Inferences Opinions With Facts: Fill & Download for Free

The clamor for a rollback is getting pitchier by the day, however, the reasons are getting diluted with each passing minute.Queues are more manageable now, people not as restless and cash more freely available. Basically the agenda behind the opposition of the un-united opposition front is as acidic as dilute vinegar. Acrid, but tolerable.By refusing to attend Parliament and by addressing motley crowds - youngsters via video conference, rally in Agra, addressing BJP MPs - with varying degrees of emotion and wit, Modi has cocked a snook at those clamouring for him at the Parliament. It is evident that there is no rule that demands his presence there. The speakers of both houses were heard stating that they could/would not ensure his presence during the debate.Also, Modi is giving the opposition enough rope to hang themselves with. He is sitting around and watching these people heckle and fight and the picture that seems to emerge is of people personally affected by the demonetization because they are the hoarders of black money. True or untrue, the people of India watching the proceedings are being allowed to draw these inferences.Those who are ostensibly protesting for the very same people of India outside, are giving the exact same impression. By not acknowledging and by not giving them the time of the day, the hoi polloi are being gently or not so gently nudged to form a similar opinion. All this without saying a single word in the Parliament.The long rope is getting twisted into knots and soon all those against demon-itization shall find themselves cornered and tied up in knots - all because the picture that is being shown is that those against are the ones who have hoarded black, ill-gotten wealth and those who are not protesting, therefore stand for demon-itization, are the white, clean political party (truth notwithstanding).Is Modi afraid, you ask? Modi is sitting with his team laughing over kadak chai about how he has the entire opposition in a tizzy once again during a Parliament session. He is laughing about how they are scrambling like rats in a room where a snake has been let loose.Without saying a word in the Parliament, he could do this. Why does the man need to debate? In any case, he is a better orator than debater, so better stick to giving speeches would be his strategy, I suppose.Meanwhile RaGa, Sitaram Yecchuri, Derek O'Brien and others are hunting for that law that will force this man to come to the House…Considering contempt notice against Modi for not attending Parliament: Sitaram Yechury ups the anteKadak desi Ramdev chai for them or special Swiss tea? Whatever it is, it will be served when the chaiwala wants to serve it and not at their asking, that seems certain.Edit:PM Modi did attend the Lok Sabha on the morning of 23/11/16 but sat there without speaking a single word. Hence quashing the PM does not attend Parliament but speaks at rock concert (albeit via Video Conference) charge in part. Possibly because of the opposition's charge that they were looking for a legal charge to slap on his non-attendance? Wheels within wheels…Meanwhile, the un-united opposition seems to be quick to drop the 'un' and become one as they now express dissatisfaction over the PM's silent presence and demand a debate under adjournment.The implications of this would be somewhat clear to those unaware by checking out this link.http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/abstract/adjournment_motion.htm

Apparently not. For example, I answered a question about why Lee Harvey Oswald shot Dallas police officer J.D. Tippet. I said he didn’t, as nobody was ever charged with that crime. My point was that in the Official Narrative of the JFK assassination, the Narrative accuses Oswald of killing Tippet to create the inference that Oswald must have been desperate to flee the scene after shooting JFK.In response, people reminded me that twelve people witnessed the shooting of Tippet— not a fact that I recall from my own research, but others say so, and their source is the National Archives.I responded that their source for the “twelve eye witnesses” is the same source that is trying to tell us— despite absence of truth and plenty of evidence to the contrary— that Oswald shot JFK. I also noted that it was interesting that twelve witnesses lived to tell the tale of Oswald shooting Tippet, after he presumably shot JFK, while eighteen of twenty-three material witnesses to the shooting in Dealey Plaza died by violence in the four years after the assassination.So, I’m a kook— a conspiracy theorist— whose opinion that someone other than Oswald killed JFK cannot be changed by facts.You may draw your own conclusions, but my take on this question is that, yes, a conspiracy theorist’s opinion could be changed by fact— so long as it’s credible fact, not asserted simply for the sake of supporting a demonstrably false inference.

Let’s be clear here. FACTS ARE NOT RACIST. They are facts. Opinions may be racist and such. It is not racist to know facts. What one does with facts is important for opinion.If you knew a certain neighborhood was full of COVID-19 patients would you think me wrong to be more careful and wary should I have to go there? If you know a certain neighborhood was full of criminals would you think me wrong to be more careful and wary should I go there?Human beings cannot operate on perfect knowledge. We have to operate on incomplete data all the time. When you do not have absolute data, then general inferences are what keep you going safely. Suppose you know that some people fall through the ice and die. Would you walk on ice (frozen lake) without at least checking that it is thick enough to be safe?Prejudice is simply this battery of basic general information that guides you when you have less than perfect information. Since I presume (now days you cannot be too sure) you are a girl…. would you treat all men like they were your boyfriend? Of course not! You have one set of rules for your boyfriend because you know a lot about him, and you have more general rules for men. This is what you mistake for racism when you see facts.People who want to be safe need to know the general set of information. I live in Alabama. We have a city Birmingham that is sadly the location in much of the city of some pretty racist bigoted black people. They tend to attack white people. Since I am white I stay out of that area of the city. Now does every black person that lives there act badly. No! But it only takes one. Reality interferes very fast with desires for racial happiness and sadly a lot of good people get judged by it.The crime statistics are a way to know general information. They are not individual statements.Now I must say for the record that I know the racial stress in the black communities and decent nice black people have to be very strong and wonderful people to stand up to the social pressures and be good people. I honor such people a great deal.