Burqa or chador?

[Bhaktajan II]

You know what? I have always pondered why common civil criminals [or even drug addicts etc] aren't devoteed to just staying home and having sex ... rather then robbing a bank, get caught and spend time in prison.

A matter of mis-managed priorities?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Response: To the contrary, your proof he is using firsthand evidence is because he says so, so by your own say so logic you both are incorrect....because I say so.

And whether you are aware of firsthand evidence of my claim has no logical basis to refute my claim. Additionally, you have no evidence against my claim so what is your point?

Well this is sort of the point, it's your logic and it seems to get us nowhere. When people only use statements that seem true to them to make an argument against other people then the other party need only to state their own truth and there is nowhere to go from there. Discarding "secondhand" sources is problematic to me on two fronts, both when forming a position and defending the position.

I find the human mind inherently flawed and most of the things we believe is more or less nonsense, like clothes make people more compassionate. The vast library of experiences and systems of thought can be used to test our opinions.

When defending our position authority and consensus is helpful to establish likelihood if not common ground. If statistics show that aborigines live peaceful lives in comparison to clothed societies then that carries more weight than say so.

I also think you and I would disagree on whether there is perfect understanding and if we can always know if we found truth or not.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I hate the Burka etc. I grew up seeing Mums with Habits.

The anti-burka etc is rooted in the idea: "Appearances are deceptive" principle.
and also rooted in the idea: "Muslim women wear it only to be obedient to the 'Capo'".
AND btw, nor is there a "Hobson's choice".

YET...IMO... I hate western women wear "Yoga Pants" [how ironic!!!]
Obviously this is crude animal stupid. Hey lady! YOU ARE IN YOUR PANTY HOSE!
HEY QUEEN ASS! YOUR NUDE! YOU'RE WEARING ONLY PANTY HOSE!

Now, the real problem is fat - stupid - insipid - un-educated - un-skilled - ditzy - low-wage - low-EQ - un-sophisticated - multi-tattooed dingbat walking around this way ... that's not an auspicious deportment. It a routine for base soap-operas.

So there's both sides of the coin.

Such a confusing thing to be upset by!

 

[wil]

4 articles on how nudity creates beneficial social change.... Posted...

One article on the internet searches for porn and sex on the internet per.capita by.country... Yikes...

Both indicate contrary to the clothing covering statements here...

Awaiting documentation otherwise to discuss.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Well this is sort of the point, it's your logic and it seems to get us nowhere. When people only use statements that seem true to them to make an argument against other people then the other party need only to state their own truth and there is nowhere to go from there. Discarding "secondhand" sources is problematic to me on two fronts, both when forming a position and defending the position.

I find the human mind inherently flawed and most of the things we believe is more or less nonsense, like clothes make people more compassionate. The vast library of experiences and systems of thought can be used to test our opinions.

When defending our position authority and consensus is helpful to establish likelihood if not common ground. If statistics show that aborigines live peaceful lives in comparison to clothed societies then that carries more weight than say so.

I also think you and I would disagree on whether there is perfect understanding and if we can always know if we found truth or not.

Response: You say my logic seems to get us no where, while having absolutely no evidence that refutes the logic. Thus making your own statement invalid and supporting my logic, which is the point.

Everything I have stated is backed by deductive logic from firsthand evidence. Therefore, it is valid. Whereas you have presented nothing to show to the contrary that is based on deductive logic, thus refuting yourself and making my point that clothes do in fact inspire people to be utmost in compassion and sensitivity.

Additionally, a statistic can say anything but a statistic and a valid argument is two different things. A valid argument is a conclusion that logically follows its premise, which is what I have presented. So if statistics show that aboriginies live more peaceful lives than clothed people, that does not mean that the argument or claim that the reason is because they are naked is valid. An example: statistics show that Black Americans commit more crimes or are imprisoned more than whites in America. So are you prepared to make the racists claim that black people commit more crimes BECAUSE they are black? No. Because the conclusion does not logically follow the premise, despite the statistic.

Similarly, just because a statistic shows that aboriginies are more compassionate than those who are clothed, that does not mean that their nakedness is the reason why, for such a conclusion does not logically follow the premise and the proof it does not logically follow the premise is to show a logical flaw in the argument, which is what I have just shown in the above example.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

You say my logic seems to get us no where, while having absolutely no evidence that refutes the logic. Thus making your own statement invalid and supporting my logic, which is the point.

I say your logic gets us nowhere and we have gotten nowhere. I'm not trying to refute your logic, I'm not quntering your arguments. I'm saying that we are nowhere. Following you logic, any statement can be countered with "I have firsthand evidence and I used logic", then there is an exciting "No you didn't" "Yes I did" exchange.

Everything I have stated is backed by deductive logic from firsthand evidence.

Yeah, you keep saying that.

Therefore, it is valid.

Well...

Whereas you have presented nothing to show to the contrary that is based on deductive logic

I've used your logic, but we can agree that it isn't very deducing.

thus refuting yourself and making my point that clothes do in fact inspire people to be utmost in compassion and sensitivity.

If I don't make a good case I'm not refuting myself, that's not how logic works.

Additionally, a statistic can say anything but a statistic and a valid argument is two different things. A valid argument is a conclusion that logically follows its premise, which is what I have presented. So if statistics show that aboriginies live more peaceful lives than clothed people, that does not mean that the argument or claim that the reason is because they are naked is valid. An example: statistics show that Black Americans commit more crimes or are imprisoned more than whites in America. So are you prepared to make the racists claim that black people commit more crimes BECAUSE they are black? No. Because the conclusion does not logically follow the premise, despite the statistic.

Not disagreeing with anything in particular here, I talked about statistics because it would be a concrete example to actually work with compared to your "well I have firsthand experience and logic".

Similarly, just because a statistic shows that aboriginies are more compassionate than those who are clothed, that does not mean that their nakedness is the reason why, for such a conclusion does not logically follow the premise and the proof it does not logically follow the premise is to show a logical flaw in the argument, which is what I have just shown in the above example.

You lose me toward the end there, are you talking about correlation and causality? If so, I agree with that, still it is more to go on than a person on the internets say-so.

Do you think we are getting anywhere?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

I say your logic gets us nowhere and we have gotten nowhere. I'm not trying to refute your logic, I'm not quntering your arguments. I'm saying that we are nowhere. Following you logic, any statement can be countered with "I have firsthand evidence and I used logic", then there is an exciting "No you didn't" "Yes I did" exchange.


Yeah, you keep saying that.


Well...


I've used your logic, but we can agree that it isn't very deducing.


If I don't make a good case I'm not refuting myself, that's not how logic works.


Not disagreeing with anything in particular here, I talked about statistics because it would be a concrete example to actually work with compared to your "well I have firsthand experience and logic".


You lose me toward the end there, are you talking about correlation and causality? If so, I agree with that, still it is more to go on than a person on the internets say-so.

Do you think we are getting anywhere?

Response: And I've said that your claim that my logic gets us no where does not change the fact that the logic is valid. Whether we are "getting somewhere" or whether you agree is not my concern. You are free to agree or disagree and move on.

 

[wil]

Response.....First hand evidence is a data point....one data point.

Millions of searches for porn sites is millions of data points.

Evidence filtered through one's eyes and belief system is distorted by definition.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Response: And I've said that your claim that my logic gets us no where does not change the fact that the logic is valid. Whether we are "getting somewhere" or whether you agree is not my concern. You are free to agree or disagree and move on.

What use is your valid logic if it isn't getting us anywhere?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

What use is your valid logic if it isn't getting us anywhere?

Response: What use is your question if you have no counter logic?

 

[wil]

Response....

You have been presented many counters...which you ignore and move on.

That may work with some folks....here we have discussion...

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Response....

You have been presented many counters...which you ignore and move on.

That may work with some folks....here we have discussion...

Response: And your alleged counters have been addressed and shown to only make my point.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Response: What use is your question if you have no counter logic?

1. I'm asking you about your logic because I want to know about what you are saying. The existence or no of my logic is irrelevant to that.
2. When you say counter logic, I assume you're talking about a logical system that I prefer over your logical system? Not logic that counter your logic?
3. I'm not sure I have a "logic" but then I don't make statements that I expect anyone to consider true. That's what you do.
4. Though I have written about the pros of authority and consensus which have an systems of logic in themselves I suppose.

Response: And your alleged counters have been addressed and shown to only make my point.

To none here but you I think.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

1. I'm asking you about your logic because I want to know about what you are saying. The existence or no of my logic is irrelevant to that.
2. When you say counter logic, I assume you're talking about a logical system that I prefer over your logical system? Not logic that counter your logic?
3. I'm not sure I have a "logic" but then I don't make statements that I expect anyone to consider true. That's what you do.
4. Though I have written about the pros of authority and consensus which have an systems of logic in themselves I suppose.


To none here but you I think.

Response: But whether you have counter logic or not is relevant to my interest of even entertaining your question. My only interest is the discussion of whether a claim is true or false, where both parties claim either position and back it with logical evidence.

So unless you are claiming my logic or claim is false and support it with your own evidence, then your questions have no interests of mine. For without a counter argument, then all you would be doing is being an antagonist. One who just sits back and claim others are false or wrong and expecting the other to prove their position, while offering no logical counter argument that can be challenged in return. I have no interest in such dialogue.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

One who just sits back and claim others are false or wrong and expecting the other to prove their position, while offering no logical counter argument that can be challenged in return.

I think most here would say that this is me. What is your issue with it? You make a statement: Clothed people are more compassionate than unclothed people. I ask you to defend it. You seem to take great pride in your arguments and your logic. I can't say I've seen any yet but that's what I'm here for.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

I think most here would say that this is me. What is your issue with it? You make a statement: Clothed people are more compassionate than unclothed people. I ask you to defend it. You seem to take great pride in your arguments and your logic. I can't say I've seen any yet but that's what I'm here for.

Response: Good for you, and I am here for presenting irrefutable arguments while exposing the fact that others who challenge or disagree with it have no logical counter argument against it.

 

[wil]

Response: Good for you, and I am here for presenting irrefutable arguments while exposing the fact that others who challenge or disagree with it have no logical counter argument against it.

Response...

I don't know where you got your training but you present an awesome brick wall...obfuscate and ignore...did you attend the trump academy?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Response: Good for you, and I am here for presenting irrefutable arguments while exposing the fact that others who challenge or disagree with it have no logical counter argument against it.

I agree with it being irrefutable, you aren't saying anything to refute, more than your opinion. It's the right way to go if the only thing you care about is not being wrong, but you won't get any closer to any truth, you aren't convincing anyone but yourself, and the will never be any meaningful exchange. Well, not in my opinion. I hope you find a likeminded poster here but I don't think there are any right now.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Response...

I don't know where you got your training but you present an awesome brick wall...obfuscate and ignore...did you attend the trump academy?

Response: Yet your weak rebuttals show otherwise.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

I agree with it being irrefutable, you aren't saying anything to refute, more than your opinion. It's the right way to go if the only thing you care about is not being wrong, but you won't get any closer to any truth, you aren't convincing anyone but yourself, and the will never be any meaningful exchange. Well, not in my opinion. I hope you find a likeminded poster here but I don't think there are any right now.

Response: It's irrefutable because it is logical, as supported by your inability to show evidence to the contrary. Whether you acknowledge so or not does not change the fact.