3 ms·
>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, b
by 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 agoYou 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 agoFalse. 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.
- native_samples 5y agoHe is not imposing any requirements on the reader, just reporting his own experience and indicating how his claims can be double checked, should you so wish. A claim of "lots of liberal media are lying about an Indian law" cannot be refuted by citing that same media, and making him say it repeatedly doesn't seem likely to yield any further insight.
- random314 5y agoHe could just quote or reference the particular part of the bill/law in question instead of asking the reader to read the entire thing. He also does not respond to simple yes/no questions. Does the law relax the restrictions on child labour for family businesses- yes/no? Several paragraphs about programmer brain, but no answer to simple yes/no questions. How absurd is it that several dozen media articles cant be trusted, but an hn comment about programmer brain debugging the law, with no citations, must be trusted.