The Burkini Ban

But a hoodie also poses a security threat, along with other objects / garments. Do I believe a private business has the right to refuse you service if they deem you've gone against policy? Yes. Do I support a government penalizing people for doing so? No.

 

My apologies, I was under the impression that the Burkini was an adaptation of the burka into swimsuit form where as it's more of a swim suit with an inbuilt hat.

I do have another question for you though. You think people should be able to wear absolutely anything including nothing and racial garb?

I think we may have to agree to disagree on our definitions of "freedom". Freedom shouldn't have a cost, and fear in my opinion is one of the largest limiters of freedom.

 

I do not think people should be walking around nude, no. However, I believe people should have the right to wear racial garb, what do I care?

Freedom has always had a cost, and it will always have a cost.

 

I may have phrased the racial garb incorrectly. By racial garb I meant outfits such as KKK robes or clothes with racial slurs or images on them.

Surely you're restricting what people are wearing or not wearing then? In regards to the no clothes.

 

But I think there is a line. I don't think you're allowed to wear whatever you like in public, because (sometimes) it infringes upon the rights of others. If I want to wear the biggest overcoat you have ever seen, I'll be asked to take it off because I'm inconveniencing many others. Or shirts that command others to slaughter jews. etc etc.

There *is* a line here, it's just whether these religious clothes cross that line.

If you believe that one has the right to anonymity in public? That is to say, walk around with a balaclava on permanently? Then it's a consistent position to say that burkas and niqabs are acceptable. I'm unsure, honestly.

 

Sure! Someone walking down the road in a KKK outfit doesn't hurt me, they have a right to express their opinion. As long as that person doesn't begin attacking minorities, or threatening them. Nudity is already covered by indecent exposure laws commonly,

In America, there is a line between normal speech, even if it's hate speech, and speech construed as a legitimate threat. There is a huge difference in "<Insert people here> should all be hanged!" and "I've got a rope let's go hang this <insert people here>!", one is a legal expression of one's right to free speech, the other is a legitimate threat on another person.

My personal line lies at where another person's safety is at issue, and not their emotional safety. If I see someone in a shirt saying "White people are racist!" I might be momentarily offended and I now certainly know to discount that person's clearly ignorant views, but they have the right to wear that shirt as long as they want. Do they want to stand on a street corner and shout obscenities at minorities? I may not like it or believe it, but they have every right to do so.

This applies to a person legally minding his own business wanting to be anonymous, hurting nobody? That's his right, he can do what he wishes. Keep in mind the reasons for being anonymous do not just stop at committing crimes. People use anonymity for a variety of reasons, perhaps the most important is when acting as an activist against a governmental power.

Singularly, I completely understand the logic on prohibiting face-covering apparel, but my immediate concern is the president of prohibiting what a person can wear on their body, because that is a scary slope to begin on, and it makes it easier down the line to justify prohibiting hoodies for safety, purses, baggy pants, or racially / verbally derogatory messages.

But I think our cultures are the reason why we have such differing opinions, by use of your terms, I have to assume English. You guys generally are ok with a more powerful central government. People in America have a general distrust of government, even very liberal people. For example, issues that have caused for soldiers to be on the streets, that simply would not happen in America. Soldiers being out in public, having checkpoints would dang near lead to an armed rebellion almost right away.

 

@Deinen -- In America, there is a line between normal speech, even if it's hate speech, and speech construed as a legitimate threat. There is a huge difference in "<Insert people here> should all be hanged!" and "I've got a rope let's go hang this <insert people here>!", one is a legal expression of one's right to free speech, the other is a legitimate threat on another person.

Okay. Do you think someone should have the right to wear a shirt that says, "I've got a rope, let's go hang XXXX"?

All I wanted to do initally was prove that a line exists. That this discussion should be about where we need to draw the line, rather than arguing that one shouldn't exist at all (though I think we're both on the same page there).

My personal line lies at where another person's safety is at issue, and not their emotional safety. If I see someone in a shirt saying "White people are racist!" I might be momentarily offended and I now certainly know to discount that person's clearly ignorant views, but they have the right to wear that shirt as long as they want. Do they want to stand on a street corner and shout obscenities at minorities? I may not like it or believe it, but they have every right to do so.

I'm with you, though I don't think I support the 'shouting' bit. Noise pollution, causing physical harm and an objective decrease in well-being to passers-by. When someone breast-feeds, if you don't like it? Don't look. That's the principle in action, I'm assuming? You take that idea and apply to someone screaming in your ear. I think there has to be a limit.

This applies to a person legally minding his own business wanting to be anonymous, hurting nobody? That's his right, he can do what he wishes. Keep in mind the reasons for being anonymous do not just stop at committing crimes. People use anonymity for a variety of reasons, perhaps the most important is when acting as an activist against a governmental power.

This is probably the crux of the argument. CCTV (closed-circuit television) exists here in great numbers. They are redundant if everyone wore balaclavas. They exist to aid in the identification of criminals.

Do I support CCTV? Maybe? Probably not? Do I think one should have the right to wear a balaclava if they so wish? I think so? I'd love to hear some arguments for such a ban.

Singularly, I completely understand the logic on prohibiting face-covering apparel, but my immediate concern is the [precedent] of prohibiting what a person can wear on their body, because that is a scary slope to begin on, and it makes it easier down the line to justify prohibiting hoodies for safety, purses, baggy pants, or racially / verbally derogatory messages.

But the line seems to exist, though admittedly I wish it didn't. Do you think I should be allowed to wear an overcoat with a diameter of 10ft?

But I think our cultures are the reason why we have such differing opinions, by use of your terms, I have to assume English. You guys generally are ok with a more powerful central government. People in America have a general distrust of government, even very liberal people. For example, issues that have caused for soldiers to be on the streets, that simply would not happen in America. Soldiers being out in public, having checkpoints would dang near lead to an armed rebellion almost right away.

I understand that your caveat regarding cultures is well-intentioned. It's reasonable too, as there are differences between English and American culture. You're applying a stereotype/generalization, using statistics to deduce/infer my 'likely' position. Having said that, I would prefer that someone asks me what my position is first. Not always possible in text-based conversations, and I'm not offended or butthurt, I just think this criticism might be of some use?

It's understandable and somewhat rational to assume or order your black friend would want some KFC when having a 'Lads night in'. Most of us like KFC, and black people typically have an even greater fondness for it. But in an ideal world... I think it's prudent to ask.

[To ensure that this isn't taken the wrong way, I didn't get the impression that you thought I believed X. Just that you thought it was likely, or that some bias existed.]

 

I think we're agreeing in principle on most parts. In general it seems that society is getting a bit thin-skinned and it seems to want to prohibit behavior it simply doesn't like, without looking at the big picture of why the freedom might exist in the first place. Additionally, I'm not sure if I was inferring your position on it, but I probably did assume some bias from the culture, just because we do have a different viewpoint on issues.

I think this issue is a legitimate question of hiding one's identity but I also see there is some political devices in the same concept that are born out of fear mongering.

 

But people wearing a burkini are trying to swim right?...

 

It's a separate but similar issue, sure. A Burka covers the face. AFAIK the Burkini doesn't.

 

It's fascism, in a nutshell. (A little exaggeration, but not much of a stretch, really) Telling people what they can and can't wear shouldn't be something the government can do.
That said, I can see why they're doing it, and I agree with their reasons, even if I don't think they have the right.
As @TheDebatheist says, it's to prevent their country from regressing to what we see in predominantly Islamic countries. It would be better to just prevent them from entering, rather than letting them in, and expanding government control over people's lives.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 12, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 12, 2016 ---

I've heard it described as more of a wetsuit,

 

Ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

It doesn't though, unless you can show how it is biased in this instance.

If a crazy man who thinks that the universe started yesterday says that the earth is a spheroid, is he wrong?

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 21, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 21, 2016 ---

^ The answer to that is no, he is not wrong, if you were wondering.

 

I don't believe that's correct. From what I've seen colloquially, there is a difference between ad-hominem attacks and ad-hominem fallacies. What you just described is an ad-hominem attack. It's not fallacious, it's just name-calling.

If you were to claim that I'm wrong because I'm a moron, that would the ad-hominem fallacy.

The source of an argument has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not the argument is valid (when we are able to inspect the arguments themselves). You should be addressing the content of the argument, not the person making it.

I hate to keep quoting the Wiki word for word. Please give the entire page a look if you can. I'd appreciate it. That goes for @Ranger0203 and @Deinen too, by the looks of it.

"Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source)."

"Ad hominem is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character/motive, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Is doesn't matter if Hitler claimed that the Earth orbits the Sun. The claim is what matters, not the (intention of) person making it.

 

I mostly liked his post because Infowars and Alex Jones are trash. If they stated the grass is green I would become skeptical of the claim due to how insane the source is. I got really big into Alex Jones during the Ron Paul days, and it has always been apparent how nutty the guy is.

I do think both the content and source are objects to consider in the discussion though. If the content of the argument contains truth or accuracy I have to assume it's easy enough to source it somewhere else in combination, or en lieu of.

 

I'm no fan of them either. But it doesn't automatically stop them from having a point. Nor is it justified to dismiss everything/most of what they (or their affiliates) say just because they've got some crazy positions on other issues.

Russell Brand seems absolutely mental. I hate the guy. But when it comes to drugs, I think he's absolutely on point. He makes a strong case for legalizing a variety of substances. (And I think the guy is a douche, and talks a lot of garbage!)

I think it's unfair to expect someone to spend their time finding an alternative source, on the basis that certain people don't like where it's coming from. If (I think) the arguments are good, I'll cite them. It doesn't really matter who said them.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 22, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 22, 2016 ---

I've already addressed this with Deinen. I despise Peter Hitchens. Oh so much. But I won't let it blind-side me into dismissing everything the man has to say. Arguments stand and fall on their own merits. Be closed-minded to opposing views at your own peril.

Again, please stop invoking character attacks. The identity politics is thoroughly unwelcome too, I think. I'm not interesting in left, right or center. I'm interested in 'correct'. In logically sound and intellectually robust. Not everything that comes out of their mouths is utter garbage. Why do you seem to think that it is?

> The source of an argument has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not the argument is valid (when we are able to inspect the arguments themselves). You should be addressing the content of the argument, not the person making it.

You've just explained how easy it is to become locked in an echo-chamber. i.e. Dismissing arguments without even inspecting them because they come from people you deem as lacking credibility.

The speaker of an argument was almost certainly not the inventor of it. They don't own it. They didn't 'create' it. It is not theirs. I think it would be much healthier to separate ideas from people. To give every argument the chance to slug it out in the free marketplace of ideas. Rather than blocking ideas from people we don't particular like, respect, or find credible.

If you care about the arguments, you shouldn't need to invoke reputation to discredit them. If they are as crazy as you say they are, why not just demonstrate it? Why not just debunk what's been said?

That's the difference between us at the moment, and why I think what you're doing is considered fallacious. You seem to find it acceptable to infer and assume. I don't think that's right. I want to demonstrate, to prove.

I'm not going to sit here debating the origin of the term 'ad hominem'. I've provided links, and quoted the Wiki multiple times. Please check them out.

"Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance."

"The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.[2] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are not conclusive in determining its merits.[3]"

Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I'll leave that for everyone else to decide.

You -- 'I can safely dismiss [certain] opinions because the [individuals that espouse them] have [previously shown, with frequency] that they pervert the truth.'

Wiki -- 'The genetic fallacy is where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.'

Seems pretty cut and dry.

Myself and the Wiki have explained this ad nauseum, but I'll give this one more attempt. I can't do much than show that you're word for word committing a logically fallacious argument.

Just to clarify: You'd rather assume the claims of an individual to be true or untrue based on the reputation of the individual making them, rather than assessing the arguments themselves. Is that correct?

Let's take a practical example.

If Alex Jones published a video tomorrow explaining the arguments in favour of human influenced global warming, would you dismiss what he has to say, regardless of content?

If Stephen Hawking published a video tomorrow explaining the arguments against human influenced global warming, would you automatically accept what he has to say, regardless of content?

Or... should we just examine the claims made by both parties, and come to a conclusion independent of their respective reputations?

There is nothing that would stop me from accepting the next claim out of Alex's mouth, so long as his arguments were logically sound and evidentially supported. That's what a science-minded person does. Open-minded to the contrary, so long as data is provided to support it.

Ohhhhh my goodness gracious. No! The reason we don't believe them is because they have no evidence to support their position! It certainly isn't because they have a history of being wrong. That's a terrible reason!

I lack belief in their claim that the Sun won't set, because the Sun has always set throughout human history. We know that it will set due to cosmological data, due to a scientific consensus of expert opinion. Due to the physics of universe and how the gravity makes large bodies of mass interact with one another. Due to the lack of potentially causal factors that may cause the sun not to set.

Just think about how mistaken one would be, if one were to dismiss the conspiracy theorist out-of-hand, despite handing out fliers+papers with the most robust and up-to-date science as to why the Sun won't set next week. The data is plentiful, and the claims are intellectually robust. No fallacies. The science clearly supports this, and it's all contained in the leaflet given to you. Again, when in debate, the claims matter -- typically not the person making them.

Your logical fallacy is genetic

You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.​

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.


Example: Accused on the 6 o'clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 22, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 22, 2016 ---

The reason why it may be acceptable to look at the credibility of the author when inspecting a source, is referenced in an earlier post of min. In which I briefly touch on 'the ability to assess the claims', and what we should do when this doesn't seem possible.

Do you think that Universities would demand that their students attempt to debunk claims far beyond their comprehension, before citing them in a paper of their own? No, of course not. That would be ludicrous.

Arguments however, arn't like that. Anyone can jump in and spot fallacies -- or at least, they should be able to.

The reason why Universities may advise their students to look at the source, is because it's a quickest way to filter out likely insufficiently supported material. It isn't because it's the most effective way to discern the truth.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 22, 2016 ---

Again, for what it's worth, it doesn't mean much if Harvard came out tomorrow and endorsed the notion that the Moon was made of cheese. If their claims are bad, they should be treated as such. They deserve no inherent respect because they came from Harvard. This is the same fallacy you've been committing but in reverse. Automatically giving credit to people you believe to be trustworthy, while automatically discrediting those you believe to be untrustworthy. It's logically fallacious to do this.

Your logical fallacy is genetic

Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic fallacy - RationalWiki

Logical Fallacies» Genetic Fallacy

 

Kill me.

Just with you. We're not in the playground, or in a debate team. You don't score points for witty zingers or clever quips. It is something beneath you, yet you resort to them in every post. Why? Please stop doing this.

I believe that there's some slight goalpost shifting here, though likely unintentional. At first, you won't even hear PJW out. You won't even give his arguments the opportunity to be presented to you. Now, we get this:

"Nope. If someone makes an argument that appears to be true..."

You can't claim that with a straight face when we're relating it back to my initial post, because you didn't allow the argument to "appear" to be anything. You completely blanked the arguments in question. It's one thing to say that after you're initially heard him out, I'm with you there, in a sense. But you must hear him out first. Something that it doesn't seem like you've done.

"As I said if a poor source makes a claim that appears to be false, then it should be checked to make sure it is factually true and cross-checked with other sources (very common academic practice)."

It should be checked regardless!

The crux of the rest of your post discusses the following, video included.

"In academia, there are researchers who are dismissed entirely for this, so my argument isn't baseless."

And as said earlier, it's done because there is a likely inability to verify the claims therein, and it's also done to save time. As I will now take heed of, by exiting this conversation. This back and forth doesn't seem to be progressing at a pace worth it for me, at the moment.

If you'd like a civil respectable dialogue in which we can continue talking about this, I'll gladly hand-out my Discord group. You're free to join and discuss this matter further. In fact, I think some value would be had in that. Discord

I promise this is the last time I try to explain the application of the principle in question.

Is the NHS (National Health Service, in the UK) considered a trustworthy source for medical information and treatments? Almost everyone, I think, would say 'Yes'. Myself included.

On the NHS, homeopathic remedies are sometimes prescribed for patients with back pain/muscle pain, and the sort.

Given the fact that the NHS is an incredibly trustworthy organization with a long successful history, is one rationally justified to believe that homeopathic remedies are an effective medical treatment? Again, given the fact that they are the nationwide leader in providing medical care and have successfully treated millions across the UK? With almost all of their treatments being effective?

No. Each claim needs to be assessed on it's own merits/demerits. It's understandable to put your faith in a trusted source, but this is almost never rationally justified. You should assess homeopathy whether it comes from the NHS or your local junkie.

 

That's a logical fallacy. Just so you know.

 

I expect a basic level of respect. My mistake -- at least, a lack of disrespect. Keep it as light-hearted as you like, but I draw the line at insults. Even then it can be bearable if there's a productive conversation to be had, rather than trying to score brownie points by humiliating your opponent. I don't want to nor do I feel the need to brag about how bad this exchange makes you look. The posts speak for themselves.

Take a leaf from @Supreme_Overlord on how to disagree with others amicably and get the most out of conversations. Check his post history. Meanwhile, I'll invoke a post from a different thread, as it seems applicable here.

[The following quote seems to highlight what I believe to be the real problem here, "I'd much rather win an argument where I've kicked somebody's ass honestly.". I don't think you have a healthy perception what productive conversations are supposed to involve. I don't think they're about kicking ass... It's all about ideas and converging on good one's together. We only lose if our time is wasted. Not by having our "ass kicked" by being "out-argued". That's playground stuff.]

Also, I believe this is the Tu Quoque fallacy. -- "(Even then, there's a guy in my state's senate who's been there forever and says much worse than I've said here, personal attacks etc.)"

My goodness. I just caught this gem.

"Homeopathy is based in religious thinking."

Whaaa--? Homeopathy isn't about that at all. How are you not just completely winging it, at this point?

The invitation to have a real-time discussion still stands, though I thoroughly recommend that you research your claims first. "Because Harvard said so" usually won't cut it. PM me if you'd like a link to the debate channel.