Baby Marxist. Under deprogramming
Blog: https://dastanktal.planam.link/
I like to argue as a way to learn. I won’t use fallicous argument techniques if you won’t. I will still try and be polite though. Will probably keep commenting as long as people respond.
i mean, ya have their metasearch engine, is technically closed source, but they open source all of their other stuff, and, searXNG has to be hosted by yourself unless you’re willing to trust some rando out on the internet that’s hosting their own version.
Must have missed that in my lesson about unit 731.
Didn’t the Japanese kill millions of Chinese?
Pinebook?
This is really well executed, too bad he didn’t know enough to protect his identity.
Still, so much for that reduced cost of labor.
If more people reacted like this companies wouldn’t be so fast to lay people off
Dumb script kiddies probably judr wking life difficult for everyone for shits and giggles
Ubiquiti, tp link, microtek
Get something for small businesses.
AirVPN also really good. Plus they have static port forwarding. And very easy flipping of OpenVPN to wireguard
A lot of the time these apps will have heuristics that will reach back out and so you will see network connections occasionally.
Without knowing more about this application, I don’t have the right context to evaluate whether or not I would trust something like that, so it’s gonna be up to your comfort level. But, if clamav came back clean and so did your other virus software, I would assume it’s not malicious traffic.
It’s not like traditional antivirus software, it just includes a tool that you can use to manually scan files to see if it has a virus signature, which is all Eset and most virus scanners are doing on the backend. They’re also doing what’s called heuristics, which is where they’re using predictive modeling to try and identify if a program has what they call an attack signature. This does result in false positives, just so you’re aware.
All virus total is doing is running a bunch of virus engines like eset and clamav on the back end to see if it triggers anything.
If both your virus software and clamav comes back clean, then I’d trust it.
Yes, it’s open source antivirus software.
The entire internet practically runs on what these guys do.
It has a tool that you can use to scan whatever binary you want and it’ll tell you whether or not it’s a virus which fits what you need to do
Just run the file against clamav, and you should be able to tell whether or not it’s got issues. That’s generally what’s done in commercial spaces.
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.
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.
Nobody wears a burka or niqab because they genuinely want to.
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
If you’re not willing to grant me that virtually every woman wearing a burka or niqab does so because she has to, not because she wants to, then we’re so far apart on this that there’s nothing to discuss.
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.
In Iran, women are required by law to wear the hijab. In Afghanistan, they’re required by the Taliban to wear a burka or at least a niqab. In Sudan, hijab was mandatory for women until 2019, and the same applies in Saudi Arabia and the Aceh province of Indonesia
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.
But sure - go ahead and call me racist for even daring to suggest they’re doing it for any reason other than their own free choice.
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.
Strawmanning, motte-and-bailey, whataboutism, moving the goalposts, ad hominem, false equivalence and dismissive sarcasm.
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.
Was there a sale at the bad-faith argument tactics store?
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.
Ah 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 there are Islamic 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 simile. 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.
“grant me my racist stereotype, or I’m not talking to you”
Interesting strategy, cotton, let’s see how that plays out.
Maybe this European country could also make a law that prevents children from face masks prevent them from getting diseases or prevent immunocompromised patients from wearing face masks since they’re both forced to?
Nobody wants to wear a face mask because they genuinely want to. 🤦
I really can not believe you just used the line that nobody wants to wear this religious garb of their chosen religion and culture. Let’s just ignore the major amount of assumptions and xenophobia present in this line of thought.
The factor of the matter is, you have no idea why people choose to wear that, and while I’m sure some people may be coerced into it, but for the most part, I’m positive that the majority of people are choosing to wear these garbs willingly.
Are you really about to sit here and tell me that there’s a difference between a yamaka and a burka? Do people willingly choose to wear yamakas, or do they have to wear them? Do people choose to wear dastars or do they have to be worn? Given this is a European country, I’m going to assume that there isn’t any sort of religious law here, meaning that people can dress how they want.
I can very easily make this argument that you made about yamakas and why those should not be allowed in public, and then I can use the fact that the country that claims to be the sole representive of Jewish people, is using their religion to commit a genocide, so I can even make an argument that wearing a yamaka causes people to feel unsafe in public areas.
It is my belief that these laws are anti-Muslim, anti-Islam, xenophobic laws put on the books to prevent refugees from the European-caused disasters in the Middle East from coming to their states and to make them as hostile as possible to cultures that these countries are not willing to understand.
This is stupid but also dumb. The article said that it would make it illegal to wear face coverings. So does that include, like, medical masks?
This law is just straight up Anti-Islam.
Can you imagine the outcry if a similar law was passed to prevent people from wearing yamakas on the idea of “freedom”?
Still pretty anti-muslim.
The paradox of tolerance is that in order to have a tolerant society you must be intolerant of tolerance. Not allowing people to wear religious garb due to some perceived notion of freedom, I would say is pretty intolerant.
Humans are notoriously short-sighted.