What defines someone being Wrong or right on public forums?

[danot]

Don't you think suspect implies legal things?

I was applying it to a person who is viewed as looking suspect.

 

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

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

To be precise, I've been talking about legislation and the attitudes of some in society. I've been stating this throughout, even on the other thread,- The double standard of religious exemptions. Reread the OP then scroll through it and you'll see my stance hasn't faulted.

 

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

No, it doesn't make any difference.

Yes it does, because if it didn't, other posters wouldn't have commented on it in the other thread, therefore, I wouldn't have felt the need to suggest that I replace the word criminal for suspect, after realizing that suspect was a more accurate term.

 

Posted by Cyclone

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

How do you work that out? We're discussing the double standard of religious exemptions in legislation, i.e- 'the offensive weapons act' (dangerous knives act), and the attitudes of the police and certain members of society, i.e- attitudes on Niqab wearers etc.

 

I've not changed my tune at all. As I've suggested, why not scroll through the other thread (this one too) if you wish.

[salsafan]

That's funny

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

I was trying to persuade you and show you that you were wrong semantically with regards to how you wrote and used what you did in English. (In doing so, you are a great example of what the OP is writing about, this whole business of "right or wrong" online.) Therefore it is not a good way to communicate since you were nitpicking rather than to keep on topic.

 

You picked out illogical statements, when you do not read the written word in terms of its prose and style.

 

I am not grumpy at what you claim as myself being factually wrong by your standard. I am mad cos you do not see the subtlety in the English language usage and that you are a very pedantic and anal writer without reading the post written by someone else to truly understand the context first before going to nitpick, therefore acting as being obtuse or challenging. I see you as picking a fight basically.

 

Anyway, I won't respond any longer, cos you are really winding me up.

[HeadingNorth]

I was trying to persuade you and show you that you were wrong semantically with regards to how you wrote and used what you did in English.

 

You might have had more success on that score, if in fact he actually was wrong. But he wasn't!

[Lockjaw]

you are a very pedantic and anal writer .

 

Friend, there's nothing anal or pedantic about being correct. Seems to me you misunderstood his point from the get go.

[Cyclone]

I was trying to persuade you and show you that you were wrong semantically with regards to how you wrote and used what you did in English. (In doing so, you are a great example of what the OP is writing about, this whole business of "right or wrong" online.) Therefore it is not a good way to communicate since you were nitpicking rather than to keep on topic.

 

You picked out illogical statements, when you do not read the written word in terms of its prose and style.

 

I am not grumpy at what you claim as myself being factually wrong by your standard. I am mad cos you do not see the subtlety in the English language usage and that you are a very pedantic and anal writer without reading the post written by someone else to truly understand the context first before going to nitpick, therefore acting as being obtuse or challenging. I see you as picking a fight basically.

 

Anyway, I won't respond any longer, cos you are really winding me up.

 

What, do you not accept then that a Snickers has no nuts in it? And that it's clearly superior to the Mars in every way.

 

You could persuade me about the semantics, but you'll have to actually provide some evidence instead of just repeating yourself.

I at least looked up the definition of nice, and from what I can see I used it correctly.

[danot]

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

Criminal knives act = legislation.

 

Religious exemption + Criminal knives act = Sikhs permitted to carry a knife that meets the description of an offensive weapon that can be carried with no restrictive or circumstantial conditions.

 

 

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

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

Yes there are because when a balaclava wearer is routinely asked to remove the balaclava whenever in certain establishments or social environments that class the wearing of a balaclava inappropriate or a security risk, or automatically seen as being "up to no good" by security or police officers who can request that they remove the balaclava all in the interests of security and/or public safety, they are being viewed and treated differently than they would have been if they'd been wearing a Niqab.

 

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

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

There are, just told you why^^

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

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

So I'm against the Niqab because I don't like Muslims? Is that what you're implying here?

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

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

No, you don't have future evidence, but you have concerns for future breaches in security, which just so happens to be the primary reason why security measures are put in place and why concealing the face for none religious or cultural reasons when in certain establishments and social environments is generally viewed as being inappropriate or suspicious which in most cases will have to be removed.

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

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

Have you been thinking you have to discuss this with me? Ya silly begger. What ya like.

[Cyclone]

Criminal knives act = legislation.

 

Religious exemption + Criminal knives act = Sikhs permitted to carry a knife that meets the description of an offensive weapon that can be carried with no restrictive or circumstantial conditions.

Can we just discuss one at a time, flipping back and forth between knives and head wear makes it difficult to pin you down.

 

 

 

Yes there are because when a balaclava wearer is routinely asked to remove the balaclava whenever in certain establishments or social environments that class the wearing of a balaclava inappropriate or a security risk, or automatically seen as being "up to no good" by security or police officers who can request that they remove the balaclava all in the interests of security and/or public safety, they are being viewed and treated differently than they would have been if they'd been wearing a Niqab.

Routine in private businesses isn't something I care about.

The police however don't have any right to routinely ask people to remove head wear.

 

 

 

There are, just told you why^^

 

 

So I'm against the Niqab because I don't like Muslims? Is that what you're implying here?

It seems odd that you're so bothered about it since the security angle clearly isn't a valid concern.

 

 

No, you don't have future evidence, but you have concerns for future breaches in security, which just so happens to be the primary reason why security measures are put in place and why concealing the face for none religious or cultural reasons when in certain establishments and social environments is generally viewed as being inappropriate or suspicious which in most cases will have to be removed.

That's called baseless speculation. Policies should be developed based on evidence, not conjecture.

[danot]

Can we just discuss one at a time, flipping back and forth between knives and head wear makes it difficult to pin you down.

OK.

 

Posted by Cyclone

Routine in private businesses isn't something I care about.

That's fair enough. Although, these routines are the types of attitudes I make reference to in my OP on- ""The double standards of religious exemptions"

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

The police however don't have any right to routinely ask people to remove head wear.

But they do have a tendency to ask people to remove face concealing head wear that's being worn casually for none religious/cultural reasons.

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

It seems odd that you're so bothered about it since the security angle clearly isn't a valid concern.

The only reason I'm against the Niqab is nobody knows who's wearing them. And nobody even questions it. How can that NOT pose a risk to security?

 

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

That's called baseless speculation. Policies should be developed based on evidence, not conjecture.

It's not conjecture.

 

To me, it seems you're more interested in defending the rights of Muslim women who want to wear the Niqab; rather than concern yourself with any potential security risks that that may present, whereas I'm more incline to see the potential security risks of allowing mysterious figures to walk around without anyone ever questioning their identity simply because the likes of you presume that they're just harmless Muslim women that are perfectly entitled to wear their Niqab without having their identities questioned by the likes of me.

 

 

Cyclone. The original thread- "Double standards of religious exemptions"- has been reopened having been closed for review. I suggest we continue this on there.

[Cyclone]

There are no rights involved when we're talking about private business. Nobody has the right to wear a particular garment and still demand service.

 

If there were any security risks though, as proven by evidence and not conjecture then I'm sure the businesses in question would be concerned and would change their policy.

 

But you've got yourself confused again by private businesses and "the ability to walk around without anyone questioning them". We can all do that. You don't know who anyone is walking around outside (unless you know them of course), and having their face obscured won't alter that (and we can all do it).

 

Good idea, back to the original thread I suppose.

[danot]

There are no rights involved when we're talking about private business. Nobody has the right to wear a particular garment and still demand service.

True. Although, the day I see a private business refuse service to a Niqab wearer or a Sikh because he's carrying an offensive weapon, I'll eat my balaclava.

 

Posted by Cyclone

If there were any security risks though, as proven by evidence and not conjecture then I'm sure the businesses in question would be concerned and would change their policy.

I don't share your optimism. Private business's wouldn't dare alienate people carrying items or wearing garments that were recognized as having religious or cultural significance. Even if evidence showed that those items were associated with being used by criminals, they'd just blame the criminal claiming the evidence showed that neither religion nor foreign cultural were responsible. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

Posted by Cyclone

But you've got yourself confused again by private businesses and "the ability to walk around without anyone questioning them". We can all do that.

Yes, providing our face isn't concealed and we're not entering carrying anything offensive, as private business's are pretty particular about which clientele they allow to conceal their face, or carrying a knife that meets the description of an offensive weapon. Any idea why that is?

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

You don't know who anyone is walking around outside (unless you know them of course), and having their face obscured won't alter that (and we can all do it).

Yes, we can all do it, but some of us have our reasons for doing it questioned by others, and some of us don't.

 

Some of that do it will be viewed as looking suspicious for doing it , and some of us won't.

 

Some of us that do it are automatically presumed to pose a potential risk to security, and some of us never are. Which in itself, must pose risk to security.