Banning the Burqa?

[NoMoreFaith]

I did include a couple of poor decisions people make in an earlier post, one of which was smoking crack.

The context of the argument was that many people choose to wear a burka.

You responded;

Plenty of women also choose to stay with a man who beats them. Plenty of people choose to smoke crack. I don't see how some number of people making what I consider a poor choice makes my argument fail. Could you clarify how it does?

You are directly comparing the choice to wear a burka with taking crack. Clear. Simple. False Analogy. Perhaps appeal to emotion to boot.

Quit with the back-pedalling, its getting embarrassing. We all make errors on a regular basis, its not a big deal.

We can move on, and allow you to respond to the original post where I pointed this fallacy out, detailing why I feel you are wrong in a rational manner, or you can continue to ignore it through prevarication on a trivial point I explicitly said I would ignore, in which case I will consign you to the same rational bin as the creationists.

Alternatively, I'm happy to take you on in a proper debate in the debate section if you are so convinced of your position to ban the burqa through legislation as the most ethically correct thing to do.

[Shell B]

I would be happy to set up a debate for you two in the debate section. Shoot me a message if you two decide to do it. Better yet, shoot someone a message who knows how to do it.

[Jinkies]

Note: I'll pick a few things to respond to since dealing with this many nested quotes is fucking ridiculous.

I did not compare wearing a burqa to beating your wife, which I'm not saying you do (or don't do, I don't know you). I was listing stupid things people do. Two things are not necessarily being compared simply because they are in the same post.

I'm aware of that, yet you were using them to support your main argument, which you were including the burqa in:

I don't see how some number of people making what I consider a poor choice makes my argument fail. Could you clarify how it does?

In your view, smoking crack is a poor choice, as is wearing a burqa, correct? If not, what was the point of mentioning them in a post about burqas?

It was an example of a poor choice people make. That seems pretty obvious to me. I also wasn't using that example to support my main argument. I was using it to show a flaw in one of your shitty arguments. There's quite a difference there.

You seem to place some non-negligible value on acts because they customs. You are aware that customs are just things people do, right? That means you are giving value to things simply because people do them. That is ridiculous.

Yes, I'm aware what customs are just things people do. I don't give value to things simply because people do them, I simply hold that there is no reason to take value away from things (like customs) if they are not violating the rights of others, or impeding justice. A person demanding that they can only show their face to women police officers does not impede justice unless there are no women police officers about. A person has a right to their own customs; the police (or anyone for that matter) do not have a right to interfere with those customs if they can help it. That is not ridiculous; that is simply the only fair thing to do in a society filled with people from different backgrounds who have different customs.

Note: bolded for emphasis.

What value exactly is being taken away? The only reasons these customs have value to you in the first place is that give it to them illogically and irrationally. They should start at a base point of having NO VALUE. You should examine each belief on own merits before deciding whether or not a custom has value. You fail to do so. That's fine, but be aware that accepting things for no logical reason and with no arguments puts you in the same boat as theists.

"Quote mine?" I posted literally everything you wrote on the subject in this thread. What the fuck did I mine?

You took the context out of my quote in order to strawman my position. I said:

Yes, when needed then of course face coverings should be removed, but customs and religions should be respected.

You then went on to characterize my argument as:

customs and religions should be respected.

That, my friend, is a quote mine and a strawman. I never said "customs and religions should be respected." as a general argument about all customs and religions. I said it quite clearly about face coverings.

Seriously, fuck your claims of quote mining and straw manning. I posted literally the entire parts of your posts dealing with this issue. One was the ENTIRE post. There is no context that was missed. There is no straw man to be manufactured. You made an illogical, irrational statement and I called you on it. Your exact belief, as you stated it, is what I responded to. You're like most atheists - take away the atheistic quotes from people whose arguments are actually logical and rational for you to parrot and you're shown for the illogical and irrational person you are. Here's your entire post again, in the context of this thread (I cut NOTHING out):

Yes, when needed then of course face coverings should be removed, but customs and religions should be respected.

Again, bolded for emphasis.

That is illogical. That is irrational. You are on the same footing as theists with your utter lack of a requirement for arguments to support positions. It's not out of context, but even if it were, THERE IS NO FUCKING CONTEXT IN THE WORLD that makes your comment logical and rational. You should feel shame and a deep and intense sense of self-loathing. You won't, of course, but more's the pity...

Regardless, there is absolutely no context in which your statement is not moronic.

Yet you yourself have said that some customs should be respected if they are logical and reasonable, so clearly there is a context in which "my" statement is not moronic, unless you hold that your own position is also moronic?

Your statement DOESN'T FUCKING WORK if you introduce logic and reason. You promoted blind acceptance of customs. As soon as you introduce actual thought, it no longer agrees with your original statement. As I said repeatedly, no context makes blind acceptance of customs logical or rational.

I never stated "customs and religions should be respected" on its own.

You said the words between those quotation marks, right? I never said you said them alone. I said that they are illogical and irrational. No context makes that stop being true. Those words, which you wrote, promote blind respect toward customs and religions. You can twist and twist as much as you want and you will never change that.

You've strawmanned my argument using a quote mine, and are again strawmanning me by claiming I am putting value on customs when I haven't even mentioned values at all.

Jesus fucking Christ. Please put that bit I responded to, the bit in quotes, into its full context for me so that it makes logical, rational sense. Don't add qualifiers or logic and reasoning since you know full fucking well they're not present in any way in that statement. I get that I quote mined the fuck out of you. I'm not sure how, since I posted your entire fucking argument, but I'm sure I did somehow.

As for values, just replace "value" with "respect" or whatever if I use it again. I had a similar discussion with another illogical and irrational atheist up here and his argument was quite similarly shitty. I'm just getting your wording mixed together.

You are quote mining and strawmanning my argument.

Fuck. I guess if you repeat a lie enough times it MUST come true!

[NoMoreFaith]

I had a similar discussion with another illogical and irrational atheist up here and his argument was quite similarly shitty. I'm just getting your wording mixed together.

Actually, you focused on the fact I pointed out the inadequate analogy you made and ignored all of the actual arguments, which I'm still waiting for you to refute.

If they're that shitty. Debate me. To phrase it in language you may understand, "I fucking dare you."

[Jinkies]

Actually, you focused on the fact I pointed out the inadequate analogy you made and ignored all of the actual arguments, which I'm still waiting for you to refute.

Again, you ignore the fact I didn't make an analogy. If I can't even get through to you on that due to your bias and lack of reading comprehension skills, I'm certainly not wasting time on anything else.

[Shell B]

Oi! Cut it out with the insults, noob. Hold a debate without acting like a cock.

[Jinkies]

I did include a couple of poor decisions people make in an earlier post, one of which was smoking crack.

The context of the argument was that many people choose to wear a burka.

You responded;

Plenty of women also choose to stay with a man who beats them. Plenty of people choose to smoke crack. I don't see how some number of people making what I consider a poor choice makes my argument fail. Could you clarify how it does?

You are directly comparing the choice to wear a burka with taking crack. Clear. Simple. False Analogy. Perhaps appeal to emotion to boot.

Here's what I wrote and responded to again:

This argument also fails (as I noted above) when you consider the number of Islamic women who choose to wear the burqa.

Plenty of women also choose to stay with a man who beats them. Plenty of people choose to smoke crack. I don't see how some number of people making what I consider a poor choice makes my argument fail. Could you clarify how it does?

His argument was that my argument failed due to women choosing to wear a burqa. I listed a number of poor choices people make as evidence that, just perhaps, humans are a bit fallible when it comes to decision making. I was pointing out a flaw in his argument when I mentioned smoking crack. I was in no way comparing it to wearing a burqa. You are completely misrepresenting my words.

---

Oi! Cut it out with the insults, noob. Hold a debate without acting like a cock.

Is constantly falsely claiming that I'm committing one fallacy after another not acting like a cock? All I do is say "fuck" a lot and point out, quite correctly, that the people I'm talking to have no fucking clue how to comprehend written English.

And "noob?" You would me, thir. My noobness stings most savagely now...

[Shell B]

I don't care that you say fuck a lot. I care that you are condescending douchehat. Reading comprehension is not a problem here. I can comprehend quite fully what you are writing. I simply disagree with you. I also think that you're an asshole.

[Jinkies]

I don't care that you say fuck a lot. I care that you are condescending douchehat. Reading comprehension is not a problem here. I can comprehend quite fully what you are writing. I simply disagree with you. I also think that you're an asshole.

Cool beans! I'm not really concerned with people thinking I'm an asshole. I consider the guys I'm talking to and folks who use "noob" as an insult to be much more assholish than me, but it takes all kinds.

If you have compelling arguments as to why you disagree with me, I'd love to hear them, though. Either on the burqa (which I'm quite aware I could be wrong on), or on Ti's lack of logic and rationality (which I'm sure as fuck not), I'd love to hear your arguments.

It's hard for me not to be condescending to the illogical and irrational, though. That's the reason I stopped communicating with theists a while back. I was hoping atheists would be better, but so far that certainly hasn't been the case. I'm aware that my condescension is a personal problem, though, but it's a weakness I doubt I'll ever shake. Hopefully people will just stop making illogical and irrational statements and it'll be a moot point.

[Tiberius]

It was an example of a poor choice people make. That seems pretty obvious to me. I also wasn't using that example to support my main argument. I was using it to show a flaw in one of your shitty arguments. There's quite a difference there.

It doesn't matter if you were using it to support your main argument or not, the fact that you used the word "also" makes it a comparison, since there was nothing but my statement for the word "also" to refer to. It didn't show a flaw in my argument either. You held that the burqa is a tool of oppression; I pointed out (rightly) that it was also used as a piece of clothing, chosen by women to wear. Things should not be banned just because a group of people use them in a particular way, otherwise we should ban all cars since some people drive them whilst drunk and kill people.

Note: bolded for emphasis.

What value exactly is being taken away? The only reasons these customs have value to you in the first place is that give it to them illogically and irrationally. They should start at a base point of having NO VALUE. You should examine each belief on own merits before deciding whether or not a custom has value. You fail to do so. That's fine, but be aware that accepting things for no logical reason and with no arguments puts you in the same boat as theists.

They can start out with no value if you want, or they can all start out with the same value (both ways they are treated equally). My belief is that we all have certain rights; one of which is the right to treat our bodies how we like, and hold customs that we like, provided they don't violate the rights of others. Banning the burqa reduces this right, and for no good reason. To go along with your method of assigning all customs with 0 value, when evaluating a custom, we must consider whether it inherently violates the rights of others. I contend that the simple act of wearing a burqa is not violating anyone's rights; moreover, it is the enforcement of the burqa that does, which is a different subject entirely. Therefore, we must give the custom of burqa wearing (that is, the act of wearing a burqa by choice) an equal value to that of wearing a t-shirt.

Seriously, fuck your claims of quote mining and straw manning. I posted literally the entire parts of your posts dealing with this issue. One was the ENTIRE post. There is no context that was missed. There is no straw man to be manufactured. You made an illogical, irrational statement and I called you on it. Your exact belief, as you stated it, is what I responded to.

No, my exact belief is not what you responded to. Let me clarify my quote mining; you posted my full quote, this is true. However, you then proceeded to simply lift a set of words out of that quote and hold them as my entire argument, completely ignoring the context which came before them. This is the quote mine I am talking about, and the strawman as well.

Here's your entire post again, in the context of this thread (I cut NOTHING out):

Yes, when needed then of course face coverings should be removed, but customs and religions should be respected.

Again, bolded for emphasis.

That is my point! You bold a section of my quote, and take it as my whole argument. You ignore the context that comes before it. That is a quote mine. It's a very silly quote mine, since anyone can spot you making it, but it is still a quote mine since you are simply lifting a partial quote of what I say, changing the context from something specific (applying to face coverings) to something generic.

That is illogical. That is irrational.

Actually you're wrong no this point as well, since the phrase "customs and religions should be respected" is not an argument nor is it even a claim, it's merely an opinion. As such, it cannot possible be illogical on its own. This really is basic logic. You think I need reading comprehension 101? You need logic 101. Please, if you think I'm wrong, point out the logical fallacy in the statement "customs and religions should be respected". Do not reference anything but the words used in that phrase, because your claim is that those words are illogical and irrational, nothing more.

You are on the same footing as theists with your utter lack of a requirement for arguments to support positions.

Now we're getting somewhere; you understand that arguments are needed to support positions, well done. However, I've spent this entire thread outlining my arguments. You cannot simply ignore them and then claim that my conclusion is illogical (not that "customs and religions should be respected" is even my conclusion in the first place).

You promoted blind acceptance of customs.

No, your strawman of my position did this.

As I said repeatedly, no context makes blind acceptance of customs logical or rational.

I gave you the context! Jebus.

You said the words between those quotation marks, right? I never said you said them alone. I said that they are illogical and irrational. No context makes that stop being true. Those words, which you wrote, promote blind respect toward customs and religions. You can twist and twist as much as you want and you will never change that.

No, those words do not promote blind respect towards customs and religions. I made sure I put them in the right context, and I even mentioned exceptions.

Please put that bit I responded to, the bit in quotes, into its full context for me so that it makes logical, rational sense.

My entire quote was "Yes, when needed then of course face coverings should be removed, but customs and religions should be respected.". This was in addition to my arguments about why the burqa should not be banned, and in addition to my stipulation that there were exceptions. Please, if you think my arguments are illogical or irrational, point out where they are. By that, I mean you should show me the logical fallacies I am using, preferably in some logical form. Note, the phrase "but customs and religions should be respected" is not an argument on its own; it is simply an addendum to my argument about why the burqa should be allowed.