Really?
I knew my position wouldn’t be popular on BB’s BBS, but to claim I should be ashamed to support a consistent position on full face masks is rediculous.
All rights are a balancing act with other people’s rights. Everyone but anarchists agree that there have to be lines drawn - the only difference is a matter of degrees on where we draw the lines. I’m holding a fairly new ones position where we should draw the line, and I think full face masks is a reasonable position to draw a line at.
I’ll grant, the last few posts, you’ve been somewhat consistent. But that’s a small minority of your posts on this thread. I’d suggest re-reading the whole thread. I have twice now, and you’re arguing in a desperate way that doesn’t make you look good and doesn’t really support your position much.
Here’s my final signoff: I agree law is a balancing act. And I recognize we disagree pretty much on polar opposites of where the cards should fall. I’d like you to use evidence to support your claims. You did name yourself @skeptic after all. The only people with concrete examples and evidence relevant to your arguments in this thread so far are people other than you.
This is a judgement call. An opinion. Where to draw the line on full face masks is my opinion on a reasonable trade off on rights. So, unlike alt med arguments, there isn’t a scientific answer. Science can be used to inform our moral judgements but it can’t make them.
Thanks for making an honest effort finally. I can certainly agree with you that it’s opinion.
Good night. I’m tired of reading this thread. Much less arguing here.
I’m generally a fan of your posts @LDoBe, but I reject your false contention that all of my posts in this thread but one are dishonest. I’ve certainly not accused you of anything remotely similar , and I would appreciate it if you would not make false averments.
I said honest effort. It’s a euphemism. I really do mean to thank you. You don’t have to keep context-switching.
Thanks. I appreciate the clarification, and I like you regardless of this disagreement. But you did say “finally”, which implies the converse about all the previous posts. That isn’t “context switching” on my part. If you are going to use a semantic magnifying glass on all of my posts you don’t get to exempt yourself from the same.
This isn’t the youtube comment section. Try to add value or be productive.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
So, you are doubling down and saying I have an IQ under 25. Ad hominems do not actually give you the moral high ground.
I’ve been entirety civil in this discussion but I’ve been personally attacked by a number of people, including yourself.
Okay, Pee-wee.
You’re stooping. Maybe you should try a different tack. One that’s more than plain expressing how much you dislike your interlocutor. At least I tried to restart the dialog.
You do think you’re a better person than me right? Act like it.
Really? So, if I showed you two photos - one of a Japanese man and one of a black man and asked you which one was more likely to have sickle cell anemia, you would not be able to have an opinion on the matter?
Yeah, but the presence of sickle cell anemia is not sufficient grounds for identifying race. And it certainly doesn’t have anything to say about an individual’s cultural background, personal experiences, disposition, mental state, etc, etc.
But a black man has other traits which we recognize as “racial” - his skin color, his nose, his hair, his ratio of fast twitch fibers. The Japanese man as well. Australian aboriginals look a unique look, and they also have unique genetics having to do with the response of their peripheral veins to conserve body heat at night when sleeping.
So we have an interbreeding people, which have a characteristic look, who have unique genetic markers, unique physiognomy, and who come from a specific geographical region. That sure sounds like “races” to me.
I think the idea that there are no “races” is a false meme.
Yesterday I was watching the Olympics. Two judo competitors were announced - a man from Japan and a man from the Ukraine. Not only could I tell them apart, but they each looked exactly as I would expect each to look.
I am not saying that race is necessarily important biologically, but it seems, like art and pornography, something that may not be easy to define, but “we know it when we see it”.
I’m confused about why that post was linked.
I made repeated comments to not lump in religious attire with everything else.
I was countering the points that face coverings shouldn’t matter period - and that simply is not the case with how the average person works. Especially if they are not used to it a cultural norm.
Hmm I think it’s stagnating in here so I’ll leave you this:
Kyrgyzstan president: ‘Women in mini skirts don’t become suicide bombers’
I can draw a line on a map around features and call it a country/state. Then I can show the map to lots of people until they all identify the land features I circled with the country/state I made. I can set up checkpoints on passages where someone can readily cross that line I drew, and I can establish rules on who, when and how can cross it. I can structure the rules to make it harder to cross the line than stay inside or outside of it, eventually fostering a collective identity of us and them.
Where I draw the line is arbitrary and not scientific. The only difference between arbitrary borders and arbitrary racial categories is individuals (you and I for example) will perceive different delineations if we’ve been shown different maps our whole lives.
One can train oneself to see the natural continuity and fluidity of the H. sapiens even while recognizing where other people see the artificial categories since this will influence how they see and act towards oneself and others. Everyone sees race, but not everyone sees race the same, and not everyone recognizes it for the construct it is.
I don’t think you intentionally made a straw man argument, but that was the effect. I never said there are no races. I said race is a bullshit social construct, not scientific or biological categories. To use your own examples of art or pornography, something can be artificial and still be real. I brought the issue up earlier in the thread because it was being argued that this was not an example of racial profiling. Since race is arbitrary and subjective, that was an appeal to a non-existent objective racial standard.
i was using it as an example of skeptic’s approach in a discussion with a similar theme.
No one in my immediate family looks like their racial mix. In most cases, we don’t even look ‘mixed’. We all get called different things, usually one of the minority components, although one of my daughters consistently gets labeled with the wrong continent.
Phenotype is not genotype.
The first black woman to win an Olympic medal in individual swimming (2 bronze, not gold) was from the Netherlands. Would you have known to call her Dutch?
The word antisocial literally means antagonistic towards society. The word asocial is a better way of expressing lack of socialization.
