What defines someone being Wrong or right on public forums?

[Cyclone]

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.

You're trying to contend that food cannot be described as nice...

In this disagreement there is no morally right answer. However there is a factual one.

 

niceAdjective/nīs/

 

1. Pleasant; agreeable; satisfactory: "we had a nice time".

Food can be described as nice if it is satisfactory.

 

 

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.

I can certainly make that statement. I did. And now you're arguing with me about it despite there being no factual or moral basis for a conclusion to be reached.

 

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

Indeed. But point of fact, the peanut is not in any way a nut, nor related to the entire nut genus. See what happens when we think we know things.

 

 

 

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.

Now look, you've gone and made yourself look silly because you thought a peanut was a type of nut!

 

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.

What is the moral truth of snickers vs mars and chicken vs turkey?

 

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.

Perchance I disagree though. Can you prove that your moral judgement is correct? Of course not. Indeed to argue on a point of moral correctness is futile as morality is fluid.

...blah...

 

Facts are based on scientific truths.

Science doesn't really deal in facts so much as theories.

Moral values are based on people defined truths.

Societal norms of behaviour I'd say, and like I said, it's fluid, so a rather shaky place to base an argument.

[Cyclone]

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

No, that's simply a standard. You seem to be suggesting that there shouldn't be an exemption at all (I take it you're not talking about head coverings now as there is no official exemption because there is no ban on wearing them).

 

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?

Of course I support the freedom to wear it.

I also support some of the laws that allow the police to check someones identity (laws which apply to all). And I support the right of private places to decide what is acceptable clothing.

 

 

 

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.

You're exaggerating. They have the power in a very limited circumstance of where a S60aa order is in place. This is generally not the case.

 

 

 

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.

This is just gibberish double speak. You can't just decide that because you don't like it you'll ignore all the past evidence.

Your point is that you have something against the niquab and are desperately trying to find a justification for the stance you've taken.

 

 

Which is why security is being compromised.

Except that it isn't. The evidence proves this. You just keep making the claim that it is.

 

 

 

Already covered this^^

Likewise.

 

 

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?

It's circular because you keep making a reference to how there is no evidence that the niquab is a security risk and then attempting to use that lack of evidence as a justification for treating it as a security risk.

It's stupid.

 

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

 

I'd like to avoid it if at all possible, it's a frustrating experience as you're illogical and irrational.

[Cyclone]

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.

 

You've claimed a legal double standard though, now you're just referring to one of attitude.

[danot]

No, that's simply a standard. You seem to be suggesting that there shouldn't be an exemption at all (I take it you're not talking about head coverings now as there is no official exemption because there is no ban on wearing them).

I'm not suggesting any such thing. I'm stating that there SHOULDN'T BE ANY EXEMPTIONS AT ALL IF THEY COMPROMISE SECURITY OR CONFLICT WITH LEGISLATION.

 

 

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

Of course I support the freedom to wear it.

I also support some of the laws that allow the police to check someones identity (laws which apply to all). And I support the right of private places to decide what is acceptable clothing.

The laws may well have been written intending them to apply to all, but security and crime prevention policing procedures aren't considered necessary to all because not all, i,e- anyone wearing a Niqab, or a Sikh carrying an offensive weapon, are exempt ( with no conditional restrictive circumstances)

 

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

You're exaggerating. They have the power in a very limited circumstance of where a S60aa order is in place.

Limited powers which could get you arrested if you refuse to remove a face concealing garment that is neither religious nor cultural.

 

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

This is just gibberish double speak. You can't just decide that because you don't like it you'll ignore all the past evidence.

Your point is that you have something against the niquab and are desperately trying to find a justification for the stance you've taken.

I do have something against it. Do you remember me telling you what it is I have against it? Or are you disingenuously and deliberately implying that my real reasons for not liking the Niqab are being masked behind the reason I've given?

 

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

Except that it isn't. The evidence proves this. You just keep making the claim that it is.

And I'll continue claiming that it is.

 

Posted by Cyclone

It's circular because you keep making a reference to how there is no evidence that the niquab is a security risk and then attempting to use that lack of evidence as a justification for treating it as a security risk.

It's stupid.

I keep making reference to how past evidence is still being used as a benchmark to determine what degree of risk the Niqab wearer (who could be anyone) poses to security.

 

 

Posted by CycloneI'd like to avoid it if at all possible, it's a frustrating experience as you're illogical and irrational.

Presumably because you're not being illogical and irrational? Wow, that's my argument proved wrong then. I can't believe it.

 

I wish I'd said that first, then he'd be the one who's wrong.

[danot]

You've claimed a legal double standard though, now you're just referring to one of attitude.

Why continue saying this when it no longer applies?

 

When we were debating this on the other thread, I clearly asked- "If I retracted the word criminal (from my OP) and replaced it with the word suspect, would that make the point I'm making clearer.

 

A few pages back I explained that my reason for doing that was I realized that the word suspect is more appropriate term to use.

 

It appears as though you now need reminding of it again.

[salsafan]

You're trying to contend that food cannot be described as nice...

In this disagreement there is no morally right answer. However there is a factual one.

 

Food can be described as nice if it is satisfactory.

I can certainly make that statement. I did. And now you're arguing with me about it despite there being no factual or moral basis for a conclusion to be reached.

Indeed. But point of fact, the peanut is not in any way a nut, nor related to the entire nut genus. See what happens when we think we know things.

Now look, you've gone and made yourself look silly because you thought a peanut was a type of nut!

What is the moral truth of snickers vs mars and chicken vs turkey?

Perchance I disagree though. Can you prove that your moral judgement is correct? Of course not. Indeed to argue on a point of moral correctness is futile as morality is fluid.

Science doesn't really deal in facts so much as theories.

Societal norms of behaviour I'd say, and like I said, it's fluid, so a rather shaky place to base an argument.

 

I do not know which planet you fall off from.

I just want to clarify these points that you have raised:

 

1 - The way you used the English language is wrong, but you fail to acknowledge and accept this.

 

It is not semantically correct how you used the word "nice", even though it is common for people to say "this is nice" during an one to one interaction, which to the recipient, it is accepted as their own personal opinion, or a expression of their feelings. Yet, you wrote a statement, in a public domain, whereby your audience is more than one person (AND the context was a discussion about the forum and the psychology of the writers online). How exactly can you not use the word "I" or "my opinion" and so forth to qualify your meaning ? Even when you wrote the statement "chicken is tastier than turkey" cannot be classified as objectively true. It is only subjectively, in your own opinion or preferences, as true.

 

You literally wrote a statement. You did not write "I like chicken". In your proof of the word nice, please re-read the sentence again: "we had a nice time." It is the qualifier "we" stating that it is nice. If you read your definition again, the word "nice" really is used to describe the emotion experienced by the person. Yet, you wrote "chicken is nicer than turkey". No, the Chicken cannot be emotionally be nicer than a Turkey.

 

2 - Peanut definition.

 

To my defence, and I can see where you are going with this. You are being anal about the scientific classification of a peanut. When in reality, peanut is collectively accepted as a nut by the general public. I followed the convention as set by the snicker's bar company whereby they described "this may contain nuts" on the bar as being true for what it is. It is like saying, stop saying that tomatoes are a vegetable when it is really scientifically a fruit. Well, keep trying! Cos it is so socially accepted to be described as such. If you picked on that too, I find that anal. Why would I look silly when I have accepted the social norm, and not argue it like no tomorrow ? Cos it comes across as pendantic otherwise.

 

3 - I did not contend that food cannot be described as nice when a person experiences it. I disputed the fact that YOU, as a PERSON, used the word "nice" wrongly in your language and did not really take into context what you are saying and writing. Because of this, I see a lot of people like yourself who do argue about anything and is really winding others up, a lot.

 

 

4 -

Indeed to argue on a point of moral correctness is futile as morality is fluid.

 

Judging what you wrote here, it makes no sense at all. It is obvious that you did not understand my original sentence.

 

 

I just think that you are a pedantic person.

[Cyclone]

I do not know which planet you fall off from.

I just want to clarify these points that you have raised:

 

1 - The way you used the English language is wrong, but you fail to acknowledge and accept this.

That's funny

 

It is not semantically correct how you used the word "nice", even though it is common for people to say "this is nice" during an one to one interaction, which to the recipient, it is accepted as their own personal opinion, or a expression of their feelings. Yet, you wrote a statement, in a public domain, whereby your audience is more than one person (AND the context was a discussion about the forum and the psychology of the writers online).

You're still claiming that food cannot be described as nice.

How exactly can you not use the word "I" or "my opinion" and so forth to qualify your meaning ? Even when you wrote the statement "chicken is tastier than turkey" cannot be classified as objectively true. It is only subjectively, in your own opinion or preferences, as true.

You then told me I couldn't make that statement, despite having done so.

 

You literally wrote a statement. You did not write "I like chicken". In your proof of the word nice, please re-read the sentence again: "we had a nice time."

That's an example of a use of the word, not an exhaustive list of how it can be used.

It is the qualifier "we" stating that it is nice. If you read your definition again, the word "nice" really is used to describe the emotion experienced by the person. Yet, you wrote "chicken is nicer than turkey". No, the Chicken cannot be emotionally be nicer than a Turkey.

Are you saying that nice only refers to emotional states now, it's getting funnier.

 

2 - Peanut definition.

 

To my defence, and I can see where you are going with this. You are being anal about the scientific classification of a peanut.

Oh, I'm sorry, it's anal to recognise when something is a nut or not. My mistake, how about if we call it a grain instead, or meat. How wildly inaccurate is acceptable?

Don't get grumpy about it just because you got your facts wrong. That's what it means to be factually correct, or not.

 

3 - I did not contend that food cannot be described as nice when a person experiences it. I disputed the fact that YOU, as a PERSON, used the word "nice" wrongly in your language

I think you contended that, not disputed it. I'm the one disputing it.

and did not really take into context what you are saying and writing. Because of this, I see a lot of people like yourself who do argue about anything and is really winding others up, a lot.

But I thought it was all easy, just determine if we're talking about a factual or moral issue and then settle it. Unless you don't like the facts of course and then just call it anal.

 

 

4 -

 

Judging what you wrote here, it makes no sense at all. It is obvious that you did not understand my original sentence.

Or perhaps you don't understand that there is no universally accepted moral framework...

 

 

I just think that you are a pedantic person.

I wouldn't disagree. But I'm not sure how it's relevant.

[Cyclone]

Why continue saying this when it no longer applies?

 

When we were debating this on the other thread, I clearly asked- "If I retracted the word criminal (from my OP) and replaced it with the word suspect, would that make the point I'm making clearer.

Don't you think suspect implies legal things?

 

A few pages back I explained that my reason for doing that was I realized that the word suspect is more appropriate term to use.

I don't think it's any more appropriate. Not when you're talking about businesses deciding what people can wear.

 

It appears as though you now need reminding of it again.

No, it doesn't make any difference.

 

You've changed your tune from one of legal requirements to one about the attitude of private businesses.

[Cyclone]

I'm not suggesting any such thing. I'm stating that there SHOULDN'T BE ANY EXEMPTIONS AT ALL IF THEY COMPROMISE SECURITY OR CONFLICT WITH LEGISLATION.

Make your mind up, one minute it's not a legal issue, and the next it's legislation again!

There are no exemptions in the cases you said above anyway.

 

The laws may well have been written intending them to apply to all, but security and crime prevention policing procedures aren't considered necessary to all because not all, i,e- anyone wearing a Niqab, or a Sikh carrying an offensive weapon, are exempt ( with no conditional restrictive circumstances)

 

 

 

Limited powers which could get you arrested if you refuse to remove a face concealing garment that is neither religious nor cultural.

There is no exception for religious or cultural coverings in those situations.

 

I do have something against it. Do you remember me telling you what it is I have against it? Or are you disingenuously and deliberately implying that my real reasons for not liking the Niqab are being masked behind the reason I've given?

The latter, although I don't think it was disingenuous.

 

 

 

And I'll continue claiming that it is.

 

I keep making reference to how past evidence is still being used as a benchmark to determine what degree of risk the Niqab wearer (who could be anyone) poses to security.

PAST evidence is the only kind of evidence that exists. You don't have future evidence do you!

 

 

Presumably because you're not being illogical and irrational? Wow, that's my argument proved wrong then. I can't believe it.

 

I wish I'd said that first, then he'd be the one who's wrong.

I was just explaining why I hope not to have to discuss something with you again.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Did you want a five-minute argument or the full half-hour (http://uk.ask.com/web?q=five-minute+argument+%22monty+python%22&sm=adv&dm=all&qsrc=196&o=0&l=dir)?