Comment on Finland | Minister: "Burkas and niqabs are not suitable for school"
dastanktal@hexbear.net 2 days agoAh I hope you can forgive my ignorance. I thought we were talking about a proposed law that directly discriminates against Islam in Finland.
Not theocratic countries that had there politics “reset” by the west multiple times.
It is interesting that I was talking about how Muslims should have the freedom of religion in places like Finland and then you immediately pivot to how oppressive countries, which you also note have loosened the restrictions for the last 7 years, have laws about religious garb. In a theocracy. That isn’t democratic.
Good similie. Definitely pokes a ton of holes in the “this minister is xenophobic and Islamophobic for trying to introduce this law” and isn’t a red herring fallacy.
Perspectivist@feddit.uk 2 days ago
Strawmanning, motte-and-bailey, whataboutism, moving the goalposts, ad hominem, false equivalence and dismissive sarcasm.
Was there a sale at the bad faith argumentation tactics store?
rumba@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
He, and the original post are talking about banning it in Finland. You’re moving the goalpost by quoting it’s law in a single country.
You’re the one arguing in bad faith.
Perspectivist@feddit.uk 2 days ago
We’ve been debating the degree to which women wear these willingly - not whether they should be banned in Finland.
dastanktal@hexbear.net 2 days ago
News to me and everyone else in this thread that’s been discussing an article which talks about Finland specifically proposing a law to ban the burka.
dastanktal@hexbear.net 2 days ago
Point out where I straw-manned you, I’d love to see.
Point out the motte, and point out the bailey. I do not change my position from one extreme to another more acceptable one.
Moving the goalpost? Somebody doesn’t remember what I said earlier, which is that if Muslims wish to wear religious garb, they should be allowed to, in countries like Finland, which is where this law is being proposed. If I recall correctly, you were the one that brought up Iran and Iraq in Afghanistan. Which one of us is moving the goal post? Definitely not the person bringing up random theocratic countries to try and prove their point that Muslim women in Finland are forced to wear burkas.
I’d love to see where I use an ad hominem attack. It’s not an ad hominem attack if it directly relates to the points of your argument.
What false equivalency did I use? Comparing Judaism to Islam? These are both highly Orthodox religions where women are restricted in various garbs and forms, but the difference between Judaism and Muslim is that Jewish women generally wear wigs, not burkas. Let’s just forget the fact they’re both Abrahamic religions. 🙄 this is also not whataboutism, it’s making like comparisons to the types of restrictions that can be put on religion using your logic that you’ve introduced in your comment when you responded to me about people being forced to wear religious garb.
I hate to burst your bubble, but dismissive sarcasm is not a fallacy.
Apparently there was a sale at the bad faith argument store because you’re full of nothing but bad faith arguments. You can’t engage with any point I bring up and run to the fallacy market.
Lets play a game, how many fallacies can I count in your argument?
Everything listed below comes directly from your comments which can be verified by the modlog.
This is the implied fallacy. The logical inconsistency here is it makes a major assumption about the wants and desires of people discount any form of autonomy. In this one statement, there’s a number of formal fallacies that can also be pointed out, but we’re just gonna stick to informal fallacies for the sake of tearing your argument apart and brevity
This is a good example of something called the Divine Fallacy. This is a fallacy where your inability to imagine women who would be willing to wear these religious garbs causes you to insist that practically no woman would wear these garbs if given the choice. Completely ignoring the reality all of the women who live in countries where it’s free to practice religion, that wear those garbs, and all of the women who convert to that religion, who wear those garbs.
This is a classic example of a “moving the goalpost” fallacy. In the context of this thread, we were discussing a Finland minister who has proposed a law to ban women from wearing Islamic religious garb in school. Hopefully you read the article so that you would know that’s what the article is about. Bringing up Islamic countries that are governed by a theocratic government does not invalidate the claim that women can and do choose to wear Islamic religious garb in countries they are not required to do so and do so of their own free choosing.
This is not an adhominem if the statement you made is also racist. Also, I didnt call you racist, I called that statement and your opinion racist.
This form of argumentation is actually known as the invalidation fallacy. It is an attempt through argumentation to invalidate an argument without having to engage with the argument by pointing out fallacies made in the argument. Generally used by debaters who are intellectually lazy and dishonest.
This is actually a good example of an ad hominem because you have yet to engage with a literal single point that I made and instead revert to attacking my character.
Just to make sure things are incredibly clear and so that we understand each other here are the facts:
In conclusion, this finland minister is trash, and anyone who supports such regulatory policy is also trash.