What defines someone being Wrong or right on public forums?

[Cyclone]

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.

 

I said Snickers are nicer than Mars. Not nicer to Mars.

 

I didn't mean that I find chicken to be tastier than turkey though. I meant that chicken is tastier than turkey. Otherwise it's just an opinion.

 

And it turns out that you've accepted my misleading statement. Snickers contain a form of dried pea, often called a nut, but not one in reality.

See how easy it is to disagree about things when there is no clear moral right or wrong answer, although there was a factual one regarding the peanuts.

[HeadingNorth]

I didn't mean that I find chicken to be tastier than turkey though. I meant that chicken is tastier than turkey. Otherwise it's just an opinion.

 

As you're no doubt aware, a disturbingly large number of people can't or won't tell the difference. They insist that, because they personally find apples more to their own liking than bananas, then apples really are better than bananas.

[danot]

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

Nor do pose a risk to security, criminals and daggers do.

 

Posted by Cyclone

 

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?

No straw man here.

 

The initial discussion was about the double standard of religious exemptions and the attitudes of UK policy makers and certain members of society, such as yourself, who are in support of the wearing of the Niqab in the various types of establishments and social settings where concealing the face would normally be considered an inappropriate thing to do, however, due to there being very little evidence that might otherwise associate the Niqab (not the wearer) to criminality, UK policy makers and certain members of society, such as yourself, see little reason why it's wearer (who could be anyone) should be viewed as someone that poses risk to security, based solely on past evidence, which in turn explains, and gives justification to why, Niqab wearers (who could be anyone) are not and need not be viewed by others with the same degree of suspicion, or presumed to be "up to no good",or, restricted by establishment dress policy, or, be made subject to random policing and security procedures as regularly or as randomly as someone who conceals their face with a none religious or none cultural garment, such as a balaclava, motorcycle helmet or any other none religious/cultural face concealing garment you could name.

 

And this is why you believe there is no double standard, or religious exemptions. Is that about right?

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

In situations where it's relevant to security, I'm sure that assumption is not made.

Given such a situation arises that is. Which I would say isn't likely to happen, but I could be wrong as I'm only basing my assumption on past evidence.

[danot]

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.

Firstly. No it doesn't.

 

Secondly. No I'm not.

 

Thirdly. No I haven't.

[HeadingNorth]

If religious articles are exempt from normal rules on clothing, that is not a double standard; it's merely a standard.

 

 

If, say, we were to ban the niqab because security outweighs religious freedom, but allow the Sikh dagger because it does not - that would be a double standard.

[danot]

As you're no doubt aware, a disturbingly large number of people can't or won't tell the difference. They insist that, because they personally find apples more to their own liking than bananas, then apples really are better than bananas.

Some posters only require statistical evidence HN. Apples would be undoubtedly better than banana's if past evidence on apple sales figures were higher than those for banana's.

[HeadingNorth]

Some posters only require statistical evidence HN. Apples would be undoubtedly better than banana's if past evidence on apple sales figures were higher than those for banana's.

 

They would be better at turning a profit, on that basis. Morally better, or better in health terms, would remain open for debate.

[danot]

If religious articles are exempt from normal rules on clothing, that is not a double standard; it's merely a standard.

:hihi:It's bound to read that since you removed the term double. Doesn't alter it in reality though.

 

 

Posted by HeadingNorth

If, say, we were to ban the niqab because security outweighs religious freedom, but allow the Sikh dagger because it does not - that would be a double standard.

Is that why UK policy makers allow the Nikah ceremony to take place here ? Because it would be a double standard if they didn't allow them?

 

Wait a minute, they have outlawed them. silly me:cool:

[HeadingNorth]

:hihi:It's bound to read that since you removed the term double.

 

You have that sentence backwards. I removed the term "double" because it doesn't belong there.

[HeadingNorth]

Is that why UK policy makers allow the Nikah ceremony to take place here ? Because it would be a double standard if they didn't allow them?

 

Wait a minute, they have outlawed them. silly me:cool:

 

I don't know what the Nikah ceremony is. A double standard would apply if a similar ceremony was allowed for some other religion.

 

Female circumcision is banned, despite some religions advocating it, on health grounds, which supercede religious freedom. But it is banned for all religions that would advocate it; a double standard would only exist if one religious group was allowed to practice it and another was not.