Reparations for slavery.

[cajar]

You are hardly one to talk, coathanger, as France BANNED the burka on 14 September 2010 to tackle the security risk associated with it.

 

[RogueHanger]

You are hardly one to talk, coathanger, as France BANNED the burka on 14 September 2010 to tackle the security risk associated with it.

Now another half-wit suggests that I'm a racist by association.

Try to provide reasoned arguments instead of baseless argumentum ad hominem

Another case of argumentum ad absurdum also:

The French ban on face covering (French: Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, "Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space")

Try to get your facts right before presenting them as facts.

 

[cajar]

First of all, I never suggested you were racist by association as you have concluded. I simply pointed out that you in France, will enjoy greater security due to the ban on the very thing you are criticising posters for being afraid of.

Also, your use of Latin names for fallacious arguments is very amusing, since you don't know what they mean, you don't realise you're describing your own fallacious argument. argumentum ad hominem for example, means instead of attacking the argument, you attack the person making it, with insults. Observe.

What kind of half-wit are you? Don't bother answering that. It was a rhetorical question because I already knew the answer.

If you see an advertisement for a vacant village idiot post going round your way, I'd apply for it if I were you. You're eminently qualified.

 

[RogueHanger]

First of all, I never suggested you were racist by association as you have concluded. I simply pointed out that you in France, will enjoy greater security due to the ban on the very thing you are criticising posters for being afraid of.

Perhaps you should have made your case more clearly then.

To me "You are hardly one to talk" intimates that I am guilty of that which I am accusing others. Does it not? Or would you have us believe it means something different.

The ban includes all kinds of face covering, e.g. crash helmets, etc, etc, in public.
It does not restrict the wearing of any garments in private.
So if that makes us safer, then possibly. But, if other posters are afraid of crash helmets, ski masks, etc, as well as Islamic garments, more fool them.
Or were you still referring simply to Islamic garments?

However, you must also remember that France is a secular state and therefore any governmental decision, or law, is devoid of any religious connotations. Ergo, there is no religious undertones in that ruling, contrary to your suggestion. (Which you will probably now deny. )
If you want to deny that you meant simply Islamic garments, then why introduce it now, and why only mention the burka?

Also, your use of Latin names for fallacious arguments is very amusing, since you don't know what they mean, you don't realise you're describing your own fallacious argument. argumentum ad hominem for example, means instead of attacking the argument, you attack the person making it, with insults.

You are unable to provide a reasoned counter argument, so you attack me, accusing me of racism, without any substantiation.
Then you think that I have used the accusation incorrectly.

Someone who tries to make a point, but who's argument is proven fundamentally flawed and so shifts their argument deserves the accusation of being a half-wit.

My use of personal attacks against you, and others is IMO, justified because a) you and others fail to appreciate your arguments are usually half-baked and your comments are often racist, and b) because I perceived a personal attack against me. Simple.

 

[Whitespirit66]

First of all, I never suggested you were racist by association as you have concluded. I simply pointed out that you in France, will enjoy greater security due to the ban on the very thing you are criticising posters for being afraid of.

Also, your use of Latin names for fallacious arguments is very amusing, since you don't know what they mean, you don't realise you're describing your own fallacious argument. argumentum ad hominem for example, means instead of attacking the argument, you attack the person making it, with insults. Observe.

What kind of half-wit are you? Don't bother answering that. It was a rhetorical question because I already knew the answer.

If you see an advertisement for a vacant village idiot post going round your way, I'd apply for it if I were you. You're eminently qualified.

Good points Cajar, but I'm afraid you're wasting your time. If this troll had as much sense as he has time on his hands, he may just get it. Doubtful though.

 

[cajar]

First of all, I never suggested you were racist by association as you have concluded. I simply pointed out that you in France, will enjoy greater security due to the ban on the very thing you are criticising posters for being afraid of.

Perhaps you should have made your case more clearly then.

To me "You are hardly one to talk" intimates that I am guilty of that which I am accusing others. Does it not? Or would you have us believe it means something different.

The ban includes all kinds of face covering, e.g. crash helmets, etc, etc, in public.
It does not restrict the wearing of any garments in private.
So if that makes us safer, then possibly. But, if other posters are afraid of crash helmets, ski masks, etc, as well as Islamic garments, more fool them.
Or were you still referring simply to Islamic garments?

However, you must also remember that France is a secular state and therefore any governmental decision, or law, is devoid of any religious connotations. Ergo, there is no religious undertones in that ruling, contrary to your suggestion. (Which you will probably now deny. )
If you want to deny that you meant simply Islamic garments, then why introduce it now, and why only mention the burka?

Also, your use of Latin names for fallacious arguments is very amusing, since you don't know what they mean, you don't realise you're describing your own fallacious argument. argumentum ad hominem for example, means instead of attacking the argument, you attack the person making it, with insults.

You are unable to provide a reasoned counter argument, so you attack me, accusing me of racism, without any substantiation.
Then you think that I have used the accusation incorrectly.

Someone who tries to make a point, but who's argument is proven fundamentally flawed and so shifts their argument deserves the accusation of being a half-wit.

My use of personal attacks against you, and others is IMO, justified because a) you and others fail to appreciate your arguments are usually half-baked and your comments are often racist, and b) because I perceived a personal attack against me. Simple.

ok.

 

[Dextraneous]

please lock this thread