sudneo

The whole landscape of health trackers is depressing. I bought a fitbit last year as I could expend it at work, and I ended up leaving it in a drawer exactly for the uneasy feeling of sharing very sensitive data. Health data is probably the most impactful on personal lives (insurances, banks, etc.), and it's astonishing to me how it's too much to ask to a company that makes watches to have watches as their mine business model.

I understand sharing data for further analysis etc., but I should be able to use my health tracker locally, only talking to my phone app and nothing else, similar to how gadgetbridge works. I was eyeing banglejs specifically to be able to do this, even though it's not really a health tracker.

This is not completely true. Try to look at email from shops (for campaigns etc.), and you will see tons of click-tracking links that go through HTTP. Any of that gets hijacked, and you have an avenue to be phished. DNS integrity is key, and a VPN being a layer 3 control (i.e., at the network level, not the application level) helps preventing some of these attack vectors.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Not sure what your "lesson" was referring to, but your old comment is exactly the definition of a strawman.

Let me remind it to you:

But yeah, sure just make it like all Muslims are fanatical terrorists, that will include them well in the society. Do we ban metal heads then because they’re satanist worshipers?

Nobody made any argument about making all muslims like fanatical terrorists, nobody mentioned anything about metal heads (we were talking about religion), but you wanted to use the refusal of these ridiculous made-up arguments because you couldn't anymore defend your main thesis (I assume), which is "Except it’s not a religious dress.".

So your "comparisons" are strawman because they have nothing to do with the other comparison term.

This said, I argued my way to every comment, you moved the goalpost 10000km now, moving from "they are not religious dresses" to "the whole topic is a strategy from the government to distract from..." (which might also be true, but it's completely unrelated as we are already discussing of this particular subject), and now you call me names for the sake of using basic logic in my conversation. Well, this lesson is free as well, it's called learn to fucking discuss like an adult. I am blocking you in the meanwhile because it's now obvious that you have absolutely no argument and you argue in bad faith as well.

Your comparisons are strawman arguments because they are argument nobody (definitely not me) made, which you are using to try to deligitimize other arguments that you can't challenge (apparently), by somehow pretending that your strawman and my arguments are similar.

Talk about the poor state of French schools if you wish, it is an important topic, but this doesn't make religious garments less religious. Your argument was that these are cultural markers, and NOT religious symbols, which is a pretty easy claim to debunk with a quick research on why those garments exist, who wears them, what they represent, etc.

Except it’s not a religious dress.

That's just because culture and religion are somewhat related. This does not make religious garments not religious.

But yeah, sure just make it like all Muslims are fanatical terrorists, that will include them well in the society.

Strawman

Do we ban metal heads then because they’re satanist worshipers?

Strawman

"We" actually told everyone what NOT to dress, because some dresses are actually not (only) garments but religious symbols. Again, if you use this argument I will play the devil's advocate and support people going in KKK uniform to school. Wouldn't we want to tell boys how to dress, no? Or a good ol' SS uniform.

Clothes sometimes are more than pieces of cloth we cover ourselves with, and some of them have religious value, whether you acknowledge it or not. You can argue that for you schools should NOT be a neutral space (regarding religion), but you can't make up argument such as religious clothing being worn for modesty.

I believe there are a huge number of ways we want to avoid young people express themselves in school. I am thinking for example about Nazi simbols, but the examples are countless. It's just that according to you religion is not "one of those things". I bet you wouldn't defend someone to express himself by coming to school in full KKK outfit in the same way, would you?

Also, given the fact that the law applies to everyone, I don't find it racist, and not even discriminatory. Again, Muslim people are disproportionally affected just because Islam has many of such symbols and garments, not because the law targets them specifically.Christians's veils are banned as well (like the one nuns wear),the difference is that only few people in specific contexts wear them.

The school did not ban children though, nor because of their religion.

The school complied with a law that forbids religious symbols/garments. Also the children were not banned, were asked to wear something else and most did.

Muslim children are perfectly able to attend school, provided that they do so without visible religious symbols, exactly like everyone else.

Accprding to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools you seem incorrect. The point is exactly that of preventing religious displays in schools, and I wouldn't call it fascism. In fact, fascist regimes have done exactly the opposite, giving huge visibility to religion and (the case in Italy) making Christianity religion of the state.

The comparison with same sex couple showing displays of affection seems completely ridiculous to me, especially because Muslims are disproportionally affected only because Islam is a religion in which there are more symbols, but it is not targeted specifically against then.

What is important is that people can, if they choose to do so, freely profess their own religion, or the lack thereof. This does not mean that this can be done in any space, and I am personally a big supporter for schools being very neutral spaces.

Christian crosses are actually forbidden in French school (from what I read). I don't know if anybody ever got removed from school from it, but the rule is there. I can't talk on what is against or not French constitution as I am not qualified to do so (not even for my own country), but I trust that if that's the case, courts will determine that.

A final remark, being Muslim is a choice, is not a birth condition nor a race (or ethnicity). This means that at most you can talk of religious discrimination, not racism. Coincidentally religious discrimination is very common in very religious countries (including Muslim countries), both towards other religions and even more against atheists or apostates.

As you can read in the article, most simply agreed to wear something else. For those who refused, some talks with families will follow. To me it seems a fairly rational way to enforce the rule.

All other religious symbols are also banned (in schools), so this argument seems pretty weak. One can agree or disagree, but considering religion a private matter that should stay out of the public buildings is a perfectly legitimate stance, in my opinion.