Narendra Modi Thread

[ch33zw1z]

I acknowledged the problems India is facing. See my post about the dowry related deaths as an example here.

1. How does your reply counter my statements?

2. The article you linked explains why the BJP party is winning elections, catering to a large voter base (women).

3. The article states:

Honest assessments are fair and to be lauded, and no one should uncritically accept any narrative, but the recent stories in Associated Press, The Washington Post or The New York Times seem facile at best and dismissive at worst. Women from disadvantaged groups in India’s society are rising to better lives, greater hopes, and hundreds of millions have reason to believe a healthier, brighter future awaits them. If that’s not a democratic ideal, I don’t know what is.

Yes, the AP article linked at the beginning of the article presents data that displays the typical actions of nationalists (see paragraph 5 for links, which I did not look at all of them).

So, which source is credible to you, because that's the real crux of your problem. You seem ready to dismiss anything that contradicts whatever it is you're supporting here.

To me, both articles are providing valid data. However, the fairobserver article is attempting to paint the AP article as Facile (lazy reporting), or dismissive. Neither seems accurate at all, but it's the same tactic you have been using when faced with data that makes you uncomfortable as it challenges your view. Fairobserver makes no effort to even challenge the information, just attacks the source. Their article offers different information.

As I provided to you in the other thread: https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

The way you accept information that you prefer, while dismissing information you don't (without even trying to prove it wrong, or inaccurate). This would fall under Confirmation Bias.

 

[Braznor]

1. How does your reply counter my statements?

2. The article you linked explains why the BJP party is winning elections, catering to a large voter base (women).

3. The article states:



Yes, the AP article linked at the beginning of the article presents data that displays the typical actions of nationalists (see paragraph 5 for links, which I did not look at all of them).

So, which source is credible to you, because that's the real crux of your problem. You seem ready to dismiss anything that contradicts whatever it is you're supporting here.

To me, both articles are providing valid data. However, the fairobserver article is attempting to paint the AP article as Facile (lazy reporting), or dismissive. Neither seems accurate at all, but it's the same tactic you have been using when faced with data that makes you uncomfortable as it challenges your view. Fairobserver makes no effort to even challenge the information, just attacks the source. Their article offers different information.

As I provided to you in the other thread: https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

The way you accept information that you prefer, while dismissing information you don't (without even trying to prove it wrong, or inaccurate). This would fall under Confirmation Bias.

Oh yea, my sources are confirmatory bias and yours are pure jewels encrusted in wisdom. Where have I not heard that before?

Okay, you paint the fair observer article as false just for calling the other article as facile. I present the same thing I quote in that post from a different article:

https://www.indiatoday.in/elections...jp-2022-elections-analysis-1924821-2022-03-13

So calling the other article as facile. Whats wrong about that? They certainly have the right. Does the data I posted becomes wrong just because Fair Observer called the AP article facile? Do you want to claim your sources as holy too?

And take your AP's article source article to make accusations at 'Hindu Nationalists' right in the paragraph 5 which you so helpfully assured me had all the right information:

https://apnews.com/article/religion-india-violence-hindu-muslim-bf516bc2fbc0834c5822901f46c5d716

The AP article blames the songs played by the procession and calls these songs "violence against Muslims"

However news reports and videos from the ground have no mention of these "provocative songs"

https://www.republicworld.com/india...th-behind-ram-navami-clashes-articleshow.html

Even Wikipedia, that holy den of all that is left and pure has no mention of these provocative songs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Khargone_violence

So the source in the AP link simply justifying the initial stone pelting on the Hindu procession by claiming the excuse of provocative songs. On top of it all, the violence is blamed on Hindu people alone without referring to the actual events as they transpired on the ground. I can post the same information here from many sources:

https://www.republicworld.com/india...khargone-section-144-imposed-articleshow.html

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/sto...ments-stone-pelting-curfew-1937800-2022-04-15

Videos exist from the scene and these attacks on Hindu religious processions are not new: -

https://www.news18.com/opinion/plai...th-violence-is-a-diabolical-plan-7482541.html

Multiple Hindu processions have been targeted over the course of these past few years. Were provocative songs were played in all of them? That accusation is pure fabrication. What the AP article is doing is strictly presenting an one sided story with the article heavily slanted against the Hindu people.


If that is not bias, tell me what is it? An one sided story with all the cards stacked against one side without any reference to ground realities or the actual chronology of the events that actually transpired on the ground.

So what protects me from confirmation bias is multiplicity of sources and a consistent thread within them to present the facts from all sides of the event.

What is ailing your source is the one sided perspective, justifying anything and everything by blaming 'Hindu Nationalists' Most people in these processions whether Hindus or Muslims are just simple folks going about their faiths in a public manner long accepted in India.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Oh yea, my sources are confirmatory bias and yours are pure jewels encrusted in wisdom. Where have I not heard that before?

Okay, you paint the fair observer article as false just for calling the other article as facile. I present the same thing I quote in that post from a different article:

https://www.indiatoday.in/elections...jp-2022-elections-analysis-1924821-2022-03-13

So calling the other article as facile. Whats wrong about that? They certainly have the right. Does the data I posted becomes wrong just because Fair Observer called the AP article facile? Do you want to claim your sources as holy too?

And take your AP's article source article to make accusations at 'Hindu Nationalists' right in the paragraph 5 which you so helpfully assured me had all the right information:

https://apnews.com/article/religion-india-violence-hindu-muslim-bf516bc2fbc0834c5822901f46c5d716

The AP article blames the songs played by the procession and calls these songs "violence against Muslims"

However news reports and videos from the ground have no mention of these "provocative songs"

https://www.republicworld.com/india...th-behind-ram-navami-clashes-articleshow.html

Even Wikipedia, that holy den of all that is left and pure has no mention of these provocative songs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Khargone_violence

So the source in the AP link simply justifying the initial stone pelting on the Hindu procession by claiming the excuse of provocative songs. On top of it all, the violence is blamed on Hindu people alone without referring to the actual events as they transpired on the ground. I can post the same information here from many sources:

https://www.republicworld.com/india...khargone-section-144-imposed-articleshow.html

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/sto...ments-stone-pelting-curfew-1937800-2022-04-15

Videos exist from the scene and these attacks on Hindu religious processions are not new: -

https://www.news18.com/opinion/plai...th-violence-is-a-diabolical-plan-7482541.html

Multiple Hindu processions have been targeted over the course of these past few years. Were provocative songs were played in all of them? That accusation is pure fabrication. What the AP article is doing is strictly presenting an one sided story with the article heavily slanted against the Hindu people.


If that is not bias, tell me what is it? An one sided story with all the cards stacked against one side without any reference to ground realities or the actual chronology of the events that actually transpired on the ground.

So what protects me from confirmation bias is multiplicity of sources and a consistent thread within them to present the facts from all sides of the event.

What is ailing your source is the one sided perspective, justifying anything and everything by blaming 'Hindu Nationalists' Most people in these processions whether Hindus or Muslims are just simple folks going about their faiths in a public manner long accepted in India.

I did none of what you’re accusing me of. You start your reply with a strawman.

The rest I’m not even bothering to read, the beginning of your reply says it all, as you engage the way you want others not to. So I did, and you still kept on with the logical fallacies.

And quite frankly, they weren’t even my sources in the fair observer article. They were the sources that the fair observer used to try to and prove their own point. Yet, if you go see the AP source THEY linked, it’s not arguing anything in the fair observer article. The fair observer article tries to correlate by claiming at the end that catering to women voters == democracy. Those are not necessarily one and the same

Again, confirmation bias on your side, and in this reply you see some more logical fallacies from you as well.

 

[Braznor]

I did none of what you’re accusing me of. You start your reply with a strawman.

The rest I’m not even bothering to read, the beginning of your reply says it all, as you engage the way you want others not to. So I did, and you still kept on with the logical fallacies.

1. I went through your post multiple times.
2. Followed your instructions to a T and even referenced the link in that article from your recommendation
3.Provided rebuttal from multiple sources showing the same consistent information.

You not even reading my post over a vague claim of logical fallacies shows your fundamental dishonesty when it comes how you are conducting yourself during the course of this conversation.

You won't read. Why? I can guess the reason that it is because I pointed out the real flaw in your sources.

So again my sources are flawed while yours are bejewelled nuggets of information and I'm suffering from confirmation bias? Ha ha, nice try, it might work on the ignorant morons on this forum, but it doesn't cut ice in the real world.

 

[ch33zw1z]

1. I went through your post multiple times.
2. Followed your instructions to a T and even referenced the link in that article from your recommendation
3.Provided rebuttal from multiple sources showing the same consistent information.

You not even reading my post over a vague claim of logical fallacies shows your fundamental dishonesty when it comes how you are conducting yourself during the course of this conversation.

You won't read. Why? I can guess the reason that it is because I pointed out the real flaw in your sources.

So again my sources are flawed while yours are bejewelled nuggets of information and I'm suffering from confirmation bias? Ha ha, nice try, it might work on the ignorant morons on this forum, but it doesn't cut ice in the real world.

you started your reply with logic fallacy argument. You consistently rely on them to defend what stance you’re taking. I would suggest you step back and gain some self awareness.

 

[Perknose]

you started your reply with logic fallacy argument. You consistently rely on them to defend what stance you’re taking. I would suggest you step back and gain some self awareness.

Self awareness is not the OP's strong suit.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Self awareness is not the OP's strong suit.

certainly seems that way. I recall a time where I was similar. I was raised as a conservative religiously, and logical fallacy arguments are a core defensive tactic. The OP displays the same tactics repeatedly.

For instance, I didn’t say the fair observer was wrong in their data. I pointed out that the articles they linked at the bileginni g weren’t really relevant to the point they were trying to make.

The OP either can’t read that, or thought this was an attack on his source and accused me of calling the article false, which I didn’t do.

 

[Perknose]

certainly seems that way. I recall a time where I was similar. I was raised as a conservative religiously, and logical fallacy arguments are a core defensive tactic. The OP displays the same tactics repeatedly.

For instance, I didn’t say the fair observer was wrong in their data. I pointed out that the articles they linked at the bileginni g weren’t really relevant to the point they were trying to make.

The OP either can’t read that, or thought this was an attack on his source and accused me of calling the article false, which I didn’t do.

You know, my fellow mods are not particularly pleased that I allow this. They label it trolling on the OP's part. I see it otherwise. We, the posters, should probably not feed the OP's delusions, but I am not in favor of censorship. The censor almost always thinks they are doing the right thing. I believe in the free marketplace of ideas, and rightly point out (imho) that posters like the OP do their positions no favor, and that "the truth," as best we perceive it, is not only NOT harmed, but reinforced repeatedly and conclusively.

I'd rather let the poster put forth his position, and then personally participate in showing them just how full of shite they, and their ideas, are. It's why I allow far more leeway with so-called "personal attacks" in P&N. My head would explode if it were otherwise, if I couldn't call an idiot peddling nonsense, well, an idiot peddling nonsense!

 

[Braznor]

certainly seems that way. I recall a time where I was similar. I was raised as a conservative religiously, and logical fallacy arguments are a core defensive tactic. The OP displays the same tactics repeatedly.

For instance, I didn’t say the fair observer was wrong in their data. I pointed out that the articles they linked at the bileginni g weren’t really relevant to the point they were trying to make.

The OP either can’t read that, or thought this was an attack on his source and accused me of calling the article false, which I didn’t do.

The core of my message was not in the 'logical fallacy' you claim I committed.

It was in words words from the second paragraph onwards. You are using excuses to invalidate the information I'm presenting as rebuttal. All this claim of 'logical fallacies' or "not giving a shit in reality' are just excuses.

This same kind of shit happens in P&N a lot where the regulars tell me which political party to vote for and yet claim not to not give a shit about Indian politics. There is no sincerity behind their words, the only thing that exists is preaching from a high horse.



So tout your preaching all you want

 

[ch33zw1z]

The core of my message was not in the 'logical fallacy' you claim I committed.

It was in words words from the second paragraph onwards. You are using excuses to invalidate the information I'm presenting as rebuttal. All this claim of 'logical fallacies' or "not giving a shit in reality' are just excuses.

This same kind of shit happens in P&N a lot where the regulars tell me which political party to vote for and yet claim not to not give a shit about Indian politics. There is no sincerity behind their words, the only thing that exists is preaching from a high horse.



So tout your preaching all you want

Yawn, more of the same. Maybe review the posts again. You constructed a strawman (claiming I called the fair observer false, which I did not), and proceeded to then argue that position.

The use of this type of argument is not going to go over well. It’s what people who can’t support their position do.

My response after reviewing the fair observer is clear: they’re point is not supported by claiming others are lazy. The point they’re attempting to make is that democracy == catering to women voters. This is not one at the same.

 

[Braznor]

You know, my fellow mods are not particularly pleased that I allow this. They label it trolling on the OP's part. I see it otherwise. We, the posters, should probably not feed the OP's delusions, but I am not in favor of censorship. The censor almost always thinks they are doing the right thing. I believe in the free marketplace of ideas, and rightly point out (imho) that posters like the OP do their positions no favor, and that "the truth," as best we perceive it, is not only NOT harmed, but reinforced repeatedly and conclusively.

I'd rather let the poster put forth his position, and then personally participate in showing them just how full of shite they, and their ideas, are. It's why I allow far more leeway with so-called "personal attacks" in P&N. My head would explode if it were otherwise, if I couldn't call an idiot peddling nonsense, well, an idiot peddling nonsense!

Concern? For Personal attacks in P&N? Since when? I seen people getting called here everything under the sun here. In comparison, my posts are mild.

 

[Perknose]

Concern? For Personal attacks in P&N? Since when? I seen people getting called here everything under the sun here. In comparison, my posts are mild.

First of all, I said, as a mod, I ALLOW personal attacks. Where's your reading comprehension, numbnuts?

Secondly, you do not get to comment on the mods here. That's a bright line, for reasons that should be obvious. So, I'm going to have to go through channels and report your post, out of respect for my fellow mods that this bright line must be upheld. In summation, it is my personal opinion that you are a feckless idiot.

 

[Braznor]

In your own words:

First of all, I said, as a mod, I ALLOW personal attacks. Where's your reading comprehension, numbnuts?

Secondly, you do not get to comment on the mods here. That's a bright line, for reasons that should be obvious. So, I'm going to have to go through channels and report your post, out of respect for my fellow mods that this bright line must be upheld. In summation, it is my personal opinion that you are a feckless idiot.

You said you are a mod. I didn't address anything about mods to you. You were explaining your views on personal attacks and I wondered since when ANYONE would be worried about personal attacks here.

Personal attacks in P&N? Since when did anyone even worry about it and even paid heed to that rule?

 

[Perknose]

In your own words:


You said you are a mod. I didn't address anything about mods to you. You were explaining your views on personal attacks and I wondered since when ANYONE would be worried about personal attacks here.

Personal attacks in P&N? Since when did anyone even worry about it and even paid heed to that rule?

You really are a fucking idiot.

 

[Braznor]

Eh, I have been called worse here. How does genocidal and Muslim family killer sound?

And he spoke about the law the first time today.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Eh, I have been called worse here.

I’m starting to see why. Connecting dots seems quite challenging for you.

 

[Braznor]

I’m starting to see why. Connecting dots seems quite challenging for you.

Still no proper rebuttals for any of my replies either. The left loves to slander.

 

[Vic]

You know, my fellow mods are not particularly pleased that I allow this. They label it trolling on the OP's part. I see it otherwise. We, the posters, should probably not feed the OP's delusions, but I am not in favor of censorship. The censor almost always thinks they are doing the right thing. I believe in the free marketplace of ideas, and rightly point out (imho) that posters like the OP do their positions no favor, and that "the truth," as best we perceive it, is not only NOT harmed, but reinforced repeatedly and conclusively.

I'd rather let the poster put forth his position, and then personally participate in showing them just how full of shite they, and their ideas, are. It's why I allow far more leeway with so-called "personal attacks" in P&N. My head would explode if it were otherwise, if I couldn't call an idiot peddling nonsense, well, an idiot peddling nonsense!

My hat's off to you. Although I hope you understand that, if the tables were reversed, the OP would not only censor you but would be able to convince himself that he was fighting for free speech while doing so.

 

[Braznor]

You really are a fucking idiot.

See, thats what I'm talking about. Looks like you not only love letting people make personal attacks in P&N. But indulge in them yourself too.

 

[Braznor]

My hat's off to you. Although I hope you understand that, if the tables were reversed, the OP would not only censor you but would be able to convince himself that he was fighting for free speech while doing so.

Again making assumptions out of the ass I see. That's what Perknose did and still haven't provided a rebuttal to what I asked for.

 

[Braznor]

You really are a fucking idiot.

Its been about quite sometime since I asked for one simple thing, anything linking Modi to extremist sayings or actions? After all, the hyperbole rages here in P&N against Modi at every opportunity. It is a reasonable request and quite an easy one too, so it seems.

Its almost been an entire day, you still haven't turned up anything concrete. Just opinion pieces that never fail to present an one sided story.

 

[Perknose]

Its been about quite sometime since I asked for one simple thing, anything linking Modi to extremist sayings or actions? After all, the hyperbole rages here in P&N against Modi at every opportunity. It is a reasonable request and quite an easy one too, so it seems.

Its almost been an entire day, you still haven't turned up anything concrete. Just top down opinions that never fail to present an one sided story.

Your obstinacy makes you blind to the SUBSTANCE of our replies which makes you post like a fact-challenged idiot. I don't think you are an actual troll, but your posts are indistinguishable from one.

 

[brycejones]

See, thats what I'm talking about. Looks like you not only love letting people make personal attacks in P&N. But indulge in them yourself too.

You do realize the rules in P&N ALLOW personal attacks? Have you taken the time to read the rules?

 

[Braznor]

Your obstinacy makes you blind to the SUBSTANCE of our replies which makes you post like a fact-challenged idiot. I don't think you are an actual troll, but your posts are indistinguishable from one.

Whatever I'm. it still does not explain why you haven't yet to do one easy job.

 

[Braznor]

Nver mind.