What defines someone being Wrong or right on public forums?

[HeadingNorth]

Because it poses no lesser risk to security than the balaclava or motorcycle helmet.

 

Do you dispute the claim that balaclavas and helmets have, in the past, been used far more often by criminals than have niqabs? Or are you arguing that we should ignore past evidence?

[danot]

Do you dispute the claim that balaclavas and helmets have, in the past, been used far more often by criminals than have niqabs? Or are you arguing that we should ignore past evidence?

No, I'm not arguing we should ignore past evidence, I'm just asking- does automatically presuming but never questioning the assumption that every Niqab wearer must be a Muslim woman pose risk to security?

 

Incidentally, Do you dispute that knives have, in the past, been used far more often by criminals than by Sikhs or myself?

[HeadingNorth]

No, I'm not arguing we should ignore past evidence, I'm just asking- does automatically presuming but never questioning the assumption that every Niqab wearer must be a Muslim woman pose risk to security?

 

In that case, my own answer would be: firstly, that yes it does pose a risk, but a small one since past evidence suggests that you'll be right most of the time; and secondly, I'm not sure it would be accurate to claim that the assumption is never questioned.

[danot]

In that case, my own answer would be: firstly, that yes it does pose a risk, but a small one since past evidence suggests that you'll be right most of the time;

The problem I see here is all past evidence relates to the Niqab not being associated to having been worn by criminals, whereas, any risk to security the Niqab may pose today is related to the criminal wearing the Niqab. They're unrelated. Does that make sense?

 

 

 

posted bt HeadingNorth

and secondly, I'm not sure it would be accurate to claim that the assumption is never questioned.

OK. Rarely!!

[wednesday1]

I always think I'm right (since I wouldn't be posting something I already knew to be false.)

 

Sometimes I turn out not to be. Sometimes I manage to correct other people's erroneous beliefs. Most often, if it's a complex subject such as politics or religion, most people don't concern themselves even with basic logic, let alone reasoned argument, so it's impossible for anyone to ever convince anyone else who is right or wrong.

 

 

More often than not I think you'll find that I am right.

[HeadingNorth]

The problem I see here is all past evidence relates to the Niqab not being associated to having been worn by criminals, whereas, any risk to security the Niqab may pose today is related to the criminal wearing the Niqab. They're unrelated. Does that make sense?

 

Frankly no, it doesn't. They are by definition related.

[danot]

Frankly no, it doesn't. They are by definition related.

 

In what sense?

[salsafan]

Most discussions involve both moral and factual points, but often culminate in opinion (and there are cases where right or wrong is neither a moral nor a factual issue, but simply an opinion. For example I might state that chicken is tastier than turkey, or that snickers are nicer than mars, neither factual in any objective way nor a moral issue.

Extending this idea someone might point out that snickers contain nuts, that's a fact, but someone else will probably dispute it, or further clarify that it's only 40%... So we have the side issue now of nuts, a factual issue to clarify before we can get back to the entirely subjective 'better'.

When you write this, I presume you mean "I personally find chicken is tastier than turkey". This makes it a fact. It is a fact about your own preference. What you wrote before was a statement, that is nonsensical in every sense. It has a semantic error as such.

 

Snickers cannot be nicer to Mars, as they are both objects! When someone write that Snickers contain only 40% of nuts. They are not disputing the fact that it does have nuts rather than it has not. Cos there is actually nothing to dispute. If it is factual that it has nuts, then it has nuts. Sometimes people use "qualifiers" to clarify their original intent of the context of what they mean to imply or to say.

[Cyclone]

No, I'm not arguing we should ignore past evidence, I'm just asking- does automatically presuming but never questioning the assumption that every Niqab wearer must be a Muslim woman pose risk to security?

 

Incidentally, Do you dispute that knives have, in the past, been used far more often by criminals than by Sikhs or myself?

 

You're not a statistically measurable group, criminals and Sikhs are.

 

You've introduced a straw man argument though, who apart from you has said that we must presume that someone wearing a niqab is a Muslim woman? In situations where it's relevant to security, I'm sure that assumption is not made.

[Halibut]

 

 

Because it poses no lesser risk to security than the balaclava or motorcycle helmet.

 

It so obviously does pose a lesser risk.

I'm begining to think you're just doing this to be bloody-minded.

Or you have a communication disorder.