Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
129 guest(s) and 0 member(s)
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
The initial discussion was about 'security issues exploited by burka' (because they conceal the body). This was countered by the argument that similar security issues exist with many other objects than burkas (so that a ban of only burkas would be senseless). Now he replies that we are discussing burkas only, not other objects, putting us back on square 1.
fag's argument is: since similar security threats exist with other objects why ban burka is akin to saying why live today when tomorrow your gonna die anyways
This is a misleading metaphore. The claim that a burka is a security threat of such serious nature that it warrants a far reaching measure like a ban, is simply falsified if many other objects exist that have similar effects and are not considered security threats at all.
Last edited by berzerker on Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:47 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
LOL I have an example for 15) that trumps your example.
Captn wrote:
again your stupid. it only takes one burka-bomber to cause damage, so there is no need to analyze each case, it will remain a security thread, just like the same way i don't have to divide each number by 10 to realize weather or not it will be a multiple.
He's comparing burkas with mathematical induction. This isn't so much apples and oranges as it is apples and orange groves.
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:28 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
berzerker wrote:
15. misleading metaphore
Captn wrote:
berzerker wrote:
The initial discussion was about 'security issues exploited by burka' (because they conceal the body). This was countered by the argument that similar security issues exist with many other objects than burkas (so that a ban of only burkas would be senseless). Now he replies that we are discussing burkas only, not other objects, putting us back on square 1.
fag's argument is: since similar security threats exist with other objects why ban burka is akin to saying why live today when tomorrow your gonna die anyways
This is a misleading metaphore. The claim that a burka is a security threat of such serious nature that it warrants a far reaching measure like a ban, is simply falsified if many other objects exist that have similar effects and are not considered security threats at all.
anecdotal
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:28 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
puk wrote:
LOL I have an example for 15) that trumps your example.
Captn wrote:
again your stupid. it only takes one burka-bomber to cause damage, so there is no need to analyze each case, it will remain a security thread, just like the same way i don't have to divide each number by 10 to realize weather or not it will be a multiple.
He's comparing burkas with mathematical induction. This isn't so much apples and oranges as it is apples and orange groves.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 3 of 3Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
