5 ms·

>Most people are just repeating something they've heard, and couldn't analyze the merits of a claim if they wanted to. This is something I have thought about a

>Most people are just repeating something they've heard, and couldn't analyze the merits of a claim if they wanted to. This is something I have thought about a bit over last several years. A lot of people I trust to have good intentions seem to regularly indulge in untruths or exaggerations to rile up support for their cause. One particular example that comes to mind is how pretty much all liberal voices (including nobel peace prize winner Kalyan Sathyarthi) spread lies about a child labour bill in India that was passed in 2016. All of them were saying in unison that this bill was weakening the existing child labour laws and will allow all sort of child exploitation. So, I decided to read the bill and the original act that the bill was supposed to amend. I was stunned. There was absolutely no truth to the claims. The bill was actually making the child labour law much, much more stringend and I, even with my programmer in bug-fixing mode brain, couldn't conjure up a single hypothetical scenario where a child was forbidden from working earlier would now be allowed to work. So why were all these people lying? Why would Kalyan Sathyarthi, of all people, who has saved hundreds of thousands of children from child labour and trafficking, lie about something that pertains directly to his life's work? The only explanation I could think of is that perhaps the law didn't go as far enough or didn't include certain amendments as they wanted and this was their way of pressurizing the government to listen to them. But that still left a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps this is something my brain, trained to value truth above everything else, isn't quite mature enough to understand.

kevinwang 5y ago
Never heard of it before, but just googled it and it looks like it introduced a new exemption for children to work for their families: https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/indias-new-child-labor-law-billed-to-fail/ https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/indias-new-child-labor-law-b...
- alex_smart 5y ago
  Yes, I just told you that everybody was lying about the bill.
  - random314 5y ago
    No. The article goes against what you have been claiming. How did your programmer brain not see the flaws satyarthi is pointing out? Why such shoddy/research or comments on your part?
    - alex_smart 5y ago
      >The article goes against what you have been claiming. Not really, that article is an example of people spreading the lies. Perhaps it was not clear to you, but my claim in the previous comment was that a, pretty much all liberal voices were saying that bill would weaken the existing child labour laws and b, that all of them were lying. So the fact that you can find many such articles saying those things is not really inconsistent with my claim. >How did your programmer brain not see the flaws satyarthi is pointing out? Because they did not exist. Like I said, I read the bill and the law that the bill seeked to amend and found that there was not a single instance or way in which the bill would weaken the child labour law. In fact, in was very significantly strengthening the child labour law. Look, I know for you it is just one random person speaking on the internet vs hundreds of sources and people that you inherently trust. So, I can understand if your instinct is to not believe what I say and in that case you are welcome to just ignore me and move on. But if you actually want to get to the bottom of this, then please do read the bill (now act) and the original law, and you will find that I am right. All you would need to prove me wrong will be a single example, however hypothetical or far-fetched, of a situation in which it was earlier forbidden for a child to work that would have been allowed under the new bill.
      - random314 5y ago
        You are simply placing an absurd requirement on the reader. The article is pretty clear. New exemptions are being added to the law. Is this true or false?
        alex_smart 5y ago
        False. Also, I figured out why your username seemed familiar and I do not want to discuss anything with you. Not this. Not anything else. Ever. I hope you will respect my choice. Have a good day. There is already another person who I am discussing this with, and we are already much along into the discussion that we ever got here. So you can follow that thread to understand more. >You are simply placing an absurd requirement on the reader I admitted so much in the previous comment, no? Ignore and move on.

kevinwang 5y ago

Never heard of it before, but just googled it and it looks like it introduced a new exemption for children to work for their families: https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/indias-new-child-labor-law-billed-to-fail/ https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/indias-new-child-labor-law-b...

alex_smart 5y ago
Yes, I just told you that everybody was lying about the bill.
- random314 5y ago
  No. The article goes against what you have been claiming. How did your programmer brain not see the flaws satyarthi is pointing out? Why such shoddy/research or comments on your part?
  - alex_smart 5y ago
    >The article goes against what you have been claiming. Not really, that article is an example of people spreading the lies. Perhaps it was not clear to you, but my claim in the previous comment was that a, pretty much all liberal voices were saying that bill would weaken the existing child labour laws and b, that all of them were lying. So the fact that you can find many such articles saying those things is not really inconsistent with my claim. >How did your programmer brain not see the flaws satyarthi is pointing out? Because they did not exist. Like I said, I read the bill and the law that the bill seeked to amend and found that there was not a single instance or way in which the bill would weaken the child labour law. In fact, in was very significantly strengthening the child labour law. Look, I know for you it is just one random person speaking on the internet vs hundreds of sources and people that you inherently trust. So, I can understand if your instinct is to not believe what I say and in that case you are welcome to just ignore me and move on. But if you actually want to get to the bottom of this, then please do read the bill (now act) and the original law, and you will find that I am right. All you would need to prove me wrong will be a single example, however hypothetical or far-fetched, of a situation in which it was earlier forbidden for a child to work that would have been allowed under the new bill.
    - random314 5y ago
      You are simply placing an absurd requirement on the reader. The article is pretty clear. New exemptions are being added to the law. Is this true or false?
      - alex_smart 5y ago
        False. Also, I figured out why your username seemed familiar and I do not want to discuss anything with you. Not this. Not anything else. Ever. I hope you will respect my choice. Have a good day. There is already another person who I am discussing this with, and we are already much along into the discussion that we ever got here. So you can follow that thread to understand more. >You are simply placing an absurd requirement on the reader I admitted so much in the previous comment, no? Ignore and move on.