the same.I guess this is getting long so I will end it here. But thanks for the commentsFlag
-
22
Name: Oaeeudrtu on Mar 9, 2013Comments: 4OCyvj , ihyxgaosjzsr, hdomyqhknhgr, http://ttldalklzzkf.com/Flag
-
23
Name: Anonymous on Apr 1, 2013Comments: I’m very happy to read this. This is the type of manual that needs to be given and not the random misinformation that is at the other blogs. Appreciate your sharing this greatest doc. increase height http://www.deelsonheels.com/Shoe_Lifts/cat133748_120743.aspxFlag
Page: 1