Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by Mightysword » Mon, 15. Mar 21, 17:47

fiksal wrote:
Mon, 15. Mar 21, 15:08
Where do you draw the line then? At what point someones' protecting themselves from what they see as "new" becomes worthy of critique?
If I have to draw a line, that line wouldn't be straight. To apply the same standard across the board irregardless of local consideration ... isn't that what people hate about things like American Exceptionalism and the like? There is something call "Live and Let's live". You have your house, and I have mine, we don't run the same way but we also don't interfere. But at the sametime, you can't come into my house, bending my rule and tell me just "live and let live". Doesn't work like that. (The you and me here are just general pronounces). It's a totally different matter if the Swiss goes to the countries where these people originate from and tell them they should ban face covering, I'll tell them stfu and gtfo, but this is their house.

And why does it have to become worthy of critique? As in ... you just feel the need to criticize something?
A flaw to me would be - excusing such behavior, or general apathy.
There is probably why I have a different perspective as you: I normally categorize human behavior into 3 states: bad, neutral, good. Let me use charity as an example:

- Bad: you're a greedy person, not only you don't help others, you actually deprive other of what they need to enrich yourself. This is where I find criticism is deserved.
- neutral: you keep to yourself, you take what you need, and you don't deprive other. Basically you don't deep into other bubble as long as they don't enter yours. This is to me, live and let's live.
- Good: you do charity. Which is consider going beyond normal obligation. This is where I gonna "praise" you.

In fact, I dislike people who find the need to criticize others for not doing charity more than the people who doesn't do charity themselves. (Again, just a figure of speaking, not saying I'm disliking YOU here specifically :) )
So that's your line?
For China, yes, as you can see it's not the same line I use elsewhere. If you can only tolerate one set of standard, that's the definition of intolerance. Of course there is a minimum somewhere, I don't care what culture it is but something like chopping off people head is definitely wrong, but this is not something like that. If you want to classify every culture difference as discrimination, I'm sorry this is just one to add to the list because we already did ton, I'll give you another example:

Couple years ago I watched a documentary of a Germany's integration class where they explained to a middle east man: his wife has the right to go to a disco, and he can't not have more than one wife. So on both counts, this is a violation of another culture, but you can also see a contradiction. The former is an extension of freedom, but the latter is a restriction on existing freedom. . They are justified one over another simply due to what acceptable to the local culture, ironically this is exactly what you would say in the later quote: fair and equal don't matter, what matter is what the local find acceptable. :P


Reason I remember it because it reminded me when I first came, we were refugee too so we did spent a few month in a refugee class. We noticed a middle east couple with an middle age man and a very young wife. In our discussion, we found out she's the youngest of his 5 wives. So when the embassy told him "our law only recognize one wife, you have to pick one to bring with you." He picked the youngest, and as a result, now there were 4 estranged women left behind in a male dominated society ... which I hope you would agree probably a much worse situation than a face covering ban.

Will you label that discrimination against Mulism culture (with a very bad consequence in this case)? Should we accommodate him and allow him to have all 5 wives? Because if you insist on drawing one line for everything, you are obligated to say yes to both of those.

Honestly "fair" or "equal" doesnt even come into play for me. People should be free.
And here I thought COVID-19 had taught people of the West why that's ... not a really good principal. So by that, you mean all the people who don't follow protocol have been right all long? :roll:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Mon, 15. Mar 21, 20:51

I mean, if his wives all agree to share a single husband, why not? Who cares? Whose freedom is attacked by this? Beaurocracy looks the only problem here.

The key is "if nobody's harmed, who cares?". That's the same reasoning I use for burqa.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by fiksal » Wed, 17. Mar 21, 14:51

Mightysword wrote:
Mon, 15. Mar 21, 17:47
And why does it have to become worthy of critique? As in ... you just feel the need to criticize something?
I'll turn it around - it seems like you feel that one must be careful and quiet about other nations and cultures, why?

You asked two different questions though,
- It's worthy because it's punishing people who are not guilty. It goes against "live and let live" principle.
- I dont feel the need to criticize, it's just appropriate in this situation.

So that's your line?
his wife has the right to go to a disco, and he can't not have more than one wife. So on both counts, this is a violation of another culture, but you can also see a contradiction. The former is an extension of freedom, but the latter is a restriction on existing freedom. . They are justified one over another simply due to what acceptable to the local culture, ironically this is exactly what you would say in the later quote: fair and equal don't matter, what matter is what the local find acceptable. :P
The marriage example is closer but not that close. Still the man or the women are not penalized for choices about themselves. But Western countries do disallow multiple marriages like this. Some marriage laws do target specific groups in the west, like prohibiting gay marriage, as another example. Is this one targeting specifically middle east? - I dont know, since these laws has been in the books for a long time.

But something you keep glancing over in my post - is the same question - who is the victim, when we have to make marriage a crime?


Will you label that discrimination against Mulism culture (with a very bad consequence in this case)? Should we accommodate him and allow him to have all 5 wives? Because if you insist on drawing one line for everything, you are obligated to say yes to both of those.
Immigration laws are largely arbitrary. They are not based on any specific principles and just function whichever way a wind blows that political decade or a year. If I were to type my response on it, it might get long :)

But in summary - specifically bringing the other wives - I'd not describe as discriminatory, since immigration usually sets harsh limits on what dependents you can bring.


Honestly "fair" or "equal" doesnt even come into play for me. People should be free.
And here I thought COVID-19 had taught people of the West why that's ... not a really good principal. So by that, you mean all the people who don't follow protocol have been right all long? :roll:
And that's a different question :)
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by Mightysword » Wed, 17. Mar 21, 16:38

fiksal wrote:
Wed, 17. Mar 21, 14:51
- It's worthy because it's punishing people who are not guilty. It goes against "live and let live" principle.
- But something you keep glancing over in my post - is the same question - who is the victim, when we have to make marriage a crime?
- Immigration laws are largely arbitrary.
- And that's a different question :)
- Because I don't use sentimental concept like "punishing", I set a house rule for anyone to come in and follow. If you come into my house and don't follow there will be consequence, you calling it punishing is just you trying to be sensational.

- In case you missed the obvious, the 4 women who left behind? In fact, using your logic of "people should be free" you can also say even the man in question is victim, because the law takes away his right of having multiple spouse. It also take away the ability of any person to have more than one spouse, so to those who want and unable, they should all considered "victims" per your logic. But then, victim is a sensational word, something I don't use in these scenarios, and I believe it lends no weight to the argument.

- Is the word "arbitrary" the new hip these days? Seeing it getting thrown around a lot. :gruebel: No, most of these originated from some set of value/custom/reasons. Just because you don't agree/appreciate/recognize those values, it does not make them arbitrary. Otherwise, literally every culture are arbitrary.

- And why? Not that I don't agree it's not the same question. But just to show you that making a broadstroke is not wise. So you DO draw different lines depending on situations, I just want to make you aware of that. In fact, the statement "people should be free" is the most arbitrary in all of what you're saying. :P
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by Mightysword » Wed, 17. Mar 21, 16:39

BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Mon, 15. Mar 21, 20:51
I mean, if his wives all agree to share a single husband, why not? Who cares? Whose freedom is attacked by this? Beaurocracy looks the only problem here.

The key is "if nobody's harmed, who cares?". That's the same reasoning I use for burqa.
Oh I totally agree - on a personal level that is. Where the heck that rule even come from the first place? In the West I'm guessing it rooted from religion, but in the East we used to have it, tell you what, if I can find a bunch of women who love me, I would want to marry them all :D But that's only in a perfect world.

"if nobody's harmed, who cares". Question is ... what if someone is harmed? What if someone care? In classical literature, we (Vietnamese) have story "legendary feast of jealousy". Even in modern time I won't say it's common, but in Vietnam if you read something like "people spill acid onto each other, or using knife to scar each others face" on the newspaper, you won't even flinch. At some point we decide "ok, that's too disruptive to social harmony, it gotta stop". So the law is in place to both stop and discourage people. What if 2 people first married based on the assumption they will not have another? What if a few years later one decided "changed my mind I want another" while the other don't? Not sure how divorce law work in other nation, but in Vietnam it's 50/50 wealth split under normal circumstance, however if the divorce is result of a person cheating ... it won't be a 50/50 split.

And I can sit here and give you a few dozens more examples: you heard about Asia eat their pets right, like cat and dog? In the US, some states outright banned it (as in you get punished to eat those), some doesn't outright ban it but have law to literally preventing it from circulating. What about legal age of consent? Some people may have a very young spouse and of course have sex where the people involved are not considered minor, but if the come to the US and people caught wind of that ... it's a felony with a permanent black record.


I don't know about you but ... being told what to eat and what not to eat, being told how many spouse you can marry, being told when and with whom you can have sex with or face jail time seem to be much worse infringement of freedom than a face covering, and again I can give you a few dozen more if you want. So anyone here want to pick up the pitchfork and scream cultural discrimination for those cases as well? Fiskal asked me where to draw a line, my reverse question is where do you draw YOUR line where you gonna have to accept cultural difference is a thing and people need to adapt to the place they moved to? Because if you insist people "should be free" and rubber stamping every differences ... then almost everything can be called a "discrimination." :roll:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Wed, 17. Mar 21, 16:59

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 17. Mar 21, 16:39
BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Mon, 15. Mar 21, 20:51
I mean, if his wives all agree to share a single husband, why not? Who cares? Whose freedom is attacked by this? Beaurocracy looks the only problem here.

The key is "if nobody's harmed, who cares?". That's the same reasoning I use for burqa.
I don't know about you but ... being told what to eat and what not to eat, being told how many spouse you can marry, being told when and with whom you can have sex with or face jail time seem to be much worse infringement of freedom than a face covering, and again I can give you a few dozen more if you want. So anyone here want to pick up the pitchfork and scream cultural discrimination for those cases as well? Fiskal asked me where to draw a line, my reverse question is where do you draw YOUR line where you gonna have to accept cultural difference is a thing and people need to adapt to the place they moved to? Because if you insist people "should be free" and rubber stamping every differences ... then almost everything can be called a "discrimination." :roll:
Difficult question, freedom and discrimination shouldn't be subjective, but the fact is they are (it's mostly religion's fault, perhaps).
Besides, harm isn't as subjective as it seems: what people is harmed by? That is the question, and its answer is, in my opinion, where the line has to be traced.
E.g.: are you harmed by your neighbour having several wives? Are you harmed by his daughter wearing a burqa? Are you harmed by his son playing football in the yard? Are you harmed by the fact they speak a different language, or their skin is darker than yours?
That's where the line is traced: what people (the majority of people) is physically or psychologically harmed by? For me, ketchup on pasta has to be forbidden and severely punished. But that's just a single point of the line.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by fiksal » Wed, 17. Mar 21, 17:33

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 17. Mar 21, 16:38
- Because I don't use sentimental concept like "punishing", I set a house rule for anyone to come in and follow. If you come into my house and don't follow there will be consequence, you calling it punishing is just you trying to be sensational.
"Punishing" is not sensational, it's how the justice system works in all countries we are discussing, it's the result of a law / ban / policy. Penalty / fee is punishment. Arrest and jail are punishments. This word is correctly used.

If Swiss were to remove punishment part from their ban, I might have less disagreement with them.

- In case you missed the obvious, the 4 women who left behind? In fact, using your logic of "people should be free" you can also say even the man in question is victim, because the law takes away his right of having multiple spouse. It also take away the ability of any person to have more than one spouse, so to those who want and unable, they should all considered "victims" per your logic. But then, victim is a sensational word, something I don't use in these scenarios, and I believe it lends no weight to the argument.
Victim in my argument is the person who was affected by some action, usually something we consider a crime. What exactly is your question in this case? Is this man a victim of the law? The 4 women? Yes they are victims of the guy who left them, or if not victims than at least betrayed.


Let me again repeat what I keep saying but with more words - who is the victim of what crime that makes it necessary for a law or ban to exist, that is the topic of this thread?
You can apply the same question to your example of disallowing multiple marriages.

- Is the word "arbitrary" the new hip these days? Seeing it getting thrown around a lot. :gruebel: No, most of these originated from some set of value/custom/reasons. Just because you don't agree/appreciate/recognize those values, it does not make them arbitrary. Otherwise, literally every culture are arbitrary.
I've used it since the birth.

Add to "value/custom/reasons" also "personal whim", as well as "based on or determined by individual preference" and you got yourself definition of "arbitrary".
You mentioned immigration, and I mentioned my opinion of ever changing and contradictory laws that usually surround them. Are you asking me if I can scientifically prove that they are arbitrary? Maybe for some I can, if you want to get into that? Can you prove that they are not? I dont think so. But that's another thread.

- And why? Not that I don't agree it's not the same question. But just to show you that making a broadstroke is not wise. So you DO draw different lines depending on situations, I just want to make you aware of that. In fact, the statement "people should be free" is the most arbitrary in all of what you're saying. :P
I dont recall claiming that I do not draw different lines depending on the situation, did I? I have no goals for the "lines", but I do want to have them at least in close proximity.


Now you get it. ;)

"people should be free" fits the definition of arbitrary, as it is indeed my individual preference and based on my experience, I have no scientific data to back it up and will not attempt to do this. This preference will remain so forever.

BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Wed, 17. Mar 21, 16:59
E.g.: are you harmed by your neighbour having several wives? Are you harmed by his daughter wearing a burqa? Are you harmed by his son playing football in the yard? Are you harmed by the fact they speak a different language, or their skin is darker than yours?
That's where the line is traced: what people (the majority of people) is physically or psychologically harmed by? For me, ketchup on pasta has to be forbidden and severely punished. But that's just a single point of the line.
Exactly
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by Mightysword » Wed, 17. Mar 21, 20:24

fiksal wrote:
Wed, 17. Mar 21, 17:33
"Punishing" is not sensational, it's how the justice system works in all countries we are discussing, it's the result of a law / ban / policy. Penalty / fee is punishment

Let me again repeat what I keep saying but with more words - who is the victim of what crime that makes it necessary for a law or ban to exist, that is the topic of this thread?
You can apply the same question to your example of disallowing multiple marriages.
As someone who born and grew up in a culture that is probably at about 90-120 degree angle from the one I'm living in currently, I can give you a laundry of what considered the norm to do that I can no longer do. Ranging from general discourage due to social norm to etiquette, to down right stuffs with actual legal consequence. The point is I chose to come to this country (even as I was a refugee), I chose to adapt and assimilate. When you're at Rome do what the Roman does, I chose to respect the law and costume of my new homeland. I don't look at those things I can no longer does and say "I'm being discriminated, I'm the victim, I'm being punished".

I already said, you're free to disagree. I'm just simply cautioning that putting some generic sensational label on things is a deep rabbit hole with no bottom. Again, if I see a person doing charity I will praise the person. But if I see someone who doesn't, the most I gonna say is "I wish he does more charity". I will NOT critize that person as "selfish, evil, disregard of other welling being" ... because if I do, I probably will give myself reasons to complain about another 1001 things.
"personal whim", as well as "based on or determined by individual preference" and you got yourself definition of "arbitrary".
Last time I checked, this isn't because some "emperor of Switzerland" wake up one day and decide "we gonna bane face covering in public" because I said so. It is a result of a democratic process involve the population, so you're stretching your point a bit too thin here. :roll:
I dont recall claiming that I do not draw different lines depending on the situation, did I? I have no goals for the "lines", but I do want to have them at least in close proximity.
Now you get it. ;)
No I still don't. I hope you will at least agree it would be impossible to have a discussion if we have to specifically do it letter by letter, there is always gonna be a degree of assumption and extrapolation involved. Certainly there is a threshold before it's becoming "putting words in someone else mouth", but also, if it looks like a duck, whack like a duck, walk like a duck then ... you don't need people to tell you it's a duck to know it's a duck, right?

At some point you said you judged the Swiss and the US on the same standard, and then you ask where I draw my line, you had also stated that fair and equal doesn't matter, and now you further re-enforced that scientific data does not matter either ... as the discussion progress that's not unreasonable for me make the assumption that I did. In fact, I'm struggling finding an alternative interpretation of your claim.

I'll repeat the question again: if you decide the face covering ban is a discrimination and the punishment is unjust and should be reverse based on ... (as revealed later in your post) some arbitrary reason. Should we go ahead and reverse stuffs like legal age of consent as well? First, since it's clearly legal/accepted in some culture, and you don't think fair/equal/science matter in this argument, why even have a limit as all!?? People should be free after all. :wink:
"people should be free" fits the definition of arbitrary, as it is indeed my individual preference and based on my experience, I have no scientific data to back it up and will not attempt to do this. This preference will remain so forever.
Ok now this is something I understand. Basically, your argument is also arbitrary? Make sense, if someone is using an arbitrary framework, than most things will probably appear arbitrary to them. But then may I ask what the point of calling out others for being arbitrary then? Pot calling the kettle black :?
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by Mightysword » Wed, 17. Mar 21, 20:28

BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Wed, 17. Mar 21, 16:59
E.g.: are you harmed by your neighbour having several wives? Are you harmed by his daughter wearing a burqa? Are you harmed by his son playing football in the yard? Are you harmed by the fact they speak a different language, or their skin is darker than yours?
That's where the line is traced: what people (the majority of people) is physically or psychologically harmed by? For me, ketchup on pasta has to be forbidden and severely punished. But that's just a single point of the line.
Because social interaction doesn't work like that always. There is a saying the right of you swinging your fist stop before it's hitting my face, while we understand the meaning of that saying, it's not literal right? At least I can tell you, your first doesn't have to actually connect to my face to provoke a reaction from me. For example, disturbing image of dog meat market warning, don't click if you're sensitive to that:

pic 1
pic 2

Hell I'm Vietnamese and I find those sights disturbing. But I also acknowledge the Vietnam culture doesn't treat or view dog the same way the US does. The way people regard dogs in the West, I would totally understand why people believe those sights can be a source of emotion distress and thus can not be part of the public image. Whatever you think is the reason behind that ... quite doesn't matter isn't it. This is not the samething as arguing whether pineapple belongs on a pizza or not. It just goes to show we all draw different lines on different things, just like how different countries decide what accepted and not accepted in their society.

There is one thing I would like to add (and perhaps closing my participant on this topic for the time being) on the subject of immigration in general.

- We live in an imperfect world.

That's something everyone need to recognize, and policy are usually created is due either to those imperfections or to address them. The irony I often see is however, people acknowledging the imperfection of the world, yet suggest solutions that is so idealist that it would only work in a perfect world. Remember, in a perfect world you wouldn't even have things such as refugee in the first place, and thus the whole debate about integration and assimilation would itself become moot. :wink:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
clakclak
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sun, 13. Jul 08, 19:29
x3

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by clakclak » Wed, 17. Mar 21, 20:48

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 17. Mar 21, 20:28
[...]
That's something everyone need to recognize, and policy are usually created is due either to those imperfections or to address them. The irony I often see is however, people acknowledging the imperfection of the world, yet suggest solutions that is so idealist that it would only work in a perfect world. Remember, in a perfect world you wouldn't even have things such as refugee in the first place, and thus the whole debate about integration and assimilation would itself become moot. :wink:
The question runs even deeper I think.

What is a perfect world?

To a marxist it is a world without class devides.

To an ancap it is a totally free market.

To a Conservative it is a world modeled after a set of of fixed, unchanging ideals.

To a post-humanist it is a world where we grew out of our humanity and managed to detache ourselves from it.

To an anarcho-communist it is a world free of social hierarchies.

To a posadist the world is perfect once everyone lives in a nuclear wasteland.

And to a Neo-Liberal, I assume, the current world is allready perfect.

In a sense all these worldviews are idealistic in nature (except for Posadism maybe, that one is just batshit insane). It is just that some of them seem more achievable than others.
"The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn't have the weight of gender expectations." - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by fiksal » Wed, 17. Mar 21, 22:03

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 17. Mar 21, 20:24
I already said, you're free to disagree. I'm just simply cautioning that putting some generic sensational label on things is a deep rabbit hole with no bottom. Again, if I see a person doing charity I will praise the person. But if I see someone who doesn't, the most I gonna say is "I wish he does more charity". I will NOT critize that person as "selfish, evil, disregard of other welling being" ... because if I do, I probably will give myself reasons to complain about another 1001 things.
I do disagree. The punishment is not a generic label, it's what comes with a law, ban, policy. This has nothing to do with criticizing anyone for not doing any specific volunteer work.

If one outlaws burka, kippah or the like, then one wants to punish the people who still wear them. That punishment is then an assault, arrest, a fine, and a jail, depending on how it plays out.

If you still disagree then look up the definition yourself : "2: the penalty for a wrong or crime"

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 17. Mar 21, 20:24
"personal whim", as well as "based on or determined by individual preference" and you got yourself definition of "arbitrary".
Last time I checked, this isn't because some "emperor of Switzerland" wake up one day and decide "we gonna bane face covering in public" because I said so. It is a result of a democratic process involve the population, so you're stretching your point a bit too thin here. :roll:
You went on immigration tangent and now you switched to democratic process involving the population in Switzerland. I am talking about policies made by policy makers. I do not know how immigration policy is voted in Switzerland, nor we even ever discussed it. So are you sure you know what point are we even talking about, because I do not.

This referendum, one before it, and this thread has nothing to do with immigration policies.

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 17. Mar 21, 20:24
I dont recall claiming that I do not draw different lines depending on the situation, did I? I have no goals for the "lines", but I do want to have them at least in close proximity.
Now you get it. ;)
No I still don't. I hope you will at least agree it would be impossible to have a discussion if we have to specifically do it letter by letter, there is always gonna be a degree of assumption and extrapolation involved. Certainly there is a threshold before it's becoming "putting words in someone else mouth", but also, if it looks like a duck, whack like a duck, walk like a duck then ... you don't need people to tell you it's a duck to know it's a duck, right?
Then summarize - what's not clear?

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 17. Mar 21, 20:24
At some point you said you judged the Swiss and the US on the same standard, and then you ask where I draw my line, you had also stated that fair and equal doesn't matter, and now you further re-enforced that scientific data does not matter either ... as the discussion progress that's not unreasonable for me make the assumption that I did. In fact, I'm struggling finding an alternative interpretation of your claim.
And that interpretation is what?
Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 17. Mar 21, 20:24
I'll repeat the question again: if you decide the face covering ban is a discrimination and the punishment is unjust and should be reverse based on ... (as revealed later in your post) some arbitrary reason.
Yes, in context of Switzerland it'd be based on arbitrary reason. As we learned this isnt a security issue or anything that can be backed by any statistic or research.

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 17. Mar 21, 20:24
Should we go ahead and reverse stuffs like legal age of consent as well? First, since it's clearly legal/accepted in some culture, and you don't think fair/equal/science matter in this argument, why even have a limit as all!?? People should be free after all. :wink:
No, because this would create victims.
You are falling into extremes and disregarding everything else. Recall that all people also should be safe from harm.

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 17. Mar 21, 20:24
"people should be free" fits the definition of arbitrary, as it is indeed my individual preference and based on my experience, I have no scientific data to back it up and will not attempt to do this. This preference will remain so forever.
Ok now this is something I understand. Basically, your argument is also arbitrary? Make sense, if someone is using an arbitrary framework, than most things will probably appear arbitrary to them. But then may I ask what the point of calling out others for being arbitrary then? Pot calling the kettle black :?
Argument made by Swiss is arbitrary. What's the point of presenting scientific approach and to illustrate why violation of people's rights is not a good thing?

Concepts like freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, pursuit of happiness, right to bear arms, are all arbitrary.


I think somewhere you assumed early on that the word arbitrary means - a negative? It doesnt mean that. But you are correct to assume that some arbitrary laws I dont hold to high regard.



re: "when in Rome"
it's not a good saying if you look into what civilization this compares to. Rome had slavery, so hardly it's a mark of a good person that engages in that, just like Romans in Rome. But we forgive its context because it's old and it's meaning is whatever the speaker wants it to be.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
mrbadger
Posts: 14226
Joined: Fri, 28. Oct 05, 17:27
x3tc

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by mrbadger » Thu, 25. Mar 21, 12:56

Rome did, Ancient Greece did, Most of, if not all of the European nations did until it was abolished, and the US technically still has it, if you include the forced labour of their imprisoned population. They just use lots of different legal rewording to avoid it being called that.

I'm not aware of what China are doing with this Uyghur mass imprisonment thing, but it may be resulting in slavery too. I just don't know enough about it, so I could be entirely wrong.

But in the ancient world, slavery was how things were done, we can't impose our moral systems on them, they won't work.
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. ... Niccolò Machiavelli

User avatar
clakclak
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sun, 13. Jul 08, 19:29
x3

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by clakclak » Thu, 25. Mar 21, 15:07

mrbadger wrote:
Thu, 25. Mar 21, 12:56
[...]
I'm not aware of what China are doing with this Uyghur mass imprisonment thing, but it may be resulting in slavery too. I just don't know enough about it, so I could be entirely wrong.
[...]
According to Western News they are (among other things) forced to pick cotton.
"The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn't have the weight of gender expectations." - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Thu, 25. Mar 21, 16:07

clakclak wrote:
Thu, 25. Mar 21, 15:07
mrbadger wrote:
Thu, 25. Mar 21, 12:56
[...]
I'm not aware of what China are doing with this Uyghur mass imprisonment thing, but it may be resulting in slavery too. I just don't know enough about it, so I could be entirely wrong.
[...]
According to Western News they are (among other things) forced to pick cotton.
Chinese stealing American traditions, apparently... :(

Alan Phipps
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 30367
Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
x4

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by Alan Phipps » Thu, 25. Mar 21, 18:59

We are getting rather off topic, even for an Off Topic topic, if you know what I mean. :gruebel:
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.

User avatar
clakclak
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sun, 13. Jul 08, 19:29
x3

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by clakclak » Thu, 25. Mar 21, 21:08

To get back on topic.

The group behind this resultion was the allready mentioned Egerkinger Komitee. I always thought they were a few people in well fitting suits with lots of money. Eventually I looked deeper and I must say I was suprised with what I found.

These are the people behind the new law we have been debatting here. Even I have to begrudgingly accept that the Swiss seem to be doing something right. If these people can manage to get a law passed, than everyone has the chance to do so.
"The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn't have the weight of gender expectations." - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by fiksal » Thu, 25. Mar 21, 22:41

Stellar representatives of the new law. Practically a post card worthy material.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Switzerland bans face coverings in public

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Fri, 26. Mar 21, 08:51

They're the definition of "very fine people".

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”