TVStocks, MusicStocks and Life

Quebec passes law banning facial coverings in public TJNFL1 Oct 18, 21:21

Wow, that's a pretty misleading headline. They aren't banned "in public", but in public service settings (public transit, schools) dubord.s Oct 19, 09:21

How is a ban on "public transit" not a ban "in public"? {nm} TJNFL1 Oct 19, 09:44

Because you can still wlk down the street wearing a niqab or burqa. {nm} Antibody Oct 19, 10:27

You can walk/drive/bike anywhere, shop, eat at restaurants, work in the private sector... need I really go on?? {nm} dubord.s Oct 19, 13:32

Heck, you can even attend a sporting event, and kneel during the anthem if you want. dubord.s Oct 19, 13:33

Apparently in Quebec you can't take public transportation to the sporting event with a facial covering. {nm} TJNFL1 Oct 19, 23:32

But you can still go to it, which is why your initial point was blatantly wrong. {nm} dubord.s Oct 20, 07:29

Beginning your statement with "But" only points to the truth you are trying to ignore. {nm} TJNFL1 Oct 22, 01:43

The "But" is there because it's not ALL public areas (that you are insisting), but SOME public places. You're the one ignoring the facts {nm} JDolphin Oct 22, 11:28

Who said anything about "ALL" public areas? {nm} TJNFL1 Oct 23, 01:33

You did. Above post - -How is a ban on "public transit" not a ban "in public"? -- {nm} JDolphin Oct 23, 16:47

LOL - relying on grammatical rules (that actually don't apply in this case) is about as thin 'whataboutism' as I've seen yet. {nm} dubord.s Oct 22, 13:30

To be clear: the 'but' in this case was pointing out the MASSIVE flaw in your argument, which made it false. {nm} dubord.s Oct 22, 13:31

What is the massive flaw? Being on public transit is being in public. {nm} TJNFL1 Oct 23, 01:35

Because it isn't banned "in public" which implies all public settings, but rather only in very specific situations. That's a big flaw. {nm} dubord.s Oct 23, 12:46