He, and the original post are talking about banning it in Finland. You’re moving the goalpost by quoting it’s law in a single country.

You’re the one arguing in bad faith.

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:

• Finland has a minister who wants to ban burkas from schools in a way that only affects islamic religious garb
• there are many, many, many women who convert to Islam all the time and willingly choose to wear those garbs.
• this has nothing to do with Iraq, Syria, Indonesia, Afghanistan, or any other Islamic Theocratic country. We are specifically talking about Finland.
• it is racist to target a religious minority with a law that only affects the religious minority
• I can’t determine whether or not you’re racist, but your opinion regarding Islam is racist, essentialists and your making wild negative assumptions of offensive stereotypes.

In conclusion, this finland minister is trash, and anyone who supports such regulatory policy is also trash.