pensivemood

>It has nothing to do with Indian citizens

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].

And people are calling it out en masse.

[1] http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf

>The fact that it’s natural means nothing nature is a cunt.

Natural means, what a human body has been accustomed to, over the course of its evolution. That is what is natural. Not something coming directly from nature. Often both are same since most of the things that we were exposed to during the long course of evolution came directly from nature.

Also, from your other comments, you have a skewed definition of health. You seem to consider a human being healthy even if they can only survive with the help of medicines or modern health care..which is quite stupid...

I said the argument was stupid. Not the person making it. Smart people can sometimes make stupid argument. Even I make stupid arguments sometimes. I can only pray that the people around will tell me straight that my argument is stupid.

Are you telling me that people in HN cannot tell me when my argument is stupid? Is there some flag that I can toggle to let people know that it is ok to tell me when I make a stupid argument?

I mean, I don't know what else is preventing HN from being a safe place for stupid people to gather, pat each other on their back and feel safe, secure and validated...

Oh well, may be it is already is..

Who paid for this? Just wondering...

Can we have less spacex here please? Thank you.

using 20+ floppies to install windows 95 only to get up "windows protection error", like a zillion time, and trying again in hopes it ll work the next time?

It is possible for a "technical document" to appear rigorous enough to untrained eye, but sadly, you can fool people, you cannot fool nature. Which is why "Hyperloop", which was not even an original idea, still remain in paper...

I think hyperloop pretty well fit the "full of shit" category and I can only consider it as a PR stunt...

That is exactly what I thought.

An alien won't be this good at human PR.

>I remember clearly thinking the whole idea of landing the booster as being completely unrealistic, verging on not possible

Please share why you thought it was not possible. Just curious.

Does this take it into account of the possibility that people who sleep longer than 8hrs probably has other unhealthy habits, like lack of exercise etc..

But that does not prevent them from entering a car ride with their own babies. So, yes, people know that roads are dangerous. But no one ever gives a second thought when entering a car ride, even with their own kids, even when they know nothing about the skill/ability of the driver.

Not to mention that you are literally placing the life of you and your fellow riders in the hands of every driver in the incoming traffic...I mean, think about that chance, where 1 in a 1000+ drivers you encounter is doing either one of these..

1. Texting and driving 2. Is drunk 3. Just having a very bad day..

Tell me, what is the justification for taking your family on a joy ride on a highway..

Truth is, the capitalistic society at large encourages vehicle use. That thousands of lives are lost in accidents every year is mentioned, but not highlighted. There are things that warn you about the dangers of smoking. But there are no such thing that prompts you to ask the question, "Is this ride really necessary?" when you are getting into a car.

A lot of things that we do can be attributed to just this selective shunning of society.

What you are starting, is a different debate. This is the issue with this topic. People usually have a hard time differentiating the subtleties involved. Hence could be easily mislead.

What I was arguing is that, there are valid reasons to question the validity of vaccine research. But right now, every one who question the research or application of any single vaccine is labeled an anti-vaxxer and is collectively attacked/ridiculed, and considered to be in the same league as flatearthers. This end up being a situation where there is less and less incentive to put the required effort into safety of vaccines (because there is a huge negative stigma in questioning the safety of a vaccine), that are used to inoculate generation after generation of human beings.

What could go wrong. Right?

>Worst case means you’re quite literally murdering people who can’t survive neither the vaccines nor the disease, best case is things like the HPV were it’s just you or your children getting completely avoidable cancer (still extremely tragic).

So you are telling me that if I don't get vaccines, I ll literally murder a bunch of people. Or I ll get cancer or die of a vaccine preventable disease. Right?

If that is so, flawless logic. Actually the utter stupidity of these kinds of arguments put forward by pro-vaccine people is one of the biggest reasons one can start questioning the safety and necessity of vaccines.

>flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers

Seriously. It hurts me to see the "anti-vaxxers" term thrown around so loosely. There are very legitimate reasons for being skeptical of vaccine research. Events like this appear quite frequently [1]. It is not at all in the same league as "flat-earths".

[1] https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/12/flaws-in-the-cl...