Its wrong to equate a Faith and belief system to Scientifics understanding. Here are some DD Rational's logical fallacies. 1. Straw Man Fallacy: The video might oversimplify or misrepresent Sinu Joseph's arguments, making them easier to attack. For instance, dismissing the chakra theory without fully engaging with the broader cultural or religious context might be seen as oversimplifying the argument to refute it more easily. 2. Appeal to Personal Experience: The speaker mentions their own background as an atheist and how they approach the topic from a non-religious perspective. While this context is helpful, it can lead to a bias where religious explanations are dismissed without fully considering their cultural or spiritual significance to believers. 3. Anecdotal Evidence: The video criticizes Sinu Joseph's reliance on anecdotal evidence, but it also potentially relies on anecdotal experiences and generalized dismissals (e.g., the speaker's own visit to Sabarimala) without providing comprehensive data or studies to counter the claims. 4. False Equivalence: The video draws a comparison between the Sabarimala issue and a hypothetical scenario where children are forced to sacrifice a body part for religious reasons. This analogy may be seen as a false equivalence because it equates a religious belief about temple entry with a more extreme and physically harmful practice, which could be misleading. 5. Slippery Slope: The hypothetical scenario about sacrificing a toe might be a slippery slope argument, suggesting that allowing one religious belief (like the Sabarimala restriction) could lead to more extreme violations of human rights. However, this may not necessarily follow and could be seen as an exaggeration. 6. Begging the Question: The speaker assumes that the belief in chakras and their impact on health is baseless without providing a thorough examination of the cultural or traditional context in which these beliefs are held. This might be begging the question, where the conclusion (that these beliefs are invalid) is assumed in the premise without proper justification. 7. Confirmation Bias: The speaker seems to approach the topic with a bias against religious or traditional explanations, favoring scientific explanations without fully engaging with the possible validity of other perspectives. This could be seen as a form of confirmation bias. 8. Red Herring: The discussion of human rights and hypothetical extreme religious practices could be a red herring, diverting attention from the main issue of whether the Sabarimala restrictions have a valid basis, whether religious or otherwise. 9. Generalization: The speaker may generalize the argument by suggesting that all traditional or religious explanations lack scientific validity. This broad generalization could overlook the complexity and nuances of how different cultures and religions interpret and integrate science and spirituality.
This woman is one of those who wanted to get some mileage out of the whole incident. About your question at the end of the video, it is people like this that pushed many of the more moderate believers to oppose the entry of women. I am an agnostic atheist. Before the controversy, there were many Hindus who thought that women who really want to go can go to the temple. I mean, many of the male pilgrims do not follow all the stipulations. And it had been that way since I could remember. What drove the moderates to the other extreme was the perception that it was an attack on their religion by people who, according to the moderates, had no business interfering. There were activists from other religions demanding equality in Sabarimala, while not commenting on the inequalities of their own religion. That included the politicians. It was a mess with everyone trying to score political and social points instead of working on the issue.
I worship no God, I visit no temple. I feel what this female saying is bs . But also there is no discrimination in not allowing women here. There is 0 human rights issue here. It just shows how wokeism is just another bs which has entered india. Wokeism is another brain damage just like religions. Most atheists are affected by this comparing meaningless things . Wokes are outsiders in any religion
I worship no God, I visit no temple. I feel what this female saying is bs . But also there is no discrimination in not allowing women here. There is 0 human rights issue here. It just shows how wokeism is just another bs which has entered india.
Study: "Short-term high-altitude exposure does not alter menstrual cycle or luteal phase in women." Journal: American Journal of Physiology - Endocrinology and Metabolism (2003) Summary: This study assessed whether a short-term stay at high altitude (3-4 days) would affect the menstrual cycle or luteal phase in women. The study found no significant changes in the menstrual cycle or luteal function, suggesting that short-term exposure to high altitude does not adversely affect female fertility.
The rationale is the deity is a brahmachari If you believe in this god, you wont visit if you are a woman So those who visit despite this are non belivers Makes sense? Or do you believe people have the right to go wherever they please?
Ok if these Ayyappa scientists are so sure the temple can cause harm to certain people, they must shut it down and create scientific mechanisms, mantra or something else to fix that issue. Lord Ayyappan sitting inside the temple knows how to protect the whole world but don't know how to fix a couple of chakras? 😂
Ayappa is a brahmachari, if female worshippers respect him, they'll only go to the temple after they've attained menopause (or because menarch) There's countless rationalizations for why women aren't allowed but the main gist is because of the deity's particular status
Would love to see that paper measuring testosterone levels in men visiting Shabarimala vs men doing a similar level of cardio over the same period of time. More testosterone isn't always the best thing for men either btw.
all temples are not same, there are different purpose and different rituals. There are 7 temple associated with sabrimala and it need to be visited in particular sequence, and strict ritual need to be followed. In seven temple, woman can't visit 2 temples , rest 5 temples allow woman to visit.
@@_aconite_cj_ it is believed that in one temple, woman get attracted to deity and she may leave her family society and start living around deity. In other temple, she may experience negative impact on health due to chakra getting affected differently in woman.
Chakra this, Chakra That, That's all her reasons.......What is this chakara Madam??? why is there no Scientific Paper on it??? Indian Govt has been spending a good amount of money in researching such thing for long time now..... Haven't found anything such as Chakra yet
Pleasantly surprised to see the Dark Tower novels in the bookshelf ! What a ride that is! I don't quite agree with the people that Pranav collaborates with on youtube such as Vimoh or That Newslaundry guy. But his attempt to foster scientific temper among his audience is really remarkable.
@@ZestyBestie01 Vimoh because he behaved as if he's Matt Dilla-mohanty but has not put in the rigour of actually studying the scriptures to argue a good point and has the same holier than thou attitude as religious apologists. The News laundry guy because he's plain illogical , sensational , overdramatic without any actual thought provoking material or argument . Pranav, by contrast is the right mix of skepticism, openness and eruditiin that puts him in a much higher category than any of the other two.
@@sca8217 hmm interesting. I for one find Vimoh’s attitude highly refreshing and I find him quite creative in the way he constructs logical parallels that people who are not left leaning or politically aware might find easier to understand. I don’t really watch Newslaundry guy that much but he seems alright only . But I think preferences are natural. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Study: "Acute hypoxia: effects on human placental function." Journal: Placenta (2008) Summary: This study investigated the effects of acute hypoxia (simulating short-term exposure to high altitude) on human placental function. The researchers found that short-term hypoxia did cause some immediate physiological changes, such as a reduction in uterine artery blood flow, but these changes were temporary and reversible. The study concluded that short-term exposure is unlikely to have lasting effects on fertility or pregnancy outcomes.
@@shreea3131 @shreea3131 see first of fall it is not RCT's. But let's take it for granted. There are so many temples, churches etc around the world at the same altitude. Then those temples also should banish the menstruating women. Like thirupathi temple altitude is so much higher compared to many temples. So let's banish menstruating women from thirupathi also. What you will say?
@@rohithpokala In response to DD's claim that short-term exposure to high altitude does not impact female fertility, it's important to acknowledge that while scientific evidence may suggest minimal effects, the restrictions are not solely based on physical health concerns. These practices are deeply rooted in faith and the belief in the sanctity of the deity residing in the temple. The traditions and restrictions associated with each temple, including Sabarimala, are expressions of reverence and devotion that go beyond empirical evidence, reflecting the spiritual significance and the unique practices that have been observed for generations...
@@rohithpokala In Hinduness, there is a strong emphasis on the right to choose and the right to reject practices based on individual faith and belief unlike Abrahamic religions. With over 400 temples dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, devotees have the freedom to visit the temple that aligns with their beliefs and practices. Each temple has its own unique traditions and restrictions that reflect the specific faith of its followers, allowing for a diverse and inclusive approach to worship. This diversity underscores the importance of personal choice in religious practice, ensuring that individuals can worship in a manner that resonates with their own faith and convictions.
@@rohithpokala Study: "Impact of acute high-altitude exposure on ovarian function in women." Journal: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (2010) Summary: This study looked at the effects of acute (short-term) high-altitude exposure on ovarian function and reproductive hormones. The researchers found minimal changes in ovarian function and no significant impact on the overall fertility of women after short-term exposure. The study suggested that while there might be slight hormonal fluctuations, they are not sufficient to cause lasting effects on fertility.
@@rohithpokala Study: "Short-term high-altitude exposure alters endocrine and metabolic responses during exercise in women." Journal: Journal of Applied Physiology (2000) Summary: This study explored how short-term exposure (48 hours) to high altitude affected hormonal responses in women during exercise. The findings indicated that while there were some changes in hormone levels (such as cortisol), there were no significant changes in reproductive hormones like estrogen or progesterone. This suggests that short-term exposure may cause some acute stress responses but is unlikely to have a significant impact on fertility.
Sir, I have been practicing kriyas and meditation for 15 years now, and hata yoga for the last 6 months. Now I am able to sense energy getting accumulated at different chakras when I meditate. So, when the lady talk about chakras, it does not sound like pseudo-science to me.
There are few women who went to Sabarimala with the support of Kerala government few years ago which led to huge protests and controversy. Why don’t you meet any of those women and check what Sinu Joseph claim is true or not…
Its done out of respect for the deity Ayappa was also a kid (or teen) when he settled down in sabrimala It takes a sick person to even think the way you do
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 so...? Is the will of the Brahmachari so weak that women can't be near him? Why are men allowed near him? Why aren't postpuberscent men showing him respect?
@@_aconite_cj_ you're blaming the bramachari now? If a victim of SA has trauma when it comes to a particular sex, so much so that they asks to be left alone, would you tell them that they're discriminating? Would you come to her space and demand their attention. or Would you not be an asshole and respect that person's wishes? Your reply will let you know exactly what sort of person you are Fyi: Puberty is just an arbitrary category that we use now (you being so obsessed with it is creepy as hell). It's women of a reproductive age in general and it's them, according to beliefs who'd be tempted to approach him and distract him.
Hi Pranav, Your current tone of argument is very soft. I know why you do that and you have explained it... But I miss the sarcasm buddy... I miss it badly. You continue like this. I'll go watch your earlier videos😅
Chakra theory is so evidence less that it can not be called pseudoscience even. It is like selling colourful stones in the name of gems. This all is because the world is still full of people who have both money and time and their fear mongering is relatively easy. I studied chakra theory for quite some time and finally my guilt killed me that please do not make fool of people and I stopped telling people that I know anything about chakras.
Many youtubers are getting popularity not for content but for good oratory skill or good-looking face or slim body or biceps. I just wonder how come so many young people are just saying untruth confidently in front of camera or publicly? Is it also a skill? Audience also needs to be blamed for their lack of school education. One doesn't need to be scientist, only skill it requires is being interested of knowing how, why.
If it's not scientific then it boils down to just being a tradition whether you want to follow or not if that's isn't discriminatory. There are traditions and place of worship where men are not allowed. Would you call this discrimination. If you think no then you're kind of a hypocrite
5:45 but its representation or simply put its SYMBOLIC not literal,, I mean the lady said, "IT REPRESENTS THE 6TH CHAKRA" and representation are not scientific or literal, like bharat mata, mother russia, french Marianne are representation of the ideals, not literal persons
Study: "Effects of hypobaric hypoxia on luteal phase and corpus luteum function in women." Journal: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (2006) Summary: This study examined the impact of short-term hypoxia (simulating high-altitude conditions) on the luteal phase in women. The researchers found that exposure to hypoxia during the luteal phase resulted in decreased luteal growth and altered corpus luteum function, which could potentially reduce the chances of successful implantation and pregnancy.
So women at higher altitude area must have difficulty at getting pregnant i.e. people in Himachal, Nepal, Southern Tibet ? Eventually leading to lower birth rate ?
@@metaterrestrial197 I have answered similar question in other posts. here is copy pasted answer. My response was on DD's claim that short-term exposure to high altitude does not impact female fertility, it's important to acknowledge that while scientific evidence may suggest minimal effects, But the temple restrictions are not solely based on physical health concerns. These practices are deeply rooted in faith and the belief in the sanctity of the deity residing in the temple. The traditions and restrictions associated with each temple, including Sabarimala, are expressions of reverence and devotion that go beyond empirical evidence, reflecting the spiritual significance and the unique practices that have been observed for generations.
@@metaterrestrial197 In Hinduness, there is a strong emphasis on the right to choose and the right to reject practices based on individual faith and belief unlike Abrahamic religions. With over 400 temples dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, devotees have the freedom to visit the temple that aligns with their beliefs and practices. Each temple has its own unique traditions and restrictions that reflect the specific faith of its followers, allowing for a diverse and inclusive approach to worship. This diversity underscores the importance of personal choice in religious practice, ensuring that individuals can worship in a manner that resonates with their own faith and convictions.
@@shreea3131 how can sanctity of the deity be effected by the presence of a fertile female ? What do you mean by 'beyond empirical evidence' ? And how it is spirituality significant ?
Sabarimala is a religious place and religious places have certain rules …..I’m all for gender equality and everything related to gender… women don’t visit these temples and this tradition has been followed for centuries …. And a true believer would definitely follow these rules and there are temples where only women a permitted ….. these are certain rules which are applied to these specific temples …… when a person who isn’t supposed to go there starts talking about discrimination and stuff like that it makes me question their faith …. all I see is a person who just wants to create an issue …..
An argument given is that temples are not really a public place. People are supposed to follow rules as made their governing bodies. This is not correct as the rules related to gender discrimination applies even inside the house.
Yes, the women wasn't scientific but I want to present a different view. People often misunderstand diversity and discrimination in hinduism. I accept that there are some temple in which women are not allowed but there are some temples were men are not allowed (Kumari Amman temple, Brahma temple etc.). I don't exactly know the reasoning given behind this but it seems to maintain diversity in temples rather than blatant discrimination. Also the feminist did not petition for when men were not allowed in these temples, but they believe in equality of men and women. I mean what kind of double standard is it against Hinduism and men?
The fuck are you on about? Hindu men are victims now. Basically just because you're a Hindu man and you want something to complain about. This is about rationalism take your victim complex elsewhere
There is no science behind it. It's just religious belief. However I don't ageee with court bcoz its not discrimination against women. There are women specific temples so is that discrimination against men? Can everyone go inside supreme court and if they don't allow it then is that discrimination? Lower caste were not allowed to enter any temple, that's discrimination bcoz it was all about caste, not about diety or God.
if a temple is a private owned property by the priest or the family who has been living there they have a right to decide who comes in and who does not, similar to you deciding who comes to your house and who does not, You can absolutely discriminate when someone can enter a place that you own. If its a public place that the govt hold then its perfectly alright to fight for human rights.
Why can't you just respect tradition? People want to go even when they don't believe or follow the deity and those who believe in him just follow the rules and tradition
I think the reason women are not allowed is because in the past times when There were no paved roads they had to climb the mountain through the forest with their man power which may take up to 10-20 days. So in these times women couldn't do it. May be that's the reason i am not sure. I also wanted to add that there are also temples where men aren't allowed at times.
Hey Pranav, Why don't you make vidoes on Ayurveda and their claims of healing people, then come to unnai or homeopath medicine and later make science videos in a story format which will bring you new auidience and recognition for your work.
Its wrong to equate a Faith and belief system to Scientifics understanding. Here are some DD Rational's logical fallacies. 1. Straw Man Fallacy: The video might oversimplify or misrepresent Sinu Joseph's arguments, making them easier to attack. For instance, dismissing the chakra theory without fully engaging with the broader cultural or religious context might be seen as oversimplifying the argument to refute it more easily. 2. Appeal to Personal Experience: The speaker mentions their own background as an atheist and how they approach the topic from a non-religious perspective. While this context is helpful, it can lead to a bias where religious explanations are dismissed without fully considering their cultural or spiritual significance to believers. 3. Anecdotal Evidence: The video criticizes Sinu Joseph's reliance on anecdotal evidence, but it also potentially relies on anecdotal experiences and generalized dismissals (e.g., the speaker's own visit to Sabarimala) without providing comprehensive data or studies to counter the claims. 4. False Equivalence: The video draws a comparison between the Sabarimala issue and a hypothetical scenario where children are forced to sacrifice a body part for religious reasons. This analogy may be seen as a false equivalence because it equates a religious belief about temple entry with a more extreme and physically harmful practice, which could be misleading. 5. Slippery Slope: The hypothetical scenario about sacrificing a toe might be a slippery slope argument, suggesting that allowing one religious belief (like the Sabarimala restriction) could lead to more extreme violations of human rights. However, this may not necessarily follow and could be seen as an exaggeration. 6. Begging the Question: The speaker assumes that the belief in chakras and their impact on health is baseless without providing a thorough examination of the cultural or traditional context in which these beliefs are held. This might be begging the question, where the conclusion (that these beliefs are invalid) is assumed in the premise without proper justification. 7. Confirmation Bias: The speaker seems to approach the topic with a bias against religious or traditional explanations, favoring scientific explanations without fully engaging with the possible validity of other perspectives. This could be seen as a form of confirmation bias. 8. Red Herring: The discussion of human rights and hypothetical extreme religious practices could be a red herring, diverting attention from the main issue of whether the Sabarimala restrictions have a valid basis, whether religious or otherwise. 9. Generalization: The speaker may generalize the argument by suggesting that all traditional or religious explanations lack scientific validity. This broad generalization could overlook the complexity and nuances of how different cultures and religions interpret and integrate science and spirituality.
@@shreea3131 But there are so many fallacies in sithu Joseph also. Appeal to ancient wisdom, anecdotal evidence, appeal to single authority, cherry picking etc. Now I'm asking a question to you, do you think chakras exist? If so explain about them. We will find fallacies in it. Let's start.
@@rohithpokala The main point is that do you want religious freedom or not? If you dont believe in religious freedom, then why are you only targeting one religion.
@@TheBakuganmaster99 the same religious freedom applicable to muslims too. The government should not be involved in triple talaq and child marriages in other religions because those are religious practices and they need freedom too. Animal sacrifices are also part of religious freedom. But why the government is involved is because ours is not a Hindu country but a secular country. So the reason wherever human rights are violated government will and should involve. Religious freedom is always below the human rights violation. Once human rights violated government and court can be involved. Human rights violated in this case are gender discrimination and age discrimination.
@@rohithpokala I don't agree with that. Sabrimala is just one of the many temples. Hindu women can easily go to any of the other 1000 temples in kerala. Whereas triple talaq and child marriage affects every single muslim woman. Your analogy is not good.
@@TheBakuganmaster99 it's like saying I hurted billions and you hurted millions. Discrimination is discrimination. It's like saying, I only committed crime once compared to others so don't arrest me logic. Not allowing women based on gender and age is outright discrimination. And the government and courts of the land should interfere in it. Just like governments can interfere in schools where discrimination happens and that schools can't say my only one school is having discrimination not other schools so leave me I will continue to run the school like this logic.
It doesn't matter to me either way but if you believe in that god enough to take the difficult journey. Shouldn't you believe in its rules as well. Isn't it kinda weird that you believe in the god but not in his rules. If you want to conveniently change it according to your own whims than I'm not sure about the whole point.
@@AMz-be7fj well there are no evidence regarding the rules that was created. I would say whoever created this God created the rules but then most gods are not created by one person it organically forms as more and more people contribute to the lore, someone must have thought that this God is a celibate and hence no women of those ages were allowed. But like I said there is hardly any evidence so we cannot prove it either way.
waiit until u know there temples where men cant enter too , sexism exists as a part of some puranic stuff, some smritis, and hindu society , the upanishads suggest otherwise
Its specifically ageism thats gyno centered because the chief diety there is a brahmachari Unless you feel its ok to disrespect that deity's existance by breaking the one rule of that temple
I'm conflicted, frankly. All belief is ridiculous, so we cant bring reason into this debate. Is being allowed into a temple a fundamental right? I dont think so. If the diety at Sabriamalai is believed to be a virgin and that menstruating women are not welcome there, there are two options to menstruating women 1. Either you believe the mythology and respect the diety (in which case you'd have to buy the idea of him not wanting you there and not go) 2. you dont believe it and so you dont go where you are not wanted. The only time these traditions need to be curtailed is if they are violating fundamental human rights, or disrputing public order (like those nonsensical Kanwar Yatra hooligans) . Pointless irrational stuff like this, should be left alone. The only people who want to go in there despite most believers not wanting it seem to be troublemakers who dont have an ounce of love for the god itself, and want to make a social statement. It is a waste of time and resources in country like India which 10,000 more pressing problems to handle.
You made valid points, so I would like to place my arguments. I have a slightly different take. It might seem harmless to leave certain irrational beliefs alone for the concerned to take care. Let's imagine a scenario where a woman is born in a patriarchal family with strong belief in the Sabarimala ritual, and she wants to participate, maybe just out of curiosity or to make a statement against the whole notion of a woman being discriminated for something which is very natural and she has no control over. Her father/brother/husband might say that this is our tradition and you need to obey this. What's the fault of that girl in this case? Isn't that unfair on that girl? Does the family even have any say in her wish? Isn't that breaching her rights over something which is natural to her and is part of her well being? By denying her to enter isn't the society reinforcing the custom that Menstruating means impurity? It's like saying men shouldn't use the toilet during the whole Sabarimala journey because human excreta symbolises impurity. Isn't it something natural? I'm sure there must be toilets in Sabarimala with Septic tanks or some pipelines built in the sacred mountain of Lord ayyappa? So entering into a temple may not seem to be a fundamental right. However, if the entry is denied based on a factor that is very natural and represents a specific gender, it is discriminatory and violates human rights. Now someone might argue, what about women that are not allowed in mosques? It is illegal in India to deny women entry in to mosque, but due to safety reasons and indoctrination women don't usually do that which is a sad reality. The same thing applies to Sabarimala, I'm sure still the number of women entering the temple is pretty low compared to other temples due to obvious reasons that involve men and conservative thinking. Therefore these troublemaking protests are not actually about women wanting to pray or believe in god but just a step to raise their voices against how traditions can be discriminatory, and to push for the laws/practises fair for all genders. The actual implementation of these laws on the ground level is a totally different story and will take ages, considering how conservative our society still is. Hence, troublemakers are really important for the proper functioning of democracy and protection of human rights. P.S. I'm a Hindu and I do believe in god.
@@fallingintofilm I don't fully agree with you. These pointless irrational beliefs are the base superstition that allows people to believe in more absurd nonsense. For example perform rituals with your right hand... This seems harmless enough but then the same people are much more likely to believe to not pay with your left hand, not write or eat with your left hand not let your left hand be your dominant hand etc etc etc. To a left handed person, at a very young age, it can result in trauma as the parents who are surrounded by these types of people to fit in would literally beat their kids to make them right handed...
And THis TEMPLE BEFORE AYYAPA WAS A BUDDHIST TEMPLE And THIS AYYAPAN WAS A NORMAL HUMAN WHO FOUGHT AGAINST THE INVADERS SO PEOPLE PU HIS IDOL AND WE DONT KNOW STIll HOW HE LOOKED BUT THEY REMOVED THE HEAD OF THE BUDDHA REPLACED WITH SOME THING ELSE ..
Let's understand what infringement of human rights is: It constitutes cases where someone is harmed through means like abuse(physical/mental) exploitation, discrimination, denial of livelihood. Now coming to sabrimala: Is someone being abused no, is someone being exploited no, Does discrimination exist yes but is this discrimination harming someone? Will a woman lose something if she doesn't visit this particular temple? No. There are several men only clubs, women only club and parlors as well are they committing human rights infringement? No they aren't Now coming to the science part: What is science? It's a tool to investigate nature and understand nature. Science doesn't describe morality. Science doesn't doesn't direct your likes or dislikes many times we do things without any scientific benefit behind it like chewing your nails or chewing a pencil. These are just personal choices with no reason behind it Lastly sabrimala is a religious place and court has absolutely no right to direct what hindus should do or shouldn't do unless there's some activity that violates human rights.
Such a bad take. Human Rights Infringement goes well and beyond your narrow and reductive definition, first and foremost. The ones you have mention are accounted for in the infringement of civil and political rights of individuals, but you don't seem to understand that people also value Social and Economic rights that can be infringed, like not allowing a certain community of people into a temple (a consistent trope in Brahmanism, I wonder why). Dignity is also a factor here. But let's not fret about insignificant stuff like human dignity, what about those bars and clubs? Those bars and clubs are corrupting the very fabric of our society!!!!!! We need to eradicate bars and clubs because private businesses are the same as public utility institutions like temples!!!!!! Especially those which won't allow me in because I am too ugly for a stag entrance!!!!!!!!! Raahhhhh!!!!!!! (For those who don't get it, this was sarcasm). "What is science?" Go back to class one dude. Please. (This was also sarcasm too) But yeah, science doesn't describe or dictate morality. Neither does religion for the most part actually. If you ask me, morality shouldn't be a factor at all in policy making. Ethics, yes, but not morality. Just a side tangent but chewing a pencil is explained by psychology, there are research done in Oral fixation in Autism, self-soothing, habituality and fidgeting that is related to ADHD. "Lastly sabrimala is a religious place and court has absolutely no right to direct what hindus" Not according to the Indian constitution. Big Ambedkar W. Also, I wonder if you'd have the same response if the tables were turned and the religious practice in question was in relation to an outgroup, say Muslims, do you support the Hijab ban? Ideally, your answer should be no if you want to stay ideologically consistent. But something tells me that you will be special pleading your religion here.
"Ughh... when discrimination doesn't harm anyone, it's ok" Like do you even hear yourself? Or are you so blind that you'll find some strawman to defend your beliefs?
@@DDRational_ tell me something pranav will a woman lose something if she doesn't visit this particular temple? Yes/No There are many places some private some public which are gender exclusive like clubs temples where men aren't allowed but women are are they also committing human rights infringement?
This is such a bad take. Firstly, Human Rights Infringements aren't as narrow and reductive as you make them out to be. The things you have mentioned are obviously and evidently Human Rights Infringements, but you disregard the Social and Economic Human Right violations that happen too. Like, say a community of people not allowed to visit a temple (this seems to be a trope in our country, I wonder why). Dignity is also a factor here, you are disregarding human dignity here in your bad definition of human rights. But who cares about insignificant things like human dignity, I am angry at those pubs and clubs!!!!!! And obviously they are exactly same as temples!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean, a private business like a bar is indistinguishable from a public utility like temples, am I right?!!!??????!!!! These pubs and bars are destroying our culture and breaching Geneva convention laws!!!!!!!! Ban them!!!!!!!! Especially those who won't allow my ugly face as a stag entry in!!!!!!!!!!!!! (this was sarcasm) "What is science" Dude, go back to kindergarten. Please. (This too, was sarcasm) But yeah, science doesn't describe morality. Neither does religion describe or define morality of a state. In my opinion, morality shouldn't even be in consideration while making public policy. Ethics yes, but not morality. Just a side tangent but chewing a pencil has science behind it too. Psychologists have done some significant research in Oral fixation with regards to Autism, self-soothing nature of chewing pencils, habituality of chewing pencils and fidgeting in the context of ADHD. Your personal choices end where my personal liberties start. If that choice affects me, then you shouldn't be acting upon that choice. "Lastly sabrimala is a religious place and court has absolutely no right to direct what hindus should do or shouldn't do unless there's some activity that violates human rights." Right to women's mobility and right to practice religion for women was being violated here. It is what the SC thinks, and for once, I agree.
In Hinduness, there is a strong emphasis on the right to choose and the right to reject practices based on individual faith and belief. With over 400 temples dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, devotees have the freedom to visit the temple that aligns with their beliefs and practices. Each temple has its own unique traditions and restrictions that reflect the specific faith of its followers, allowing for a diverse and inclusive approach to worship. This diversity underscores the importance of personal choice in religious practice, ensuring that individuals can worship in a manner that resonates with their own faith and convictions.
@@_aconite_cj_ Really!!...ponder this... While it may seem that restricting access to a specific temple based on gender curbs individual rights. it's important to recognize that such practices are not unique to religious settings and found in other areas of society as well. Consider this example, female-only schools or male-only schools. These kind of institutions exist to provide an environment tailored to the needs and experiences of a particular gender, often with the goal of fostering education in a manner that respects cultural, religious, or developmental differences. Can we say that female-only schools are "literally curbing" the rights of male students because they cannot attend? Or that male-only schools are infringing upon the rights of female students? Most people would agree that these schools serve a specific purpose and cater to the unique needs of their students, rather than violating anyone's rights.
@@_aconite_cj_ certain temples or religious spaces may have gender-based restrictions like female only schools that are deeply rooted in faith and tradition. Just like we accept the existence of male only or female only schools, which offer alternative options for education, so too can religious practices offer alternative spaces for worship that align with one's beliefs and traditions. In the case of Ayyappa temples, there are over 400 temples dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, each with its own traditions and restrictions, offering diverse options for worshippers.
@@rohithpokala 1. Going to a temple like Sabarimala is entirely voluntary. There is no issue of consent or contract involved; individuals are not forced to go to that temple. Devotees have the right to reject Sabarimala and choose any other Ayyappa temple from the over 400 available in Kerala. 2. On other hand... Triple talaq and underage marriages are harmful practices, unlike the rituals at Sabarimala.....In the case of triple talaq, the issue arises within the context of a marital contract between individuals, where one party unilaterally breaches the contract, leading to significant harm and inequality. Underage marriages involve issues of consent and legality, as they violate established laws regarding the minimum legal age for marriage thereby infringing upon the rights of the individuals involved. Both triple talaq and underage marriages are problematic because they conflict with legal standards and principles of justice.
I support the sabarumala not makung women of menstruation not enter. Because only one temple or few in india is doing. If all were doing this then i wouldnt have supported this.
@@IndianArma if you believe that the deity exists and you respect that deity, its automatically understood that there's a time an a place for prayer Now if you don't care about that deity and want to make a political point by disrespecting people's faith, go ahead
A general hospital is a public space, are males freely allowed into the female ward? There's no scientific reason for barring men here If you say that it makes women uncomfortable..... Then you should realise how the belivers feel when their feelings are trampled on
A hospital is a property hence it comes under property laws. Hence, contracts which don't violate the UDHR can be made by the owner (private players in case of private hospitals government in the case of general/government hospitals). Therefore, the contract of gender separate wards can be applied. Not allowing people in a religious place violates their right to religion.
@@Demon8Reason both are property and and general hospitals are owned by the government if you believed in that said religion, you'd abide by it's rules So by saying people's religions freedoms are being infringed, you're making a case for non believers or specifically those how are not practicing their religious rights Would you be ok with people walking into the golden temple with thier shoes saying that they're practicing their religious freedoms?
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 No temples are not property. Under the Income tax act of 1961 section 11 clause 3A temples are defined as a trust or an institution. You can believe in a certain religion but still have the liberty to dissent from the rules imposed by the said religion. This not only applies to non-believers but also to the believers. Anyone and everyone can practice the right to religion as it is universal and absolute. If the said person has no problem in wearing shoes to the golden temple i am no one to say otherwise.
@@Demon8Reason alright, let's change it to government college then You're arguing semantics here, the point still stands Lol, the shoes thing is actually enforced in all temples, most temples in the south even has a dress code that's enforced. Neither are photography or any sort of recordings Dissenting from a religion's rigid rules vs actively breaking them isn't the same. It's disrespectful to the religion. Section 295A is applicable here The whole menstruating women not being allowed aspect is specifically for the deity, a bramachari, as in for ayappa If you respect the deity, you'll not visit it untill you're of age but like you said, bad actors and aspiring social climbers will call it oppression and ofcourse you won't have a problem because you don't believe This directly offends the religious rights of those who believe in his divinity. Need I remind you what happened after operation Blue Star and how it's consequences are felt to this day? Just look at the names of those women who decided to climb (when this whole case blew up) and what their backgrounds are.
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 Ok i am very much in support of it being a government college at least being useful. I am not arguing semantics. Everything i said was in literal sense. Your take on temples having policies is logically fallacious. As it clearly states ad populum bias of the premise being correct just because it is done. I also know that but the rules employed by religious institutions are neither logical nor objective. Section 295A is not applicable as it's a law against "hate speech". It only prohibits expressionist blasphemy. Any vexation is neither prohibited by 295A or any other section. Respect of religion is subjective to a person but the human rights are objective. Even after that most are happy to do that, but when it comes in the way human rights of course it's wrong. Also, ad hominem fallacy you tried to attack my belief instead of any actual argument by saying "because you don't believe". How can someone not following religious rules violate someone else's religious rights? I think you wanted to say religious sentiments, but even that is not a logical argument as sentiments of a person can't be applied to others. What are you hinting when you say "operation bluestar"? If you think the anger is on blasphemy then you are of course wrong. As the outrage is on sikh genocide. I know the background of most women. The controversy was on woman coming from different religion which is again stupid as anyone can enter any religious premise no matter which religion they come from or what is the religious congruity of the institution is.
Study: "Impact of acute high-altitude exposure on ovarian function in women." Journal: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (2010) Summary: This study looked at the effects of acute (short-term) high-altitude exposure on ovarian function and reproductive hormones. The researchers found minimal changes in ovarian function and no significant impact on the overall fertility of women after short-term exposure. The study suggested that while there might be slight hormonal fluctuations, they are not sufficient to cause lasting effects on fertility.
@@shreea3131 see first of fall it is not RCT's. But let's take it for granted. There are so many temples, churches etc around the world at the same altitude. Then those temples also should banish the menstruating women. Like thirupathi temple altitude is so much higher compared to many temples. So let's banish menstruating women from thirupathi also. What you will say?
@@rohithpokala my statement was in response to DD's claim that short-term exposure to high altitude does not impact female fertility, it's important to acknowledge that while scientific evidence may suggest minimal effects, the restrictions are not solely based on physical health concerns. These practices are deeply rooted in faith and the belief in the sanctity of the deity residing in the temple. The traditions and restrictions associated with each temple, including Sabarimala, are expressions of reverence and devotion that go beyond empirical evidence, reflecting the spiritual significance and the unique practices that have been observed for generations.
@@rohithpokala The situation at Sabarimala is unique because it isn’t just about the altitude or physical concerns-it's about the specific traditions and beliefs tied to the deity worshiped there. Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala is revered as a naistika brahmachari (eternal celibate), and the restrictions are deeply intertwined with this particular aspect of the deity’s nature. This practice is a reflection of the temple’s unique spiritual and cultural significance, which has been observed for generations by devotees out of respect and reverence. In contrast, other temples, including those at higher altitudes like Tirupati, follow different traditions because the deities worshiped there are associated with different attributes. For example, the Ayyappa depicted in other temples is not seen as a celibate deity, and therefore, the same restrictions don’t apply. The practices at each temple are tailored to the specific nature of the deity and the associated beliefs, rather than being a one-size-fits-all approach. The focus at Sabarimala is not on physical or environmental factors like altitude, but on maintaining the sanctity of the temple’s traditions, which are based on the specific spiritual context of Shabrimala Lord Ayyappa’s celibacy. This distinction is crucial and why these practices are not universally applied across all temples but are instead specific to Sabarimala and its unique religious practices.
@@shreea3131 after all this discussion, you are just repeating the same. I asked why the same can't be applied to muslims "triple talaq"? Everything you said about ayyapa applies here. Why is that the government involved in muslims religious practices is moral but not for Hindus? Don't be a hypocrite.
I feel like Pranav is a very disingenuous person. If he believes in religious freedom, then he should respect the deities' wishes of not allowing women. If he does not believe in religious freedom, then he should just say it outright instead of beating around the bush.
Religious freedom does not mean infringing upon the basic rights of women. Also would you still advocate for religious freedom if mosques in India did such kind of activities?
@@mithilbhoras5951 Mosques also have the same issues. Some of them dont allow women. Most of them have separate sections for men and women. And the women sections are always inferior in design and quality. So what do you have to say to that?
@@DDRational_your approach to this is not called rational u are trying to justify the ruling of court, that was a matter of belief continuing from generations, discrimination is different
As an atheist, i completely disagree, i believe all dietys in Hinduism as exceptional human beings who did great things, i believe ayyappa banned women from the shabarimala is out of the respect for malikapuram and I think it should stay that way .
@@IndianArmaan atheist doesn't believe in faith but where does it say to be disrespectful to other people's belifs? You want religious dogma shoved down your throat? You want a theocracy? Because forcing athiestic belifs is exactly the same
Buymeacoffee: buymeacoffee.com/scienceisdope
Patreon: www.patreon.com/scienceisdope_
YT Membership: ruclips.net/channel/UCg--ENXdDpXh5LyLigolg2gjoin
UPI: scienceisdope@icici (QR Code available on www.scienceisdope.com/support )
Its wrong to equate a Faith and belief system to Scientifics understanding.
Here are some DD Rational's logical fallacies.
1. Straw Man Fallacy:
The video might oversimplify or misrepresent Sinu Joseph's arguments, making them easier to attack. For instance, dismissing the chakra theory without fully engaging with the broader cultural or religious context might be seen as oversimplifying the argument to refute it more easily.
2. Appeal to Personal Experience:
The speaker mentions their own background as an atheist and how they approach the topic from a non-religious perspective. While this context is helpful, it can lead to a bias where religious explanations are dismissed without fully considering their cultural or spiritual significance to believers.
3. Anecdotal Evidence:
The video criticizes Sinu Joseph's reliance on anecdotal evidence, but it also potentially relies on anecdotal experiences and generalized dismissals (e.g., the speaker's own visit to Sabarimala) without providing comprehensive data or studies to counter the claims.
4. False Equivalence:
The video draws a comparison between the Sabarimala issue and a hypothetical scenario where children are forced to sacrifice a body part for religious reasons. This analogy may be seen as a false equivalence because it equates a religious belief about temple entry with a more extreme and physically harmful practice, which could be misleading.
5. Slippery Slope:
The hypothetical scenario about sacrificing a toe might be a slippery slope argument, suggesting that allowing one religious belief (like the Sabarimala restriction) could lead to more extreme violations of human rights. However, this may not necessarily follow and could be seen as an exaggeration.
6. Begging the Question:
The speaker assumes that the belief in chakras and their impact on health is baseless without providing a thorough examination of the cultural or traditional context in which these beliefs are held. This might be begging the question, where the conclusion (that these beliefs are invalid) is assumed in the premise without proper justification.
7. Confirmation Bias:
The speaker seems to approach the topic with a bias against religious or traditional explanations, favoring scientific explanations without fully engaging with the possible validity of other perspectives. This could be seen as a form of confirmation bias.
8. Red Herring:
The discussion of human rights and hypothetical extreme religious practices could be a red herring, diverting attention from the main issue of whether the Sabarimala restrictions have a valid basis, whether religious or otherwise.
9. Generalization:
The speaker may generalize the argument by suggesting that all traditional or religious explanations lack scientific validity. This broad generalization could overlook the complexity and nuances of how different cultures and religions interpret and integrate science and spirituality.
That's why Kerala is fcuked up 😂
If every time this lady says cHaKrA I get 1rs, I would have been millionaire 😭
and FM would have got 3 lakhs out of your fortune
@@whykoks lmao
@@whykoks not necessarily if they don't show any other income then it will not be 3 lakhs
You'll be richer than ambani if you get 1rs when every youtuber says Chakra to explain something pseudoscientifically
What's FM? @@whykoks
This woman is one of those who wanted to get some mileage out of the whole incident.
About your question at the end of the video, it is people like this that pushed many of the more moderate believers to oppose the entry of women.
I am an agnostic atheist. Before the controversy, there were many Hindus who thought that women who really want to go can go to the temple. I mean, many of the male pilgrims do not follow all the stipulations. And it had been that way since I could remember.
What drove the moderates to the other extreme was the perception that it was an attack on their religion by people who, according to the moderates, had no business interfering. There were activists from other religions demanding equality in Sabarimala, while not commenting on the inequalities of their own religion. That included the politicians. It was a mess with everyone trying to score political and social points instead of working on the issue.
Agreed!
Right
True
I worship no God, I visit no temple. I feel what this female saying is bs . But also there is no discrimination in not allowing women here. There is 0 human rights issue here. It just shows how wokeism is just another bs which has entered india. Wokeism is another brain damage just like religions. Most atheists are affected by this comparing meaningless things . Wokes are outsiders in any religion
I worship no God, I visit no temple. I feel what this female saying is bs . But also there is no discrimination in not allowing women here. There is 0 human rights issue here. It just shows how wokeism is just another bs which has entered india.
By her logic, women should not visit hill stations either. Imagine the hospitality industry going crazy because they cannot sell honeymoon packages.
Study: "Short-term high-altitude exposure does not alter menstrual cycle or luteal phase in women."
Journal: American Journal of Physiology - Endocrinology and Metabolism (2003)
Summary: This study assessed whether a short-term stay at high altitude (3-4 days) would affect the menstrual cycle or luteal phase in women. The study found no significant changes in the menstrual cycle or luteal function, suggesting that short-term exposure to high altitude does not adversely affect female fertility.
Cannot understand how between eyebrows is on the spinal cord.
I don't have a problem with having some separate spaces for only men and only women. But the reasoning for Sabarimala is highly flawed.
Fr
Will you please elaborate?
The rationale is the deity is a brahmachari
If you believe in this god, you wont visit if you are a woman
So those who visit despite this are non belivers
Makes sense?
Or do you believe people have the right to go wherever they please?
The chakra in Naruto makes more sense the one she is describing lol
She is talking about sCiEnCe not science
Only chakra i wanna hear about is when im watching a Naruto reel on yt 🌝
I like the way you have toned down on your comm skills. Keep it up.. Content is good as usual.
Ok if these Ayyappa scientists are so sure the temple can cause harm to certain people, they must shut it down and create scientific mechanisms, mantra or something else to fix that issue. Lord Ayyappan sitting inside the temple knows how to protect the whole world but don't know how to fix a couple of chakras? 😂
Ayappa is a brahmachari, if female worshippers respect him, they'll only go to the temple after they've attained menopause (or because menarch)
There's countless rationalizations for why women aren't allowed but the main gist is because of the deity's particular status
Your channel is most important for this generation. Do make a video about eligious extremism is a reality 😊.
Would love to see that paper measuring testosterone levels in men visiting Shabarimala vs men doing a similar level of cardio over the same period of time. More testosterone isn't always the best thing for men either btw.
Hii pranav, please make a video on addiction of adult content and how to overcome it .
Watch Dr. K (Healthy Gamer-GG)
Find something much more interesting in life to waste your free time 🤪.
Next will be quantum chakra
FR
all temples are not same, there are different purpose and different rituals.
There are 7 temple associated with sabrimala and it need to be visited in particular sequence, and strict ritual need to be followed. In seven temple, woman can't visit 2 temples , rest 5 temples allow woman to visit.
Why can't they visit the 2 temples?
@@_aconite_cj_ it is believed that in one temple, woman get attracted to deity and she may leave her family society and start living around deity. In other temple, she may experience negative impact on health due to chakra getting affected differently in woman.
@@Jibreel-jt1qh yeah, so this is called sexism and is supported by nonsense
@@ishathakor in many rituals, only woman are allowed to do. Is that sexism?
Your hindu religion is really fooo ked up.
D.D. Ration forgot about rehana Fathima and bindhu ammini mostly controversy in sabarimala entering issue i didn't know about this sinu Joseph
Chakra this, Chakra That, That's all her reasons.......What is this chakara Madam??? why is there no Scientific Paper on it??? Indian Govt has been spending a good amount of money in researching such thing for long time now..... Haven't found anything such as Chakra yet
You are doing good work.
To all the religious women being upset with religious sexism - Reap what you sow.
Very well explained ❤❤❤👌🙏
Pleasantly surprised to see the Dark Tower novels in the bookshelf ! What a ride that is!
I don't quite agree with the people that Pranav collaborates with on youtube such as Vimoh or That Newslaundry guy. But his attempt to foster scientific temper among his audience is really remarkable.
why do you dislike Vimoh and Newslaundry guy?
@@ZestyBestie01 Vimoh because he behaved as if he's Matt Dilla-mohanty but has not put in the rigour of actually studying the scriptures to argue a good point and has the same holier than thou attitude as religious apologists. The News laundry guy because he's plain illogical , sensational , overdramatic without any actual thought provoking material or argument . Pranav, by contrast is the right mix of skepticism, openness and eruditiin that puts him in a much higher category than any of the other two.
@@sca8217 hmm interesting. I for one find Vimoh’s attitude highly refreshing and I find him quite creative in the way he constructs logical parallels that people who are not left leaning or politically aware might find easier to understand. I don’t really watch Newslaundry guy that much but he seems alright only . But I think preferences are natural. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Who is News laundry guy??
@@Loveszooba i think he is referring to Meghnerd
Study: "Acute hypoxia: effects on human placental function."
Journal: Placenta (2008)
Summary: This study investigated the effects of acute hypoxia (simulating short-term exposure to high altitude) on human placental function. The researchers found that short-term hypoxia did cause some immediate physiological changes, such as a reduction in uterine artery blood flow, but these changes were temporary and reversible. The study concluded that short-term exposure is unlikely to have lasting effects on fertility or pregnancy outcomes.
@@shreea3131 @shreea3131 see first of fall it is not RCT's. But let's take it for granted. There are so many temples, churches etc around the world at the same altitude. Then those temples also should banish the menstruating women. Like thirupathi temple altitude is so much higher compared to many temples. So let's banish menstruating women from thirupathi also. What you will say?
@@rohithpokala In response to DD's claim that short-term exposure to high altitude does not impact female fertility, it's important to acknowledge that while scientific evidence may suggest minimal effects, the restrictions are not solely based on physical health concerns. These practices are deeply rooted in faith and the belief in the sanctity of the deity residing in the temple. The traditions and restrictions associated with each temple, including Sabarimala, are expressions of reverence and devotion that go beyond empirical evidence, reflecting the spiritual significance and the unique practices that have been observed for generations...
@@rohithpokala In Hinduness, there is a strong emphasis on the right to choose and the right to reject practices based on individual faith and belief unlike Abrahamic religions. With over 400 temples dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, devotees have the freedom to visit the temple that aligns with their beliefs and practices. Each temple has its own unique traditions and restrictions that reflect the specific faith of its followers, allowing for a diverse and inclusive approach to worship. This diversity underscores the importance of personal choice in religious practice, ensuring that individuals can worship in a manner that resonates with their own faith and convictions.
@@rohithpokala Study: "Impact of acute high-altitude exposure on ovarian function in women."
Journal: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (2010)
Summary: This study looked at the effects of acute (short-term) high-altitude exposure on ovarian function and reproductive hormones. The researchers found minimal changes in ovarian function and no significant impact on the overall fertility of women after short-term exposure. The study suggested that while there might be slight hormonal fluctuations, they are not sufficient to cause lasting effects on fertility.
@@rohithpokala Study: "Short-term high-altitude exposure alters endocrine and metabolic responses during exercise in women."
Journal: Journal of Applied Physiology (2000)
Summary: This study explored how short-term exposure (48 hours) to high altitude affected hormonal responses in women during exercise. The findings indicated that while there were some changes in hormone levels (such as cortisol), there were no significant changes in reproductive hormones like estrogen or progesterone. This suggests that short-term exposure may cause some acute stress responses but is unlikely to have a significant impact on fertility.
Why is that it only happens in sabarimala? What did she say about that?
I want to see what scientific explanation sanghis are going to give in the issue of appointing non brahmins as sabarimala priests.
Chakra = bhakra
Sir, I have been practicing kriyas and meditation for 15 years now, and hata yoga for the last 6 months. Now I am able to sense energy getting accumulated at different chakras when I meditate. So, when the lady talk about chakras, it does not sound like pseudo-science to me.
if a person believes in god, then he/she must adhere to its principles,
protesting against the practices is just as illogical as __________.
There are few women who went to Sabarimala with the support of Kerala government few years ago which led to huge protests and controversy. Why don’t you meet any of those women and check what Sinu Joseph claim is true or not…
This is way too softer way to criticize pseudoscience.... 🤦🏼
Hard hone par kattar hindu comments me hag hag kar baadh la dete h 😂😂
It's sensible as it should be.
@@praneeth6005 There r plenty of other sensible things. But when u criticize pseudoscience, u have to be sharp not soft. It gives the adverse effect.
People literally believe in the fact that a deity or the priests there can get "tempted" by literal kids(teenagers post menarche) is sickening tbh.
Its done out of respect for the deity
Ayappa was also a kid (or teen) when he settled down in sabrimala
It takes a sick person to even think the way you do
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 why would it be disrespectful if a grown woman is near that deity?
@@_aconite_cj_ again, the deity is a bramachari
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 so...? Is the will of the Brahmachari so weak that women can't be near him? Why are men allowed near him? Why aren't postpuberscent men showing him respect?
@@_aconite_cj_ you're blaming the bramachari now?
If a victim of SA has trauma when it comes to a particular sex, so much so that they asks to be left alone, would you tell them that they're discriminating?
Would you come to her space and demand their attention.
or
Would you not be an asshole and respect that person's wishes?
Your reply will let you know exactly what sort of person you are
Fyi:
Puberty is just an arbitrary category that we use now (you being so obsessed with it is creepy as hell).
It's women of a reproductive age in general and it's them, according to beliefs who'd be tempted to approach him and distract him.
Hi Pranav, Your current tone of argument is very soft. I know why you do that and you have explained it... But I miss the sarcasm buddy... I miss it badly. You continue like this. I'll go watch your earlier videos😅
Chakra theory is so evidence less that it can not be called pseudoscience even. It is like selling colourful stones in the name of gems. This all is because the world is still full of people who have both money and time and their fear mongering is relatively easy. I studied chakra theory for quite some time and finally my guilt killed me that please do not make fool of people and I stopped telling people that I know anything about chakras.
Many youtubers are getting popularity not for content but for good oratory skill or good-looking face or slim body or biceps.
I just wonder how come so many young people are just saying untruth confidently in front of camera or publicly? Is it also a skill? Audience also needs to be blamed for their lack of school education. One doesn't need to be scientist, only skill it requires is being interested of knowing how, why.
ScIenTiFic
This lady thinks using a bunch of sciency words makes her idiocy scientific.
If it's not scientific then it boils down to just being a tradition whether you want to follow or not if that's isn't discriminatory. There are traditions and place of worship where men are not allowed. Would you call this discrimination. If you think no then you're kind of a hypocrite
Very well done video!
5:45 but its representation or simply put its SYMBOLIC not literal,, I mean the lady said, "IT REPRESENTS THE 6TH CHAKRA" and representation are not scientific or literal, like bharat mata, mother russia, french Marianne are representation of the ideals, not literal persons
ഇപ്പോൾ ഈ പുതിയ പ്രവണത ഇത്തരത്തിലുള്ള അപൂർവ ഇനങ്ങളെ പുറത്തെടുക്കുന്നു
Study: "Effects of hypobaric hypoxia on luteal phase and corpus luteum function in women."
Journal: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (2006)
Summary: This study examined the impact of short-term hypoxia (simulating high-altitude conditions) on the luteal phase in women. The researchers found that exposure to hypoxia during the luteal phase resulted in decreased luteal growth and altered corpus luteum function, which could potentially reduce the chances of successful implantation and pregnancy.
So women at higher altitude area must have difficulty at getting pregnant i.e. people in Himachal, Nepal, Southern Tibet ?
Eventually leading to lower birth rate ?
@@metaterrestrial197 I have answered similar question in other posts. here is copy pasted answer.
My response was on DD's claim that short-term exposure to high altitude does not impact female fertility, it's important to acknowledge that while scientific evidence may suggest minimal effects, But the temple restrictions are not solely based on physical health concerns. These practices are deeply rooted in faith and the belief in the sanctity of the deity residing in the temple. The traditions and restrictions associated with each temple, including Sabarimala, are expressions of reverence and devotion that go beyond empirical evidence, reflecting the spiritual significance and the unique practices that have been observed for generations.
@@metaterrestrial197 In Hinduness, there is a strong emphasis on the right to choose and the right to reject practices based on individual faith and belief unlike Abrahamic religions. With over 400 temples dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, devotees have the freedom to visit the temple that aligns with their beliefs and practices. Each temple has its own unique traditions and restrictions that reflect the specific faith of its followers, allowing for a diverse and inclusive approach to worship. This diversity underscores the importance of personal choice in religious practice, ensuring that individuals can worship in a manner that resonates with their own faith and convictions.
@@shreea3131 how can sanctity of the deity be effected by the presence of a fertile female ?
What do you mean by 'beyond empirical evidence' ? And how it is spirituality significant ?
The only chakra like thing that is real is jalebi.❤
Sabarimala is a religious place and religious places have certain rules …..I’m all for gender equality and everything related to gender… women don’t visit these temples and this tradition has been followed for centuries …. And a true believer would definitely follow these rules and there are temples where only women a permitted ….. these are certain rules which are applied to these specific temples …… when a person who isn’t supposed to go there starts talking about discrimination and stuff like that it makes me question their faith …. all I see is a person who just wants to create an issue …..
Beautiful girls never lies bro.
Actually, there was an article in Frontline, I read that the tribal people have conducted puberty functions up there.
Tribals do not have puberty functions.
@@AMz-be7fj show me the evidence
An argument given is that temples are not really a public place. People are supposed to follow rules as made their governing bodies. This is not correct as the rules related to gender discrimination applies even inside the house.
Bro, would appreciate if you did a well informed video on mullaperiyar dam issue
She's still living in the Naruto world
Yes, the women wasn't scientific but I want to present a different view.
People often misunderstand diversity and discrimination in hinduism. I accept that there are some temple in which women are not allowed but there are some temples were men are not allowed (Kumari Amman temple, Brahma temple etc.).
I don't exactly know the reasoning given behind this but it seems to maintain diversity in temples rather than blatant discrimination.
Also the feminist did not petition for when men were not allowed in these temples, but they believe in equality of men and women.
I mean what kind of double standard is it against Hinduism and men?
The fuck are you on about? Hindu men are victims now. Basically just because you're a Hindu man and you want something to complain about. This is about rationalism take your victim complex elsewhere
@@IndianArmaYour father.
At least present a rational view on why you disagree with him.
There is no science behind it. It's just religious belief. However I don't ageee with court bcoz its not discrimination against women. There are women specific temples so is that discrimination against men? Can everyone go inside supreme court and if they don't allow it then is that discrimination? Lower caste were not allowed to enter any temple, that's discrimination bcoz it was all about caste, not about diety or God.
if a temple is a private owned property by the priest or the family who has been living there they have a right to decide who comes in and who does not, similar to you deciding who comes to your house and who does not, You can absolutely discriminate when someone can enter a place that you own. If its a public place that the govt hold then its perfectly alright to fight for human rights.
So sinu joseph will talk about hindu issues? Would you consider and accept j sai deepak talk about Christian issues?
She should be a gynecologist 😊
Why can't you just respect tradition? People want to go even when they don't believe or follow the deity and those who believe in him just follow the rules and tradition
Bruh she sound exactly like Chad Guru 😅
😂 chad😂😂😂
Are there been any proofs ?
I think the reason women are not allowed is because in the past times when There were no paved roads they had to climb the mountain through the forest with their man power which may take up to 10-20 days. So in these times women couldn't do it. May be that's the reason i am not sure. I also wanted to add that there are also temples where men aren't allowed at times.
did she copy anime ?
chakra from naruto
this 'chitti chitti' robo name Sinu Joseph?!😀
Hey Pranav,
Why don't you make vidoes on Ayurveda and their claims of healing people, then come to unnai or homeopath medicine and later make science videos in a story format which will bring you new auidience and recognition for your work.
He did it in his main channel - Science is Dope
Its wrong to equate a Faith and belief system to Scientifics understanding.
Here are some DD Rational's logical fallacies.
1. Straw Man Fallacy:
The video might oversimplify or misrepresent Sinu Joseph's arguments, making them easier to attack. For instance, dismissing the chakra theory without fully engaging with the broader cultural or religious context might be seen as oversimplifying the argument to refute it more easily.
2. Appeal to Personal Experience:
The speaker mentions their own background as an atheist and how they approach the topic from a non-religious perspective. While this context is helpful, it can lead to a bias where religious explanations are dismissed without fully considering their cultural or spiritual significance to believers.
3. Anecdotal Evidence:
The video criticizes Sinu Joseph's reliance on anecdotal evidence, but it also potentially relies on anecdotal experiences and generalized dismissals (e.g., the speaker's own visit to Sabarimala) without providing comprehensive data or studies to counter the claims.
4. False Equivalence:
The video draws a comparison between the Sabarimala issue and a hypothetical scenario where children are forced to sacrifice a body part for religious reasons. This analogy may be seen as a false equivalence because it equates a religious belief about temple entry with a more extreme and physically harmful practice, which could be misleading.
5. Slippery Slope:
The hypothetical scenario about sacrificing a toe might be a slippery slope argument, suggesting that allowing one religious belief (like the Sabarimala restriction) could lead to more extreme violations of human rights. However, this may not necessarily follow and could be seen as an exaggeration.
6. Begging the Question:
The speaker assumes that the belief in chakras and their impact on health is baseless without providing a thorough examination of the cultural or traditional context in which these beliefs are held. This might be begging the question, where the conclusion (that these beliefs are invalid) is assumed in the premise without proper justification.
7. Confirmation Bias:
The speaker seems to approach the topic with a bias against religious or traditional explanations, favoring scientific explanations without fully engaging with the possible validity of other perspectives. This could be seen as a form of confirmation bias.
8. Red Herring:
The discussion of human rights and hypothetical extreme religious practices could be a red herring, diverting attention from the main issue of whether the Sabarimala restrictions have a valid basis, whether religious or otherwise.
9. Generalization:
The speaker may generalize the argument by suggesting that all traditional or religious explanations lack scientific validity. This broad generalization could overlook the complexity and nuances of how different cultures and religions interpret and integrate science and spirituality.
@@shreea3131 But there are so many fallacies in sithu Joseph also. Appeal to ancient wisdom, anecdotal evidence, appeal to single authority, cherry picking etc.
Now I'm asking a question to you, do you think chakras exist? If so explain about them. We will find fallacies in it. Let's start.
@@rohithpokala The main point is that do you want religious freedom or not? If you dont believe in religious freedom, then why are you only targeting one religion.
@@TheBakuganmaster99 the same religious freedom applicable to muslims too. The government should not be involved in triple talaq and child marriages in other religions because those are religious practices and they need freedom too. Animal sacrifices are also part of religious freedom. But why the government is involved is because ours is not a Hindu country but a secular country. So the reason wherever human rights are violated government will and should involve. Religious freedom is always below the human rights violation. Once human rights violated government and court can be involved. Human rights violated in this case are gender discrimination and age discrimination.
@@rohithpokala I don't agree with that. Sabrimala is just one of the many temples. Hindu women can easily go to any of the other 1000 temples in kerala. Whereas triple talaq and child marriage affects every single muslim woman. Your analogy is not good.
@@TheBakuganmaster99 it's like saying I hurted billions and you hurted millions. Discrimination is discrimination. It's like saying, I only committed crime once compared to others so don't arrest me logic. Not allowing women based on gender and age is outright discrimination. And the government and courts of the land should interfere in it. Just like governments can interfere in schools where discrimination happens and that schools can't say my only one school is having discrimination not other schools so leave me I will continue to run the school like this logic.
It doesn't matter to me either way but if you believe in that god enough to take the difficult journey. Shouldn't you believe in its rules as well. Isn't it kinda weird that you believe in the god but not in his rules. If you want to conveniently change it according to your own whims than I'm not sure about the whole point.
So did your god made the rule or the brahmins made the rule?
@@AMz-be7fj well there are no evidence regarding the rules that was created. I would say whoever created this God created the rules but then most gods are not created by one person it organically forms as more and more people contribute to the lore, someone must have thought that this God is a celibate and hence no women of those ages were allowed. But like I said there is hardly any evidence so we cannot prove it either way.
And tanatanis say sexism doesn't exist in their religion. Huh!
waiit until u know there temples where men cant enter too , sexism exists as a part of some puranic stuff, some smritis, and hindu society , the upanishads suggest otherwise
Its specifically ageism thats gyno centered because the chief diety there is a brahmachari
Unless you feel its ok to disrespect that deity's existance by breaking the one rule of that temple
I'm conflicted, frankly. All belief is ridiculous, so we cant bring reason into this debate. Is being allowed into a temple a fundamental right? I dont think so.
If the diety at Sabriamalai is believed to be a virgin and that menstruating women are not welcome there, there are two options to menstruating women
1. Either you believe the mythology and respect the diety (in which case you'd have to buy the idea of him not wanting you there and not go)
2. you dont believe it and so you dont go where you are not wanted.
The only time these traditions need to be curtailed is if they are violating fundamental human rights, or disrputing public order (like those nonsensical Kanwar Yatra hooligans) . Pointless irrational stuff like this, should be left alone.
The only people who want to go in there despite most believers not wanting it seem to be troublemakers who dont have an ounce of love for the god itself, and want to make a social statement. It is a waste of time and resources in country like India which 10,000 more pressing problems to handle.
You made valid points, so I would like to place my arguments. I have a slightly different take. It might seem harmless to leave certain irrational beliefs alone for the concerned to take care. Let's imagine a scenario where a woman is born in a patriarchal family with strong belief in the Sabarimala ritual, and she wants to participate, maybe just out of curiosity or to make a statement against the whole notion of a woman being discriminated for something which is very natural and she has no control over. Her father/brother/husband might say that this is our tradition and you need to obey this. What's the fault of that girl in this case? Isn't that unfair on that girl? Does the family even have any say in her wish? Isn't that breaching her rights over something which is natural to her and is part of her well being? By denying her to enter isn't the society reinforcing the custom that Menstruating means impurity? It's like saying men shouldn't use the toilet during the whole Sabarimala journey because human excreta symbolises impurity. Isn't it something natural? I'm sure there must be toilets in Sabarimala with Septic tanks or some pipelines built in the sacred mountain of Lord ayyappa?
So entering into a temple may not seem to be a fundamental right. However, if the entry is denied based on a factor that is very natural and represents a specific gender, it is discriminatory and violates human rights.
Now someone might argue, what about women that are not allowed in mosques? It is illegal in India to deny women entry in to mosque, but due to safety reasons and indoctrination women don't usually do that which is a sad reality. The same thing applies to Sabarimala, I'm sure still the number of women entering the temple is pretty low compared to other temples due to obvious reasons that involve men and conservative thinking. Therefore these troublemaking protests are not actually about women wanting to pray or believe in god but just a step to raise their voices against how traditions can be discriminatory, and to push for the laws/practises fair for all genders. The actual implementation of these laws on the ground level is a totally different story and will take ages, considering how conservative our society still is. Hence, troublemakers are really important for the proper functioning of democracy and protection of human rights.
P.S. I'm a Hindu and I do believe in god.
@@satggsbut what about the temples where mens are not allowed?
@@KRN000 Men or anyone in this case are free to fight for their rights...if they feel it's being infringed!
@@fallingintofilm
I don't fully agree with you.
These pointless irrational beliefs are the base superstition that allows people to believe in more absurd nonsense.
For example perform rituals with your right hand... This seems harmless enough but then the same people are much more likely to believe to not pay with your left hand, not write or eat with your left hand not let your left hand be your dominant hand etc etc etc.
To a left handed person, at a very young age, it can result in trauma as the parents who are surrounded by these types of people to fit in would literally beat their kids to make them right handed...
And THis TEMPLE BEFORE AYYAPA WAS A BUDDHIST TEMPLE And THIS AYYAPAN WAS A NORMAL HUMAN WHO FOUGHT AGAINST THE INVADERS SO PEOPLE PU HIS IDOL AND WE DONT KNOW STIll HOW HE LOOKED BUT THEY REMOVED THE HEAD OF THE BUDDHA REPLACED WITH SOME THING ELSE ..
Just plain BS by this woman
Let's understand what infringement of human rights is:
It constitutes cases where someone is harmed through means like abuse(physical/mental) exploitation, discrimination, denial of livelihood.
Now coming to sabrimala:
Is someone being abused no, is someone being exploited no,
Does discrimination exist yes but is this discrimination harming someone? Will a woman lose something if she doesn't visit this particular temple? No.
There are several men only clubs, women only club and parlors as well are they committing human rights infringement? No they aren't
Now coming to the science part:
What is science?
It's a tool to investigate nature and understand nature.
Science doesn't describe morality. Science doesn't doesn't direct your likes or dislikes many times we do things without any scientific benefit behind it like chewing your nails or chewing a pencil. These are just personal choices with no reason behind it
Lastly sabrimala is a religious place and court has absolutely no right to direct what hindus should do or shouldn't do unless there's some activity that violates human rights.
Such a bad take.
Human Rights Infringement goes well and beyond your narrow and reductive definition, first and foremost. The ones you have mention are accounted for in the infringement of civil and political rights of individuals, but you don't seem to understand that people also value Social and Economic rights that can be infringed, like not allowing a certain community of people into a temple (a consistent trope in Brahmanism, I wonder why). Dignity is also a factor here.
But let's not fret about insignificant stuff like human dignity, what about those bars and clubs? Those bars and clubs are corrupting the very fabric of our society!!!!!! We need to eradicate bars and clubs because private businesses are the same as public utility institutions like temples!!!!!! Especially those which won't allow me in because I am too ugly for a stag entrance!!!!!!!!! Raahhhhh!!!!!!! (For those who don't get it, this was sarcasm).
"What is science?" Go back to class one dude. Please. (This was also sarcasm too)
But yeah, science doesn't describe or dictate morality. Neither does religion for the most part actually. If you ask me, morality shouldn't be a factor at all in policy making. Ethics, yes, but not morality.
Just a side tangent but chewing a pencil is explained by psychology, there are research done in Oral fixation in Autism, self-soothing, habituality and fidgeting that is related to ADHD.
"Lastly sabrimala is a religious place and court has absolutely no right to direct what hindus" Not according to the Indian constitution. Big Ambedkar W. Also, I wonder if you'd have the same response if the tables were turned and the religious practice in question was in relation to an outgroup, say Muslims, do you support the Hijab ban? Ideally, your answer should be no if you want to stay ideologically consistent. But something tells me that you will be special pleading your religion here.
"Ughh... when discrimination doesn't harm anyone, it's ok"
Like do you even hear yourself? Or are you so blind that you'll find some strawman to defend your beliefs?
@@DDRational_ tell me something pranav will a woman lose something if she doesn't visit this particular temple? Yes/No
There are many places some private some public which are gender exclusive like clubs temples where men aren't allowed but women are are they also committing human rights infringement?
This is such a bad take.
Firstly, Human Rights Infringements aren't as narrow and reductive as you make them out to be. The things you have mentioned are obviously and evidently Human Rights Infringements, but you disregard the Social and Economic Human Right violations that happen too. Like, say a community of people not allowed to visit a temple (this seems to be a trope in our country, I wonder why). Dignity is also a factor here, you are disregarding human dignity here in your bad definition of human rights.
But who cares about insignificant things like human dignity, I am angry at those pubs and clubs!!!!!! And obviously they are exactly same as temples!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean, a private business like a bar is indistinguishable from a public utility like temples, am I right?!!!??????!!!! These pubs and bars are destroying our culture and breaching Geneva convention laws!!!!!!!! Ban them!!!!!!!! Especially those who won't allow my ugly face as a stag entry in!!!!!!!!!!!!! (this was sarcasm)
"What is science" Dude, go back to kindergarten. Please. (This too, was sarcasm)
But yeah, science doesn't describe morality. Neither does religion describe or define morality of a state. In my opinion, morality shouldn't even be in consideration while making public policy. Ethics yes, but not morality.
Just a side tangent but chewing a pencil has science behind it too. Psychologists have done some significant research in Oral fixation with regards to Autism, self-soothing nature of chewing pencils, habituality of chewing pencils and fidgeting in the context of ADHD.
Your personal choices end where my personal liberties start. If that choice affects me, then you shouldn't be acting upon that choice.
"Lastly sabrimala is a religious place and court has absolutely no right to direct what hindus should do or shouldn't do unless there's some activity that violates human rights." Right to women's mobility and right to practice religion for women was being violated here. It is what the SC thinks, and for once, I agree.
@@anchitbose4151 "tell me something pranav will a woman lose something if she doesn't visit this particular temple?" Yes. Human dignity.
In Hinduness, there is a strong emphasis on the right to choose and the right to reject practices based on individual faith and belief. With over 400 temples dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, devotees have the freedom to visit the temple that aligns with their beliefs and practices. Each temple has its own unique traditions and restrictions that reflect the specific faith of its followers, allowing for a diverse and inclusive approach to worship. This diversity underscores the importance of personal choice in religious practice, ensuring that individuals can worship in a manner that resonates with their own faith and convictions.
@@shreea3131 can we say the same for muslims triple talaq,under age marriages etc?
But you're literally curbing an individuals rights to participate in a ritual by not allowing the said individual to enter a specific temple.
@@_aconite_cj_ Really!!...ponder this...
While it may seem that restricting access to a specific temple based on gender curbs individual rights.
it's important to recognize that such practices are not unique to religious settings and found in other areas of society as well.
Consider this example, female-only schools or male-only schools. These kind of institutions exist to provide an environment tailored to the needs and experiences of a particular gender, often with the goal of fostering education in a manner that respects cultural, religious, or developmental differences.
Can we say that female-only schools are "literally curbing" the rights of male students because they cannot attend? Or that male-only schools are infringing upon the rights of female students?
Most people would agree that these schools serve a specific purpose and cater to the unique needs of their students, rather than violating anyone's rights.
@@_aconite_cj_ certain temples or religious spaces may have gender-based restrictions like female only schools that are deeply rooted in faith and tradition. Just like we accept the existence of male only or female only schools, which offer alternative options for education, so too can religious practices offer alternative spaces for worship that align with one's beliefs and traditions. In the case of Ayyappa temples, there are over 400 temples dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, each with its own traditions and restrictions, offering diverse options for worshippers.
@@rohithpokala
1. Going to a temple like Sabarimala is entirely voluntary. There is no issue of consent or contract involved; individuals are not forced to go to that temple. Devotees have the right to reject Sabarimala and choose any other Ayyappa temple from the over 400 available in Kerala.
2. On other hand... Triple talaq and underage marriages are harmful practices, unlike the rituals at Sabarimala.....In the case of triple talaq, the issue arises within the context of a marital contract between individuals, where one party unilaterally breaches the contract, leading to significant harm and inequality. Underage marriages involve issues of consent and legality, as they violate established laws regarding the minimum legal age for marriage thereby infringing upon the rights of the individuals involved. Both triple talaq and underage marriages are problematic because they conflict with legal standards and principles of justice.
I support the sabarumala not makung women of menstruation not enter. Because only one temple or few in india is doing. If all were doing this then i wouldnt have supported this.
If it's principle then even one shouldn't do it. Would you support Sati if only one village did it?
@@IndianArmayou are comparing apples to oranges
@@IndianArma if you believe that the deity exists and you respect that deity, its automatically understood that there's a time an a place for prayer
Now if you don't care about that deity and want to make a political point by disrespecting people's faith, go ahead
Pranav, tumko kisne topi pahnai
Sinu Joseph 😂
Rice bags assemble
nevertheless, she is cute
A general hospital is a public space, are males freely allowed into the female ward?
There's no scientific reason for barring men here
If you say that it makes women uncomfortable..... Then you should realise how the belivers feel when their feelings are trampled on
A hospital is a property hence it comes under property laws. Hence, contracts which don't violate the UDHR can be made by the owner (private players in case of private hospitals government in the case of general/government hospitals). Therefore, the contract of gender separate wards can be applied.
Not allowing people in a religious place violates their right to religion.
@@Demon8Reason both are property and and general hospitals are owned by the government
if you believed in that said religion, you'd abide by it's rules
So by saying people's religions freedoms are being infringed, you're making a case for non believers or specifically those how are not practicing their religious rights
Would you be ok with people walking into the golden temple with thier shoes saying that they're practicing their religious freedoms?
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 No temples are not property. Under the Income tax act of 1961 section 11 clause 3A temples are defined as a trust or an institution.
You can believe in a certain religion but still have the liberty to dissent from the rules imposed by the said religion.
This not only applies to non-believers but also to the believers. Anyone and everyone can practice the right to religion as it is universal and absolute.
If the said person has no problem in wearing shoes to the golden temple i am no one to say otherwise.
@@Demon8Reason alright, let's change it to government college then
You're arguing semantics here, the point still stands
Lol, the shoes thing is actually enforced in all temples, most temples in the south even has a dress code that's enforced. Neither are photography or any sort of recordings
Dissenting from a religion's rigid rules vs actively breaking them isn't the same. It's disrespectful to the religion. Section 295A is applicable here
The whole menstruating women not being allowed aspect is specifically for the deity, a bramachari, as in for ayappa
If you respect the deity, you'll not visit it untill you're of age but like you said, bad actors and aspiring social climbers will call it oppression and ofcourse you won't have a problem because you don't believe
This directly offends the religious rights of those who believe in his divinity.
Need I remind you what happened after operation Blue Star and how it's consequences are felt to this day?
Just look at the names of those women who decided to climb (when this whole case blew up) and what their backgrounds are.
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 Ok i am very much in support of it being a government college at least being useful.
I am not arguing semantics. Everything i said was in literal sense.
Your take on temples having policies is logically fallacious. As it clearly states ad populum bias of the premise being correct just because it is done.
I also know that but the rules employed by religious institutions are neither logical nor objective. Section 295A is not applicable as it's a law against "hate speech". It only prohibits expressionist blasphemy. Any vexation is neither prohibited by 295A or any other section.
Respect of religion is subjective to a person but the human rights are objective. Even after that most are happy to do that, but when it comes in the way human rights of course it's wrong. Also, ad hominem fallacy you tried to attack my belief instead of any actual argument by saying "because you don't believe".
How can someone not following religious rules violate someone else's religious rights? I think you wanted to say religious sentiments, but even that is not a logical argument as sentiments of a person can't be applied to others.
What are you hinting when you say "operation bluestar"? If you think the anger is on blasphemy then you are of course wrong. As the outrage is on sikh genocide.
I know the background of most women. The controversy was on woman coming from different religion which is again stupid as anyone can enter any religious premise no matter which religion they come from or what is the religious congruity of the institution is.
This guy studied more science than Steve jobs and Mark Zuckerberg
Chakras 😂
Study: "Impact of acute high-altitude exposure on ovarian function in women."
Journal: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (2010)
Summary: This study looked at the effects of acute (short-term) high-altitude exposure on ovarian function and reproductive hormones. The researchers found minimal changes in ovarian function and no significant impact on the overall fertility of women after short-term exposure. The study suggested that while there might be slight hormonal fluctuations, they are not sufficient to cause lasting effects on fertility.
@@shreea3131 see first of fall it is not RCT's. But let's take it for granted. There are so many temples, churches etc around the world at the same altitude. Then those temples also should banish the menstruating women. Like thirupathi temple altitude is so much higher compared to many temples. So let's banish menstruating women from thirupathi also. What you will say?
@@rohithpokala my statement was in response to DD's claim that short-term exposure to high altitude does not impact female fertility, it's important to acknowledge that while scientific evidence may suggest minimal effects, the restrictions are not solely based on physical health concerns. These practices are deeply rooted in faith and the belief in the sanctity of the deity residing in the temple. The traditions and restrictions associated with each temple, including Sabarimala, are expressions of reverence and devotion that go beyond empirical evidence, reflecting the spiritual significance and the unique practices that have been observed for generations.
@@shreea3131 does this same can't be applied to other temples as I have mentioned above?
@@rohithpokala The situation at Sabarimala is unique because it isn’t just about the altitude or physical concerns-it's about the specific traditions and beliefs tied to the deity worshiped there. Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala is revered as a naistika brahmachari (eternal celibate), and the restrictions are deeply intertwined with this particular aspect of the deity’s nature. This practice is a reflection of the temple’s unique spiritual and cultural significance, which has been observed for generations by devotees out of respect and reverence.
In contrast, other temples, including those at higher altitudes like Tirupati, follow different traditions because the deities worshiped there are associated with different attributes. For example, the Ayyappa depicted in other temples is not seen as a celibate deity, and therefore, the same restrictions don’t apply. The practices at each temple are tailored to the specific nature of the deity and the associated beliefs, rather than being a one-size-fits-all approach.
The focus at Sabarimala is not on physical or environmental factors like altitude, but on maintaining the sanctity of the temple’s traditions, which are based on the specific spiritual context of Shabrimala Lord Ayyappa’s celibacy. This distinction is crucial and why these practices are not universally applied across all temples but are instead specific to Sabarimala and its unique religious practices.
@@shreea3131 after all this discussion, you are just repeating the same. I asked why the same can't be applied to muslims "triple talaq"? Everything you said about ayyapa applies here. Why is that the government involved in muslims religious practices is moral but not for Hindus? Don't be a hypocrite.
I am ex Atheist I challenge you to make me an Atheist again 😃
Don't let the door hurt you on your way out
I feel like Pranav is a very disingenuous person. If he believes in religious freedom, then he should respect the deities' wishes of not allowing women. If he does not believe in religious freedom, then he should just say it outright instead of beating around the bush.
Religious freedom does not mean infringing upon the basic rights of women. Also would you still advocate for religious freedom if mosques in India did such kind of activities?
@@mithilbhoras5951mosques do this. how many womens have you seen in mosque. how many women?
@KRN000 Yeah that is also bad. But that is not a solution to the sabarimala issue
@@mithilbhoras5951 Mosques also have the same issues. Some of them dont allow women. Most of them have separate sections for men and women. And the women sections are always inferior in design and quality. So what do you have to say to that?
@@DDRational_your approach to this is not called rational u are trying to justify the ruling of court, that was a matter of belief continuing from generations, discrimination is different
As an atheist, i completely disagree, i believe all dietys in Hinduism as exceptional human beings who did great things, i believe ayyappa banned women from the shabarimala is out of the respect for malikapuram and I think it should stay that way .
You're not an atheist. Just call yourself Hindu and be done with it. Why should an atheist or a rationalist subsidize such ridiculous beliefs?
@@IndianArmaan atheist doesn't believe in faith but where does it say to be disrespectful to other people's belifs?
You want religious dogma shoved down your throat? You want a theocracy?
Because forcing athiestic belifs is exactly the same
Pranav Gandhu 😂
this is no way to respond , iff u have any objective argument , you may present that , using mockery is a thing a loser would only do
Kerala Virus State 😂
U might be broke soon as the content has becoming very boring...
These religious bullshits are clueless 😂😂
If you believe the temple deity, follow the practice, practiced by all the followers!
Ladies don't go to temple!
📌India best Rational & scientific channel 🙏
1. vimoh
2. human with science
3. Bioshala
4. logical aayaam
5. science is dope
6. Arpit explains
7. Science journey
8. आसान शब्दों में - Kurzgesagt
9. Himanshu ka lecture
10. DD rational
11. जिज्ञासु बने रहें - TED-Ed
📌 For advance science with trusted research sources 🙏
1. scishow
2. Be smart
3. Insider science
4. Stated clearly
5. Pbs Eons
6. TED-Ed
7. Minute earth
8. Freemededucation
പ്രണവ് bhai essence ന്റെ litmus 2024 ന് വരുന്നുണ്ടോ.Try 2 come
Hey Pranav. I had sent a mail to the email_id you gave me. Please reply whenever you're free. Thank you.