"Pork or Nothing" : How Politics intervenes children's lunch

[Eastern Equestria]

Really? Oh dear Ostro...

Ostro's track record speaks for itself though...

Guys, let's refrain from personal attacks.

[Valystria]

Kefka already addressed this.

No Kefka took a piss in the dark and got her shoe wet. Address it yourself, or you know what? Humor us and repeat it.

Arguing for alternative dishes out of religious reasons would be a religious privilege.
if it's argued for out of a secular reason then it's fine.

I will say again every supporter has said there should be an alternative option but for secular reasons.

Kefka already addressed this.

Kefka can barely write his own address, much less address an argument....

I've seen her formulate excellent posts.

This is the best post I've seen in this thread.

There's no doubt that they're related. This is being done verifiably by right-wing douchebags.

Its irrelevant why the law-makers implemented it.

Focus on whether the policies by themselves are justifiable or not and whether or not their benefits outweigh the costs. Who cares what goes into the minds of the specific law-makers who made the law?

That's question that goes towards assessing the character of the law-makers (which is an unrelated issue); it says nothing about the policy itself.

A benevolent law-maker may create a completely unworkable law with overall negative effects that is unjustifiable. Conversely, the most spiteful law-maker may create a completely workable law with overall positive effects that is justifiable and desirable.

The motivations of the law-makers are irrelevant. ''Oh they implemented it only to spite Muslims'' is irrelevant because 1. you can't read their minds so that's all just speculation and 2. it doesn't prove anything about the policy as it is being implemented and its overall theoretical justification (or lack of) either way, it just shows that its creators adopted a less than desirable mindset, not that the policy itself is bad

[Ostroeuropa]

I think maybe you should pay more attention to his posts.

Really? Oh dear Ostro...

Do you have an argument against them other than commiting a fallacy and relying on social pressure?

[Valystria]

These Muslim parents aren't second-class citizens. They are citizens the same as every other French citizen who also doesn't have any state-endorsed religious accommodations. The French secular state is one in which religion has no bearing on a citizen's privileges.

They can't wear niqabs in public, though. Because reasons.

If anything, in your idealized pluralist society, it is the irreligious citizens who are second-class as they are the ones who are not receiving any state-granted religious privileges. You are arguing for religious citizens to be granted privileges irreligious citizens do not have.

Lolno

Because secular reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

It is a ban on the concealment of the face in public spaces. It is incidental that some religious headwear happens to conceal the face. This policy is a secular one.

[Fartsniffage]

I've seen her formulate excellent posts.

This is the best post I've seen in this thread.

Him, he's a him. I thought you would be really keen on getting that right?

[Valystria]

"Anyone can read the commandments in the court house! Who's to say they're there to benefit christians?"

Apples and oranges. But you knew that already didn't you?

Religions and religions. It makes no difference to the secular state.

[The Alexanderians]

They can't wear niqabs in public, though. Because reasons.



Lolno

Because secular reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

It is a ban on the concealment of the face in public spaces. It is incidental that some religious headwear happens to conceal the face. This policy is a secular one.

Nope it was specifically done to target religious face coverings. Something that hurt no one and had no reason to be banned beyond xenophobia and islamophobia. They simply made the wording of the law sound neutral, a common tactic used throughout the world to get shitty things through legislature. LEt me ask you, how may western people actual cover their faces? Now how many non-westerners?

[Fartsniffage]

Really? Oh dear Ostro...

Do you have an argument against them other than commiting a fallacy and relying on social pressure?

I made my argument against them and he hasn't replied. And he's widely regarded as being full of shit based on his posts.

[Ostroeuropa]

Do you have an argument against them other than commiting a fallacy and relying on social pressure?

I made my argument against them and he hasn't replied. And he's widely regarded as being full of shit based on his posts.

*shrug*
Feminism is widely regarded as an equality movement. I don't care about his overall reputation. What are THESE POSTS and their content. You seem to have a problem seperating an argument from the source.
And seriously?

Argumentum ad populum too?

I'm almost certain, given your posts to me and valystria on this, that you didn't actually make an argument against them, and instead just posted a bunch of fallacies and assertions.
Can you source that?

[Valystria]

I've seen her formulate excellent posts.

This is the best post I've seen in this thread.

Him, he's a him. I thought you would be really keen on getting that right?

This is why it is important for me to protect myself against misrepresentations if that is indeed the case.

However, I merely went by what Alexanderians said. If you take issue with that, take it up with Alexanderians and not me.

Kefka already addressed this.

No Kefka took a piss in the dark and got her shoe wet. Address it yourself, or you know what? Humor us and repeat it.

[Valystria]

Because secular reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

It is a ban on the concealment of the face in public spaces. It is incidental that some religious headwear happens to conceal the face. This policy is a secular one.

Nope it was specifically done to target religious face coverings. Something that hurt no one and had no reason to be banned beyond xenophobia and islamophobia. They simply made the wording of the law sound neutral, a common tactic used throughout the world to get shitty things through legislature. LEt me ask you, how may western people actual cover their faces? Now how many non-westerners?

The intentions are irrelevant. It bans far more than religious face coverings.

[The Alexanderians]

Him, he's a him. I thought you would be really keen on getting that right?

This is why it is important for me to protect myself against misrepresentations if that is indeed the case.

However, I merely went by what Alexanderians said. If you take issue with that, take it up with Alexanderians and not me.

No Kefka took a piss in the dark and got her shoe wet. Address it yourself, or you know what? Humor us and repeat it.

Don't blame me, take some responsibility for your self. You're real high and tight for getting pronouns right the first time, I'm not if they wanted a correction they could have asked like a normal human being.

[Fartsniffage]

Apples and oranges. But you knew that already didn't you?

Religions and religions. It makes no difference to the secular state.

It really does. Using religion to define the laws of a state isn't secular, accepting religious arguments to amend laws in a way that doesn't impede the rights of citizens who aren't religious and doesn't show favouritism for a single religion is.

But you don't understand the idea of a secular government......

[Ostroeuropa]

This is why it is important for me to protect myself against misrepresentations if that is indeed the case.

However, I merely went by what Alexanderians said. If you take issue with that, take it up with Alexanderians and not me.

Don't blame me, take some responsibility for your self. You're real high and tight for getting pronouns right the first time, I'm not if they wanted a correction they could have asked like a normal human being.

She just corrected somebody. You're the guys that turned it into an argument.

I expect if Kefka wants to correct us, they will. Some people don't care.

[The Alexanderians]

Nope it was specifically done to target religious face coverings. Something that hurt no one and had no reason to be banned beyond xenophobia and islamophobia. They simply made the wording of the law sound neutral, a common tactic used throughout the world to get shitty things through legislature. LEt me ask you, how may western people actual cover their faces? Now how many non-westerners?

The intentions are irrelevant. It bans far more than religious face coverings.

Oh but remember you said it was religious motivations that weren't irrelevant, this was done with religion as a motivation. Ho hum, make up your mind.

[Fartsniffage]

I made my argument against them and he hasn't replied. And he's widely regarded as being full of shit based on his posts.

*shrug*
Feminism is widely regarded as an equality movement. I don't care about his overall reputation. What are THESE POSTS and their content. You seem to have a problem seperating an argument from the source.
And seriously?

Argumentum ad populum too?

I'm almost certain, given your posts to me and valystria on this, that you didn't actually make an argument against them, and instead just posted a bunch of fallacies and assertions.
Can you source that?

Source what?

[Eastern Equestria]

I made my argument against them and he hasn't replied. And he's widely regarded as being full of shit based on his posts.

*shrug*
Feminism is widely regarded as an equality movement. I don't care about his overall reputation. What are THESE POSTS and their content. You seem to have a problem seperating an argument from the source.
And seriously?

Argumentum ad populum too?

I'm almost certain, given your posts to me and valystria on this, that you didn't actually make an argument against them, and instead just posted a bunch of fallacies and assertions.
Can you source that?

Well, I mean, he's made entire threads about banning dogs. Not that that has any bearing on this one.

[Ostroeuropa]

The intentions are irrelevant. It bans far more than religious face coverings.

Oh but remember you said it was religious motivations that weren't irrelevant, this was done with religion as a motivation. Ho hum, make up your mind.

The motivation is irrelevant. The argument isn't. Do you understand the difference between the two?

If you're motivated for religious reasons to make a secular argument in favor of a vegetarian alternative, that's absolutely fine, because the motivations are always irrelevant to the policy.

All that matters is the argument, and the policies effects.

[Valystria]

Do you have an argument against them other than commiting a fallacy and relying on social pressure?

I made my argument against them and he hasn't replied. And he's widely regarded as being full of shit based on his posts.

You're resorting to a character attack.

You are dismissing that Kefka has made excellent posts throughout the thread. Who a post is made by does not matter. The content of the post is what matters.

This is why it is important for me to protect myself against misrepresentations if that is indeed the case.

However, I merely went by what Alexanderians said. If you take issue with that, take it up with Alexanderians and not me.

Don't blame me, take some responsibility for your self. You're real high and tight for getting pronouns right the first time, I'm not if they wanted a correction they could have asked like a normal human being.

I have taken responsibility.
And no, I'm not high and tight. I usually don't care.

The intentions are irrelevant. It bans far more than religious face coverings.

Oh but remember you said it was religious motivations that weren't irrelevant, this was done with religion as a motivation. Ho hum, make up your mind.

It was done with secularism as motivation. Either way, the motivations are irrelevant. The argument was a secular one.

[The imperial canadian dutchy]

Fuck even state school lunches sound fancy in France.

[Valystria]

*shrug*
Feminism is widely regarded as an equality movement. I don't care about his overall reputation. What are THESE POSTS and their content. You seem to have a problem seperating an argument from the source.
And seriously?

Argumentum ad populum too?

I'm almost certain, given your posts to me and valystria on this, that you didn't actually make an argument against them, and instead just posted a bunch of fallacies and assertions.
Can you source that?

Well, I mean, he's made entire threads about banning dogs. Not that that has any bearing on this one.

Does that have any relevance to the posts Kefka has made in this thread? No? Then I suggest you cease with the character attacks against Kefka and address the content of the posts.

[Eastern Equestria]

Well, I mean, he's made entire threads about banning dogs. Not that that has any bearing on this one.

Does that have any relevance to the posts Kefka has made in this thread? No? Then I suggest you cease with the character attacks against Kefka and address the content of the posts.

Read the post you're responding to again, carefully.

[Infected Mushroom]

it's fine if its not justified on religious grounds

because to do so would stray away from secularism

Which I have been waiting a day for an answer for, if it can be done for other students why can it not just as easily be done for muslim students?

Nevermind the fact that part of people's arguments is that this is being done to marginalize French Muslims, which given France's track record it is. This would be like revoking AA after a police shooting.

the motive of the lawmakers is irrelevant

the result is fair and appropriate secularism and equal treatment

[Valystria]

Don't blame me, take some responsibility for your self. You're real high and tight for getting pronouns right the first time, I'm not if they wanted a correction they could have asked like a normal human being.

She just corrected somebody. You're the guys that turned it into an argument.

I expect if Kefka wants to correct us, they will. Some people don't care.

Personally I don't except when someone makes a faulty assumption. I never thought it would be made into an argument.

Does that have any relevance to the posts Kefka has made in this thread? No? Then I suggest you cease with the character attacks against Kefka and address the content of the posts.

Read the post you're responding to again, carefully.

I did. It has no relevance and yet you bring it up anyway to continue the character attack regardless. Relevant to the character attack in the post, sure. It is not relevant to the thread. It doesn't contribute anything.
All you're attempting to do is dragging down someone's reputation instead of debating them on equal terms.

Kefka has made excellent points on how and why the policy is secular and why the motivations of a policy do not matter. As has Ostro. Yet both have been character attacked instead of being debated with respect.

[Fartsniffage]

You're resorting to a character attack.

You are dismissing that Kefka has made excellent posts throughout the thread. Who a post is made by does not matter. The content of the post is what matters.

Excellent posts in your opinion. Of the same standard as when he wanted to ban the Socratic method because he didn't like it in mine. You say potato....I say he has the credibility of a sea sponge.