5 ms·

> "Why is it "morbid"? Did you call out the OP for associating the death of a 100 people due to an economic move like demonetization morbid?" I call it morbid

by rm2889 10y ago

> "Why is it "morbid"? Did you call out the OP for associating the death of a 100 people due to an economic move like demonetization morbid?" I call it morbid because "not enough people died hence its a success" is a bad argument. What is your cutoff for the number of people to have died for it to have become a failure? How do you arrive at that cutoff? > "The displacement of people during the Partition was of a small percentage of the entire populace. Yet it was not managed properly at all" Yes a relatively smaller percentage than demonetization (but not small by any means). Furthermore, less people were affected by partition but the impact to those affected was much higher. In demonetization, more people were affected but the average impact to those affected was much lower. They might even be the same area under the curve in terms of suffering. But how do we quantify that? Simply saying that "less people were affected yet more people died during partition in contrast to demonetization where more people are affected but less people died" is an incomplete argument. More people are affected by the poor air quality of New Delhi but less people die because of it than the partition, does that mean that the air quality measures that the government has taken (banning unleaded fuel etc.) is a success? > "And most of those converting their cash were caught and the rest are still being caught. Did you fail to read the news?" Survivorship bias. You only hear of the ones that got caught. There are so many that got away scot-free. Also, do you always believe or agree with what the Supreme court says or recommends? How do you feel about the mandatory standing for the national anthem before any movie? Should that be something that the state should enforce? Hitler made it mandatory for civilians to perform the Nazi salute towards him.

shripadk 10y ago
> I call it morbid because "not enough people died hence its a success" is a bad argument. What is your cutoff for the number of people to have died for it to have become a failure? How do you arrive at that cutoff? The cutoff was not given by me. It was given by the nay-sayers including the Supreme Court of India. Who speculated "financial emergency" and "large-scale riots"? Was it people who supported demonetization or those who opposed? > Yes a relatively smaller percentage than demonetization (but not small by any means). Furthermore, less people were affected by partition but the impact to those affected was much higher. In demonetization, more people were affected but the average impact to those affected was much lower. They might even be the same area under the curve in terms of suffering. But how do we quantify that? Simply saying that "less people were affected yet more people died during partition in contrast to demonetization where more people are affected but less people died" is an incomplete argument. More people are affected by the poor air quality of New Delhi but less people die because of it than the partition, does that mean that the air quality measures that the government has taken (banning unleaded fuel etc.) is a success? But you are again trying to tie an economic move like demonetization with something inherently negative: pollution. How does pollution compare to the Partition or Demonetization? How does that analogy even make any sense? We are talking about "implementation" of "intent". I gave comparison of Partition because the Partition of India was an "intent" in the same way that the demonetization was an "intent". The "implementation" of the "intent" failed with Partition but not with demonetization. How do I quantify that? See the demonetization exercises carried out by 6 countries before India. It was bloody and ended in either coups d'état or large-scale riots. Both did not happen in India. > Survivorship bias. You only hear of the ones that got caught. There are so many that got away scot-free. You are in the realm of speculation here. It is for you to prove that "so many go away scot-free". > Also, do you always believe or agree with what the Supreme court says or recommends? How do you feel about the mandatory standing for the national anthem before any movie? Should that be something that the state should enforce? Hitler made it mandatory for civilians to perform the Nazi salute towards him. I agree with mandatory standing for National Anthem irrespective of whether it is before any movie or in any public place. Now you taking it to the other extreme of comparing standing for National Anthem to that of Nazi salute is completely uncalled for. Are you actually comparing Nazi ideology with upholding the Constitution of India? The Supreme Court only upheld the Articles of the Constitution. Read the order of the Court. This is not some Nazi diktat. Please widen your perspective.
- rm2889 10y ago
  > The cutoff was not given by me Yet you used that data point to call the move a categorical success. > But you are again trying to tie an economic move like demonetization with something inherently negative No, I'm not trying to tie anything. I'm just trying to make you understand the fallacy that might have inadvertently crept into your reasoning (happens to the best of us!) Also I'm not comparing demonetization to pollution, I'm comparing the policy of demonetization to the policy response against pollution. Or to make it even simpler, I'm comparing the government policy to curb corruption to government policy to curb pollution, or the government policy to prevent deaths during the partition. Just because one policy response led to more deaths than another, doesn't mean that the former response wasn't as flawed as the latter. Especially since there are so many differences between the initial conditions that existed during the partition and the conditions that exist today. I will repeat here that simply saying that "less people were affected yet more people died during partition in contrast to demonetization where more people are affected but less people died" is an incomplete argument. Apples and oranges my friend. > You are in the realm of speculation here Unfortunately not. Will this data ever be publicly available? No. Did a black market exist? Most definitely. > Are you actually comparing Nazi ideology with upholding the Constitution of India? What if I don't agree with some of the articles of the constitution? Can I exercise my free speech rights to criticize the said articles without being charged with sedition? Can I express those free speech rights by not standing up for the national anthem and not be charged for an offence? Unfortunately not. I am being instructed by legislation to sit or stand or perform some other body movement to uphold the legitimacy of a document, or an ideology, which I may or may not agree with. That was true for the Nazi salute as well. There are very very subtle points that deal with things like burning the national flag and not "respecting" the national anthem. I urge you to check out the first amendment of the american constition and US supreme court rulings regarding their national anthem and national flag and what constitutes disrespect and what constitutes a criminal offence. Its fascinating stuff. The Indian constitution and the our Supreme court have a long way to go! Anyway, time to get on with my life. Do definitely read up on the First amendment and try comparing that with the free speech as guaranteed by the Indian constitution. Its a good perspective to have.
  - 10y ago

by rm2889 10y ago

shripadk 10y ago

> I call it morbid because "not enough people died hence its a success" is a bad argument. What is your cutoff for the number of people to have died for it to have become a failure? How do you arrive at that cutoff? The cutoff was not given by me. It was given by the nay-sayers including the Supreme Court of India. Who speculated "financial emergency" and "large-scale riots"? Was it people who supported demonetization or those who opposed? > Yes a relatively smaller percentage than demonetization (but not small by any means). Furthermore, less people were affected by partition but the impact to those affected was much higher. In demonetization, more people were affected but the average impact to those affected was much lower. They might even be the same area under the curve in terms of suffering. But how do we quantify that? Simply saying that "less people were affected yet more people died during partition in contrast to demonetization where more people are affected but less people died" is an incomplete argument. More people are affected by the poor air quality of New Delhi but less people die because of it than the partition, does that mean that the air quality measures that the government has taken (banning unleaded fuel etc.) is a success? But you are again trying to tie an economic move like demonetization with something inherently negative: pollution. How does pollution compare to the Partition or Demonetization? How does that analogy even make any sense? We are talking about "implementation" of "intent". I gave comparison of Partition because the Partition of India was an "intent" in the same way that the demonetization was an "intent". The "implementation" of the "intent" failed with Partition but not with demonetization. How do I quantify that? See the demonetization exercises carried out by 6 countries before India. It was bloody and ended in either coups d'état or large-scale riots. Both did not happen in India. > Survivorship bias. You only hear of the ones that got caught. There are so many that got away scot-free. You are in the realm of speculation here. It is for you to prove that "so many go away scot-free". > Also, do you always believe or agree with what the Supreme court says or recommends? How do you feel about the mandatory standing for the national anthem before any movie? Should that be something that the state should enforce? Hitler made it mandatory for civilians to perform the Nazi salute towards him. I agree with mandatory standing for National Anthem irrespective of whether it is before any movie or in any public place. Now you taking it to the other extreme of comparing standing for National Anthem to that of Nazi salute is completely uncalled for. Are you actually comparing Nazi ideology with upholding the Constitution of India? The Supreme Court only upheld the Articles of the Constitution. Read the order of the Court. This is not some Nazi diktat. Please widen your perspective.

rm2889 10y ago
> The cutoff was not given by me Yet you used that data point to call the move a categorical success. > But you are again trying to tie an economic move like demonetization with something inherently negative No, I'm not trying to tie anything. I'm just trying to make you understand the fallacy that might have inadvertently crept into your reasoning (happens to the best of us!) Also I'm not comparing demonetization to pollution, I'm comparing the policy of demonetization to the policy response against pollution. Or to make it even simpler, I'm comparing the government policy to curb corruption to government policy to curb pollution, or the government policy to prevent deaths during the partition. Just because one policy response led to more deaths than another, doesn't mean that the former response wasn't as flawed as the latter. Especially since there are so many differences between the initial conditions that existed during the partition and the conditions that exist today. I will repeat here that simply saying that "less people were affected yet more people died during partition in contrast to demonetization where more people are affected but less people died" is an incomplete argument. Apples and oranges my friend. > You are in the realm of speculation here Unfortunately not. Will this data ever be publicly available? No. Did a black market exist? Most definitely. > Are you actually comparing Nazi ideology with upholding the Constitution of India? What if I don't agree with some of the articles of the constitution? Can I exercise my free speech rights to criticize the said articles without being charged with sedition? Can I express those free speech rights by not standing up for the national anthem and not be charged for an offence? Unfortunately not. I am being instructed by legislation to sit or stand or perform some other body movement to uphold the legitimacy of a document, or an ideology, which I may or may not agree with. That was true for the Nazi salute as well. There are very very subtle points that deal with things like burning the national flag and not "respecting" the national anthem. I urge you to check out the first amendment of the american constition and US supreme court rulings regarding their national anthem and national flag and what constitutes disrespect and what constitutes a criminal offence. Its fascinating stuff. The Indian constitution and the our Supreme court have a long way to go! Anyway, time to get on with my life. Do definitely read up on the First amendment and try comparing that with the free speech as guaranteed by the Indian constitution. Its a good perspective to have.
- 10y ago