bornfromanegg

@aquirdturtle Your coffee analogy is interesting. Clearly asking someone to drink coffee is not the same as asking them to support the Venezuelan government, but the OP doesn't want a coffee, and is asking why he should have to justify that? In other words, if you shouldn't infer why someone wants a coffee, why should you infer why they don't?

But I don’t know why you’re trying to prove this point. Even if you’re right, it says nothing about whether Hitler existed, and I certainly never claimed to believe that he did because of a photograph.

How did this become the point of discussion? We were talking about evidence for the existence of Hitler, one of, if not the, most well-documented people in all history. You keep talking about photos being no more reliable than paintings. It’s a ridiculous point, and ultimately irrelevant.

@ram Yeah, but that’s painting! Photoshop is painting. You have to “paint” the dragon, because you can’t photograph it!

@TheLittleNaruto :-) No, it is not. One should not rely on it exclusively.

@ram As for painting and photography, though. Well, the difference is that I can paint anything. I can’t photograph a dragon. I’d have though that was obvious.

@ram Secondly, I’ve already told you that I had no intention of engaging in an argument about faith, and apologised for questioning yours. So, whilst I doubt that I would agree with any of your ‘evidence’ for the existence of god, I’m not sure it’s worth arguing about.

@ram Firstly: “Every source I can find without a clear bias says it was mostly written after 400 BC”. No, I didn’t say that. Someone else did.

@ram Do you believe that cigarettes cause cancer? I do. Lots of people do. Yet no-one has ever observed the actual moment when that happens. That doesn’t mean there’s no evidence for it, because first hand evidence is not the only kind of evidence. I don’t need to meet Hitler to believe he existed, because there is so much other evidence that he did. Again, that is the difference

@ram Also, what statement of mine are you questioning? I never said, “Why would Indian sources be biased?” You said that. I asked why Western sources would be biased, and it was a question, not a statement. Of course, the real question, that I should have asked, is why would any sources be biased?

@ram Also, painting is not a primitive form of photography. Fact.

I actually haven’t stated any beliefs - I’ve merely questioned a statement you made. And this is Hinduism StackExchange, so I don’t wish to engage in an argument about faith. Although, I do have to say that my “belief” in the existence of Hitler is not based on faith, as you suggest. It’s based on evidence. That’s the difference.

@ram Also, can I just say that I had no intention of questioning your faith. When I asked the question, I had no idea that’s what I was doing.

@ram Why would Western sources be biased?

Wait, you're saying that the Mahabharat was written 5000 years ago? That not right, is it?

Well that seems very old to me. Wikipedia and several other sources seem to suggest it was no earlier than 400-500BC. 3000BC would make it older than anything on this list (which also puts Mahabharata at around 300-400BCE.

"That's something you should be doing outside of work." Holidays are outside of work. That's precisely the point. It's a ridiculous thing for your manager to say. We definitely need more information, because I can't rationalise any of this.

The intern did in 3 days what you couldn't do it 2 years? I don't believe it. I just don't believe it. There is a large and important bit of information missing from this question.

@JMac Well perhaps this should have been expounded in the answer. As it is, it appears to be presenting it as a general truth, which it isn’t.

@JMac Yes, you can invite whoever you want. But that doesn’t mean that those choices are therefore appropriate. Which is what this answer is suggesting.

Wow, cool. 'Cos I was hoping to invite my mistress to the party my wife has organised for me. Glad to hear that's not inappropriate. I mean, it's my party, right?

@Battle The legitimate charges of favouritism bit only applies if the OP is a manager. But if the OP is a manager, has been sexually harassed by one of his coworkers, and hasn't done anything about it at work, then we have an entirely different question on our hands.

@vsz I don't judge the OP for not wanting to give the money to a stranger either, but I definitely judge him for his comments regarding her jumping in a lake. That is harsh, considering he knows nothing about her. That sentence leaps out of this page, and leaves me a little uncomfortable.

@R.Schmitz I'm confused by your response. I wasn't judging the answer (I agree with the answer), I was replying to your comment. And I wouldn't describe "It is never ok to stare" as a catchphrase, but even if you do, that doesn't change the fact that it's true. Note that the OP never actually asked "how do I avoid staring?" The closest they came is, "I want to avoid being distracted by her chest". I think that, "Try to focus on her face" is a reasonable starting point.

@R.Schmitz Something that is blatantly inappropriate will be deemed inappropriate by most people. That's what blatant means. And even if someone is wearing something inappropriate (by any judgment), that doesn't mean that it is OK to stare. It is never OK to stare, which means that "Try to focus on her face" is the correct answer. The fact that the OP failed in this regard doesn't change that.