What defines someone being Wrong or right on public forums?

[Cyclone]

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

 

No straw man here.

 

The initial discussion was about the double standard of religious exemptions

There is no double standard, the standard applies to all religions.

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

As is typical you can't see the difference between someone supporting the freedom to do something (me) and someone supporting the idea that something should be done (not me).

in the various types of establishments and social settings where concealing the face would normally be considered an inappropriate thing to do,

You don't use the law to stop 'inappropriate' behaviour

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,

Did you just say that because there is no evidence to suggest that niqab wearers are a security risk, people don't see them as such. What a surprise!

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.

Is that surprising? If the evidence indicates that there is no risk from people wearing these things, why would anyone think that there was a risk from them? Your logic isn't just circular, it's disappearing up it's own backside!

 

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

No, there is no double standard.

 

 

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.

You aren't basing it on anything except conjecture as far as I can tell.

[danot]

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

Of course it belongs there. How can it not?

 

A garment that conceals the face, 'is a garment that conceals the face'! What else can it be?

 

Do you remember what your reply was when I said- "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?"

 

To which you replied- "Frankly no. They are by definition related."

 

Hence: Religious and cultural garments that conceal the face and none religious garments that conceal the face must be, by your definition- related.

[Cyclone]

It cannot because there are not two standards. There is just one.

 

The standard is that wearing a head covering is legal, and that if there is some evidence that it might be for criminal reasons then you may be asked to remove it in some situations, for example in a bank or at a petrol station.

 

That's a single standard and it's based on evidence.

[danot]

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

Then google it!!

 

Posted by HeadingNorth

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.

That's nonsense. You're not seriously trying to make me believe that "religious exemptions" don't apply to me because I don't follow a religion are you? That''d be another double standard in itself right there.

[salsafan]

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.

 

Sorry, it still does not work for me. A chocolate cannot be "nicer" to another chocolate. Food are supposed to taste good. You may say that a Snickers Bar is TASTIER than a Mars Bar. In this instance, it does not matter if you used the word "to" or "than". You used the wrong choice of adjective to describe the actual food.

 

People are nice.

Food are tasty.

 

Also, because it is your own opinion regarding the food item, and how you find it. I would have classified that as a personal comment. Therefore it is factual that "Cyclone found chicken tastier than turkey". This is a fact. It is not a fact if you removed yourself out of the sentence. You cannot make a blanket supposed "universal" statement like "Chicken is tastier than turkey". Exactly how do you scientifically measure "tastier" ??? It is nonsense. It makes no sense. That is not a fact.

 

You are also wrong about the dried pea. It states on their ingredients list that it is peanut.

 

Snickers ingredients are: milk chocolate (sugar, cocoa butter, chocolate, skimmed milk, lactose, milkfat, soy lecithin, artificial flavor), peanuts, corn syrup, sugar, skimmed milk, butter, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, lactose (a milk product), salt, egg whites and artificial flavor.[citation needed]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snickers

 

If you say that I was misled, then I believe what you say is untrue in a factual context, as the ingredient list publicised by the manufacturer states that. Unless they have their labelling wrong... I am more likely to believe them than to believe you.

 

Sometimes when people talk, they have a moral truth held in their mind when they talk. Therefore this is what others are "fighting" about. It is getting to this moral truth.

 

Take the example thread about the Castle Market. Is it morally correct for the local government to put themselves first on decisions than on the people whom they are supposed to govern and provide a service for ? No, it is not. So therefore the needs of the people have to be put first. Whatever the local government provides in terms of new facilities, have to provide for its existing clients, as well as meeting their own regulations and targets or whatever. Without the loss or effect on its existing social dynamic or livelihood of the people there. If the local government just decides to do whatever, in terms of meeting targets but indirectly affect the people, then they are being "unethical" and "immoral". This is based on the fact that, the local government exists to govern people. If they do not meet this responsibility, then they are being unethical or wrong in their job, right?

 

Facts are based on scientific truths.

Moral values are based on people defined truths.

[danot]

There is no double standard, the standard applies to all religions.

No, the "exemption" applies to all religions, which happens to be "the double standard"

 

Poated by Cyclone

As is typical you can't see the difference between someone supporting the freedom to do something (me) and someone supporting the idea that something should be done (not me).

Do you support the freedom to wear a balaclava without being stopped by police or security or being asked to remove it in when in certain establishments and social environments?

 

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

You don't use the law to stop 'inappropriate' behaviour

Not true. We've already established that the police have power to arrest someone that ignores repeated requests to remove a balaclava or puts it back on after being told that it's inappropriate to wear it.

 

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

Did you just say that because there is no evidence to suggest that niqab wearers are a security risk,

No, I said it because using past evidence as benchmark to determine to what degree of risk the Niqab poses risk to our current methods and heightened levels of security, you, among others, are failing to notice, or simply refusing to acknowledge, that it is compromising our current requirements for heightened security levels because past evidence of the Niqab being associated with past crimes has no baring whatsoever on why we felt it necessary to heighten our current security levels. And the fact that the Niqab is specifically worn to conceal the identity of the wearer (who could be anyone) should make my point plainly obvious.

 

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

people don't see them as such. What a surprise!

Which is why security is being compromised.

 

 

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

Is that surprising? If the evidence indicates that there is no risk from people wearing these things, why would anyone think that there was a risk from them?

Already covered this^^

 

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

Your logic isn't just circular, it's disappearing up it's own backside!

Is it really? Why would that be?, No, let me guess, is it because you've typed yet another petty put down quip at the end of another sentence because you think it makes you look witty?

 

Rightyo Cyclone... I concede. what shall we talk about next?

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

No, there is no double standard.

You aren't basing it on anything except conjecture as far as I can tell.

There is a double standard, and it must be plainly obvious to you seeing as your reason for saying there isn't one is- " My argument would only apply to other garments that have religious or cultural significance also.

[salsafan]

One word sums it all up: context.

[danot]

It cannot because there are not two standards. There is just one.

 

The standard is that wearing a head covering is legal, and that if there is some evidence that it might be for criminal reasons then you may be asked to remove it in some situations, for example in a bank or at a petrol station.

 

That's a single standard and it's based on evidence.

Cyclone. If the past evidence pointed toward 99.99% of civilians being bank robbers, members of the IRA or unhinged knife wielding crack dealing lunatics and the remaining 00.01% were honest living members of society that have no intent to commit such crimes, I wouldn't feel need to be arguing this point over and over as I have, as the evidence put against my argument would be overwhelming.

 

But the past evidence doesn't paint such a picture, which is why I do feel need to argue this point over and over because all evidence points to it being the reverse, but, despite all evidence pointing to it being the reverse, every accountable member with the exception of none of the 99.99% of honest living members of society that are given the right to wear a face a concealing garment are looked upon with a critical eye or a hint of suspicion whenever it's worn in certain establishments and social environments due to there being a proportionality small yet potentially serious risk of the wearer being one of the 00.01% that are criminally inclined, whereas, religious face concealing garments (such as the Niqab) are not viewed that way despite there still being a proportionality small yet serious risk of one of the 00.01% who are criminally inclined having the same freedom to wear it.

[danot]

One word sums it all up: context.

Taking what you say out of context:- The magic formula.

[salsafan]

Taking what you say out of context:- The magic formula.

 

No, you are absolutely right there. I did take the context very differently, and I did not expect Cyclone to then quote me, and we went into this anal discussion somewhat.

 

Is being right or wrong on a public forum the same as being right or wrong in face to face debating? Is it necessary to refrain from revealing one's true feelings on sensitive issues such as ethnicity, religion, culture, homosexuality when on public forums in case of verbal backlash, or it totally different as membership anonymity tends to give cause to the less savory traits of debating such as nit-picking, name calling, trolling and the "majority rule" mentality whereby a resounding 'you're wrong', or, troll, or, racist by the majority is deemed sufficient evidence the minority is wrong?

 

To answer the original post. This is purely my own opinion, and experiences of online forums.

 

In real life, one wants to make friends and obviously will self censor, and may respect someone else's opinion for what it is. As each opinion is purely personal, and individual, and should and can exist for what it is. Also, when in a one to one context, the context of that interaction is one of friendship. How does that compare to multiple people interacting at the same time, discussing in a more generic way about some random topic? Should a person really put their own lives on the line and be criticised in any shape or form? The answer is "no".

 

The interaction in a thread on a forum that allows so many people to access and to write on it, is not the same as a decision to go and meet someone and to engage in discussion with them.

 

Who is right or who is wrong on a forum? It depends on the mass collective consciousness. I certainly would take offence if someone criticised my ethnicity, religion, or culture... Exactly what is there "to" discuss? I am me. I know me. If you do not accept it. Go away. Simple.