> It's about being negative all the time. It's about labelling yourself as cynical and making all of your schtick be about that negativity.
But you are talking about being positive all the time, and about labelling yourself as a better person and and making all of your schtick be about that positivity.
I am wondering what this mean to things like setting scientific consensus?
I mean, Isn't the same think applicable to any case where perception of the majority by indvidual is skewed by network effects such as these? Also, isn't it within the realm of possibility that it is much easier for a bad actor to alter this perception of the global?
Why do it when you can get by without doing it? You just need to use the "science" label here and there, and throw the word "peer reviewed" here and there. And nay be you will have to pay off (which comes up to virtually no cost to the entities in question) some of the top people in the research (Who probably are planted long time ago in various fields)...
It seems that you are arguing in favor of religious discrimination in your first paragraph, and against it in the second. So I am not sure what you are actually trying to say.
>The act is a set of directions to the government machinery. It does not have to explain itself, and certainly does not have to contain the words "religious persecution".
It does not have to explain itself, but it needs to be consistent with what is being conveyed to the people.
It has nothing to do with Indian citizens? A law passed in India does not concern Indian citizens? I am not sure I can make sense of what you are saying.
If you are saying that the law does not affect current citizens, then, I want to say that It does not have to to justify the protests. Because the protests are about how it drags religion into how citizenship is granted.
It discriminates people based on religion.
That itself, without going into anymore details, is enough reason to protest against it.
Now, there are some arguments that say we already have different laws for different religion casts etc. But that argument is shallow, misguided at best, blatantly malicious at worst.
Because such things are there because the idea of being secular overrides even having consistent laws. Because it allows people to practice their religion.
In other cases, were certain reservations are provided to people of certain cast, they are merly to target a subset of population that was victim of a bad cast system in the past.
You can see that both of these ideas are very much in the spirit of secularism, and in first case, even overrides the need for consistent laws.
This bill shatters that very idea, like to its core.
In a set of people in which all members have same attributes, except for their religion, it makes it much easier for people from certain religion to obtain citizenship.
Now, one can argue that the religion filter, as we saw in the second case above, is meant to target people who were fleeing from religious persecution. But that argument also does not help here. Because then it only helps people who are fleeing from religious persecution from being a Hindu, and it does not help if you are fleeing from religious persecution from being a Muslim.
And why drag religious persecution into the whole thing anyway, people are made to suffer for various reasons in a lot of places, many of which does not have to do with religion.
No, this "religious persecution" thing is a very clever way to mask the actual intent behind this act. And in fact, this religious persecution clause is not even present in the actual law [1].
But you are talking about being positive all the time, and about labelling yourself as a better person and and making all of your schtick be about that positivity.