I hear you (I think), but that's not really a question about knowable facts — it's a call to make a judgment about the preferability of contrasting situations, which is based on a lot of fuzzy, essentially unknowable things that aren't facts. So what one may consider evidence for one point of view or another is pretty far from definitive, and someone reasonable couldn't necessarily fault your reason for having one belief/opinion or another.
On Mon, 2024-04-29 at 21:24 +0530, Alok Prasanna Kumar via Silklist wrote: > Sometimes you can have all the evidence you want but I think one > changes one's mind based on how one feels at a certain moment (as the > Oatmeal comic points out) > > My personal example has to do with the Preamble to the Constitution > of India and a current political debate around it. > > For context - during the Emergency (for non-Indians: suspension of > civil liberties and elections) between 1975 and 1977, the Indira > Gandhi led government drastically amended the Constitution to try and > neuter any independent institutions and limit civil liberties. As > part of the 42nd amendment, the government amended the preamble to > the Constitution of India to insert the words "socialist" and > "secular" to make India a "Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic > Republic." This was in addition to other wholesale changes to the > Constitution limit judicial review, right to property, et al. > > Large parts of the 42nd amendment were undone by subsequent > governments and a little by the courts, but the fact remains that > India's preamble reads "Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic > Republic". > > Cut to the present and there's a government at the Union which chafes > at the idea of anything "secular" and "socialist". There's a slightly > extreme wing of the ruling party that would want to get rid of the > words "secular" and "socialist". > > The good faith basis to remove the words "socialist" and "secular" > would be to say that India's constitution was secular and socialist > even before these words were added to the preamble. After all, the > preamble also promises to "secure justice social, economic and > political", and "liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and > worship". That apart, the fundamental rights parts expressly > guarantee non-discrimination on religious lines and the freedom to > practice religion. Not to mention the guarantees of equality of > opportunity and affirmative action for oppressed communities. So > maybe, just the two words "secular" and "socialist" added by an > illegitimate government in a bid to cling to power permanently > shouldn't hold much weight. > > On the other hand, removing the words "secular" and "socialist" from > the preamble seems like the first chip blow against these ideas that > undergird the Constitution. Especially so since the ideology of the > current ruling party is anything but socialist or secular. This is a > ruling party which believes that India should be for Hindus only and > the state should prioritise Hindus over all others. And this is a > party which has, in the past, promised to dismantle social justice > programmes and currently oversees an India that's more unequal than > it has been during independence. So, one feels, removing "socialist" > and "secular" is just the beginning of a larger project of > dismantling these ideas (and not just the words) from the > Constitution itself and should be resisted at all costs. > > I must admit I hold both views in alternating quarters of the year. I > can make either argument with passion and all the relevant facts. A > few months ago I had a passionate debate with a colleague about why I > believe it's ok if "secular" and "socialist" are removed from the > constitution". At the height of elections now, I believe the > opposite. > > This maybe a peculiar case of extreme waffling but I seem to change > my mind about this every few months. > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 5:53 PM Udhay Shankar N via Silklist > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 5:18 PM Udhay Shankar N via Silklist > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What is a deeply held belief of yours that you think you would > > > change if > > > presented with data that contradicts the belief? > > > > > > > > > In the context of this question, this is essential reading (even if > > you're already familiar with it) > > > > https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe > > > > Udhay > > > > -- > > ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
-- Silklist mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
