Video Games Suck  
  Create an account
  
Menu
· Home
· Article Archive
· Downloads
· Forums
· Private Messages
· Screenshots
· Search
· Submit a Review
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Your Account
Login
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
220 guest(s) and
0 member(s)

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
VideoGamesSuck.com :: View topic - burka - a serious security threat
Login Register Forum FAQ Memberlist Search

VideoGamesSuck.com Forum Index -> General Banter/Flaming -> burka - a serious security threat Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Post new topic  Reply to topic
PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:31 pm Reply with quote
berzerker
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350




2) The tactic of reacting to sarcastic remarks as if they were serious and then ridicule it.

Captn wrote:
berzerker wrote:
and cosmetic surgery of course.
it requires lots of money, but a burka can be obtained for free.
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:46 pm Reply with quote
berzerker
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350




3) using alien interpretation of common terms and
4) begging the question.

Here the claim was that burkas must be banned: they threaten security because they allow you to hide your identity and conceal weapons.

The counterargument that your identity can be hidden with many things (e.g. helmets) so that it would be silly to ban only burkas (and it would be equally silly to ban all those other things that allow hiding of indentity) is then answered with

Captn wrote:
a helmet does not cover the whole body but a burka does

This makes sense only if
1 - the only way to hide your identity is by covering your whole body (which is obviously false, hiding your face suffices); and
2 - the only way to cover your whole body is by using one, and not more than one, piece of cloth (which is also obviously nonsense and begs the question, because the only item that matches this description is the burka).
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:59 pm Reply with quote
berzerker
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350




5) adding irrelevant requirements
_Master_ wrote:
berzerker wrote:

and cosmetic surgery of course.
it requires lots of money

So now there is an additional requirement for banning: it must not only target objects that allow you to hide your identity and conceal weapons, but it must also be cheap.

This would make sense only if only people (or organisations) without money could pose a threat to security, which is obviously false.
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 5:47 pm Reply with quote
Dick_In_Your_Ass
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Jul 03, 2009
Posts: 957
Location: iCarly Studio




LOL
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:43 pm Reply with quote
puk
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK




6) the double whammy unsubstantiated premise, illogical conclusion

_Master_ wrote:
all people are not created equal, if they where no one would ever win or loose
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:45 pm Reply with quote
puk
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK




7) The out of thin air theory. With a further stamp of infallibility.
_Master_ wrote:

But yes colder environments force people to be more survival adapted as compared to warm fertile climates where you have it all and become lazy. Period.
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:03 am Reply with quote
_Master_
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711




fag wrote:
3) using alien interpretation of common terms and
4) begging the question.
anecdotal

fag wrote:

Here the claim was that burkas must be banned: they threaten security because they allow you to hide your identity and conceal weapons.
thats incorrect. rather the claim is burkas are a security threat and so they must be banned. your getting sloppy.

fag wrote:
The counterargument that your identity can be hidden with many things (e.g. helmets) so that it would be silly to ban only burkas (and it would be equally silly to ban all those other things that allow hiding of indentity) is then answered with

Captn wrote:
a helmet does not cover the whole body but a burka does

This makes sense only if
1 - the only way to hide your identity is by covering your whole body (which is obviously false, hiding your face suffices);
we are not discussing methods to conceal the body, we are discussing security issues exploited by burka. so i would suggest not to get sidetracked on methods to conceal the body. i am sorry to say your comment it makes no sense at all, in fact its nonsense.

fag wrote:

and
2 - the only way to cover your whole body is by using one, and not more than one, piece of cloth (which is also obviously nonsense and begs the question, because the only item that matches this description is the burka).
again your off to a tangent. the goal is not to waste time evaluating all possible methods of concealment. rather the informed acceptance that the burka is infact a security threat, which you seem to deny dispite the overwhelming evidence provided. not sure why you want to do that, do you often dress in a burka?

There may indeed be other multitude means to cover the whole body, but the burka enjoyes peculiar perks, which i shall expose. You cannot dress in a superman or batman costume and goto the bank/store because it will immediately draw attention and raise suspicion from the guards. they will be on full alert(exclude halloween/mardigras(banks closed btw)). Same is the case if you wear a helmet. [1]The burka unders the BS excuse of being a religious requirement for camel totters can pass unnoticed without raising alam, cause hey the brain dead muslim woman are required to have it. eg for dummies: emo chick and her friends who notice some odd shaped burka moving around randomly...but they are like yeah its just kindred spirits, who cares, time to get paler.

More importantly other methods of identity concealment including cosmetic surgery expose biometrics/descriptors like sex, skin ,hair, build, tattoos..etcetc which burka conceals nicely. if you are in a burka you are thought to be a female, but you never know. [2]A burka protects and conceals you from giving out these descriptors for investigators or victims to identify them. Even the height can be skewed by wearing hiheel or thick boots. Not to mention one can keep a dagger ready inside a black burka and you wold never know when/how to anticipate the attack. You can raise an alarm or scream if you saw the person with a helmet or sunglasses or a hood advance towards you, because you can see the limbs move. [3]But with a burka they could come real close and you would never know when you where shanked. And ofcouse [4]burka is very cheap accessory to commit crime compared to a helmet/sunglasses/hood/cape/cosmetic surgery

looking back in retrospect at [1],[2],[3],[4] the burka obviously is a very dangerous security threat that can easily be exploited. No wonder Europe with its years of anti-terrorism experience has begun to realize it. And steps are being taken to ban this accessory.


fag wrote:
5) adding irrelevant requirements
_Master_ wrote:
fag wrote:

and cosmetic surgery of course.
it requires lots of money

i never said it was a requirement, but pointed out that compared to burka, cosmetic surgery is costlier, much much costlier, so the burka remains a better alternative for those who are less endowed financially. obviously if you have the means to do cosmetic surgery your obviously not an avg deviant. however may i quickly point to you that is this just a minor digression from the topic

fag wrote:

So now there is an additional requirement for banning: it must not only target objects that allow you to hide your identity and conceal weapons, but it must also be cheap.
anecdotal

fag wrote:

This would make sense only if only people (or organisations) without money could pose a threat to security, which is obviously false.
anecdotal(2)

_________________
follow me or get out of the way
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:04 am Reply with quote
_Master_
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711




puk wrote:
6) the double whammy unsubstantiated premise, illogical conclusion

_Master_ wrote:
all people are not created equal, if they where no one would ever win or loose
anecdotal

_________________
follow me or get out of the way
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:04 am Reply with quote
_Master_
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711




puk wrote:
7) The out of thin air theory. With a further stamp of infallibility.
_Master_ wrote:

But yes colder environments force people to be more survival adapted as compared to warm fertile climates where you have it all and become lazy. Period.
digression

_________________
follow me or get out of the way
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:48 am Reply with quote
berzerker
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350




8) presenting exactly the same as something different

Captn wrote:
berzerker wrote:
Here the claim was that burkas must be banned: they threaten security because they allow you to hide your identity and conceal weapons.
thats incorrect. rather the claim is burkas are a security threat and so they must be banned. your getting sloppy.

This makes sense only if

claim 1 wrote:
burkas are a security threat so they must be banned

is something different from

claim 2 wrote:
burkas must be banned because they threaten security.

whereas obviously they are identical in any respect (other than the order of words).

I'm not sure what language he is using here, but it certainly was not English.
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:06 am Reply with quote
_Master_
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711




berzerker wrote:
I'm not sure what language he is using here, but it certainly was not English.
in that case since don't seem to understand the language it makes the claim...

berzerker wrote:
8) presenting exactly the same as something different
null and void

_________________
follow me or get out of the way
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:12 am Reply with quote
berzerker
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350




9) denying valid counter arguments with no apparent reason

Captn wrote:
berzerker wrote:
Captn wrote:
a helmet does not cover the whole body but a burka does

This makes sense only if
1 - the only way to hide your identity is by covering your whole body (which is obviously false, hiding your face suffices);
we are not discussing methods to conceal the body, we are discussing security issues exploited by burka.

The initial discussion was about 'security issues exploited by burka' (because they conceal the body). This was countered by the argument that similar security issues exist with many other objects than burkas (so that a ban of only burkas would be senseless). Now he replies that we are discussing burkas only, not other objects, putting us back on square 1.
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:48 am Reply with quote
puk
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK




10) Monkey see, monkey do. Monkey use ad hominem attack against you.
_Master_ wrote:
fag wrote:
3) using alien interpretation of common terms and
4) begging the question.
anecdotal


_Master_ wrote:


fag wrote:

So now there is an additional requirement for banning: it must not only target objects that allow you to hide your identity and conceal weapons, but it must also be cheap.
anecdotal


_Master_ wrote:


fag wrote:

This would make sense only if only people (or organisations) without money could pose a threat to security, which is obviously false.
anecdotal(2)


repeat ad nauseum.
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:50 am Reply with quote
puk
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK




11) The "I don't make any sense, therefore, I must be right" claim.
_Master_ wrote:
berzerker wrote:
I'm not sure what language he is using here, but it certainly was not English.
in that case since [you] don't seem to understand the language it makes the claim...
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:54 am Reply with quote
puk
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK




12) The "first establish that I am right, then argue why I am right" tactic

Any given Captn post
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:57 am Reply with quote
puk
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK




13) The "I am not the same 12 year old who threw a hissy fit at M0nkey prior to getting his ass banned" [delusional] tactic.
_Master_ wrote:
berzerker wrote:
It just occurred to me that this is the usual captn debating technique again.
i did not see the captn post this...are these posts invisible? i am sure the captn is very rational and right on, i guess cracks are developing in your defense, you are breaking down fast.


addendum

captnPugwash_halabalobale wrote:
thefinger.gif "FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING MONKEY, LIKE I GIVE A FUCK ABT YOUR FUCKING WARNING!!" thefinger.gif
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:56 am Reply with quote
_Master_
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711




fag wrote:
9) denying valid counter arguments with no apparent reason

Captn wrote:
berzerker wrote:
Captn wrote:
a helmet does not cover the whole body but a burka does

This makes sense only if
1 - the only way to hide your identity is by covering your whole body (which is obviously false, hiding your face suffices);
we are not discussing methods to conceal the body, we are discussing security issues exploited by burka.

The initial discussion was about 'security issues exploited by burka' (because they conceal the body). This was countered by the argument that similar security issues exist with many other objects than burkas (so that a ban of only burkas would be senseless). Now he replies that we are discussing burkas only, not other objects, putting us back on square 1.
null and void due to insufficient intelligence by poster

fag's argument is: since similar security threats exist with other objects why ban burka is akin to saying why live today when tomorrow your gonna die anyways so please some1 shoot me immediately in the fucking ass where my brain housed.

Research has shown often such arguments will be presented in the last desperate attempts even after suffering several humiliating defeats by fag(s). "why do it when its gonna happen anyway" a very negative and a typical loosers attitude. The usual whining and bitching style usually comes these flavors.....
"why have a door when it can be broken down?"
"why have walls when it can be jumped?"
"why have locks when they can be broken?"
"why wipe ass when shit is gonna come again?"
"why change smelly underwear when its gonna be smelly again?"
"why refuel car when its gonna run out of fuel again?"
"why ban burka when crime is gonna happen anyways?"

so you see we have a pattern here, one of the often used techniques by fags. please pay attention to this mud slingin technique....its a popular fag technique.


Last edited by _Master_ on Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total

_________________
follow me or get out of the way
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:56 am Reply with quote
_Master_
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711




puk wrote:
10) Monkey see, monkey do. Monkey use ad hominem attack against you.
_Master_ wrote:
fag wrote:
3) using alien interpretation of common terms and
4) begging the question.
anecdotal


_Master_ wrote:


fag wrote:

So now there is an additional requirement for banning: it must not only target objects that allow you to hide your identity and conceal weapons, but it must also be cheap.
anecdotal


_Master_ wrote:


fag wrote:

This would make sense only if only people (or organisations) without money could pose a threat to security, which is obviously false.
anecdotal(2)


repeat ad nauseum.
anecdotal

_________________
follow me or get out of the way
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:57 am Reply with quote
_Master_
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711




puk wrote:
13) The "I am not the same 12 year old who threw a hissy fit at M0nkey prior to getting his ass banned" [delusional] tactic.
_Master_ wrote:
berzerker wrote:
It just occurred to me that this is the usual captn debating technique again.
i did not see the captn post this...are these posts invisible? i am sure the captn is very rational and right on, i guess cracks are developing in your defense, you are breaking down fast.


addendum

captnPugwash_halabalobale wrote:
thefinger.gif "FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING MONKEY, LIKE I GIVE A FUCK ABT YOUR FUCKING WARNING!!" thefinger.gif
anecdotal

_________________
follow me or get out of the way
View users profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am Reply with quote
puk
A Winner is me!
A Winner is me!
 
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK




14)Making references to "research".
_Master_ wrote:

Research has shown often such arguments will be presented in the last desperate attempts even after suffering several humiliating defeats by fag(s).
View users profile Send private message
burka - a serious security threat
  VideoGamesSuck.com Forum Index -> General Banter/Flaming
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours  
Page 2 of 3  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
  
  
 Post new topic  Reply to topic  
Video Games Screenshots Movies Images Reviews News New Video Game Sucks VGS Online
Logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owner. Comments are property of their posters, the rest is ©VGS
Page Generation: 0.171 Seconds