Alan Ladd Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Im wearing my Klu Klux Klan outfit to a party tonight. Is this bad taste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaisyDuke84 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) If you read my post you'll see that comment wasn't directed at you. ---------- Post added 29-10-2014 at 23:23 ---------- What, my viewpoint saying we shouldn't interfere in what people wear? I think that's been an established feature of British life for many years. That may or may not be the case, but how can you provide a better outcome by restricting choice and personal freedoms? To me it's no more alien than body piercings, conspicuous body art or surgical enhancements-I dont particularly regard any of them, but I wouldn't make any observations about people who do I why they make the choices they do. It may be anachronistic but if that's their choice then it's none of my business. Remember the threads about the acceptability of non Muslims to wear the burka, my view is exactly the same for them, irrespective of what Muslims might say about it negatively. So are a lot of things I can think of, but I don't regard them as my business. Ridicule seems to be the best means to challenge ridiculous arguments-do you get it? ---------- Post added 29-10-2014 at 23:24 ---------- I think you'll find they most definitely can. Oh ok thats a coincidence as I am actually a Journalism student is anybody else on this thread one?. That is why I was directing that comment at you as I thought you were genuinely talking to me. I was not having a go I thought you replied to my comment sorry about that. I see what you are saying about white people being able to be Muslims but what I am trying to say BoyFriday is that the two faiths are polar opposites aren't they? that is what I think Islam have their beliefs and C oF E which most people are have their beliefs. How can you when they are so far apart in what you and practise just suddenly go from being one to other that is what I find hard to comprehend you see?. I am just trying to get my point across as I struggle to understand this apologies I hope I have not offended you in any way as that was not my intention. I am excepting of everyone regardless of faith or beliefs and I am interested in learning about the various forms of God that we believe in and others beliefs. ---------- Post added 30-10-2014 at 13:45 ---------- Im wearing my Klu Klux Klan outfit to a party tonight. Is this bad taste? Ha ha ha ha lol. Edited October 30, 2014 by DaisyDuke84 Spelling Error Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Follow the links, read the report. I rest my case. Can we now therefore consider this one ill-thought and at an end? No, that is YOUR claim, Cyclone: I've held you in higher esteem than to try such tricks in bad faith when debating - do I need to reconsider? Education did take place, as quoted and as you eventually acknowledged, and banning the wearing of the burka in public stopped husbands coercing their wives into wearing the burka in public. There's no question of having it both ways, the 'question' is and was always at the confluence of- social codification in response to perceived threats (I'm calling it what it is, no hypocrisy here), logic (can't educate before the education requirement arises, and the requirement only arose out of the codification, which itself only arose out of growth of the practice belatedly), proportionality and opportunity (less than 2000 people concerned out of 60 millions, political traction of the issue and opportunism of the Gvt of the time) and context (over a century-old principles of enforced republican secularity ). Yes, the issue is a fair bit more complicated than 'I want to wear what I want and what right has the Gvt to tell me about that-rar-ra-ra'. It's proving quite hard to try and elevate the debate from that level up on here, though It's both (freedom, social norm...and then some more, actually). I don't expect you to understand that, on the evidence of your posts in here. It's one justifiable aspect of it, not the only one by far. I have only focused on this aspect lately because that's where our discussion has veered - but the issue goes far beyond 'freeing coerced Muslim wives'. Really? Well if Mr Cyclone knows better than French MPs and Senators, independent investigators and social services, the EU Court and more (all of whom have agreed with this aspect of the issue to an extent at least), who the hell am I to continue arguing with him You're not interested in listening to any logical argument apparently. I don't expect you to understand as you don't appear to be interested in doing so. I suggest we just drop it. Our positions have been quite clearly stated. Although I do wish you wouldn't apparently lie to support your position. France has no enforced republican secularity IN PUBLIC. Which is where the ban applies. ---------- Post added 30-10-2014 at 14:28 ---------- Of course it should, I wear socks with my sandals, I occasionally wear pink shirts. Both extremely offensive, but MY CHOICE. If someone is forced in wearing a burka or socks with sandals or a pink shirt, that's a different matter. My wife forces me NOT to wear socks with sandals. In order to stop my persecution we must make it illegal for EVERYONE to wear sandals without socks. Then I will be free of the tyranny... And the ones who didn't want to wear the socks. Well, collateral damage, but if we just say that we aren't oppressing them, and it is in fact a social norm that we are enforcing, well, then it'll all be okay, because their freedom to have cool feet doesn't really matter compared to my freedom from being forced to have cold feet! Edited October 30, 2014 by Cyclone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) You're not interested in listening to any logical argument apparently.I have done nothing but. But logic has very little to do with issues of culture and faith, and your arguments are not solely logical, they are also emotional. As are mine. Although I do wish you wouldn't apparently lie to support your position. France has no enforced republican secularity IN PUBLIC. Which is where the ban applies.I stated "enforced republican secularity", not "enforced republican secularity IN PUBLIC", and you have not only taken my words completely out of their context in the above, but deliberately twisted their meaning to build your non-sequitur. My wish is that you would cease to misrepresent my posts to try and get the last word in. By all means have the last word, just don't do me the ignominy of twisting my words in bad faith to justify your calling me a liar. I await your apology. Without holding my breath. Lastly, as regards enforcement of republican secularity, I'll refer you back to these links, if need be: 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State Contemporary French political secularism. and for PUBLIC enforcement, see for example: French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools. A recent law, but which was effectively applied in PUBLIC state schools (and other PUBLIC state environments, buildings, etc.) for decades and more before its codification and passing. There are other comparable enforcing measures within the Military Code, the Employment Code and many other pieces of French legislation, all intended to suppress overt expressions of faith by PUBLIC employees in PUBLIC buildings and areas (e.g. State-run museums, parks, etc.). Edited October 30, 2014 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 I can't help noticing a couple on here are boring for oil and most everyone else has cleared off as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) I can't help noticing a couple on here are boring for oil and most everyone else has cleared off as a result.Faiths and multicultural integration is a topic which I hold dear, roosterboost, for a variety of reasons. This article explains why, in part and to an extent (I am a native from that area, and helped on the civil administration side -a little- with the topic raised in the 1998 'multifaith' letter mentioned in there). Don't feel obliged to read the thread, and you can always put my on ignore to shorten it Edited October 30, 2014 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I have done nothing but. But logic has very little to do with issues of culture and faith, and your arguments are not solely logical, they are also emotional. As are mine. I suppose I feel emotional about the need for personal freedom. We all should. I stated "enforced republican secularity", not "enforced republican secularity IN PUBLIC", and you have not only taken my words completely out of their context in the above, but deliberately twisted their meaning to build your non-sequitur. Yeah, because we're not discussing a ban on clothing IN PUBLIC. My wish is that you would cease to misrepresent my posts to try and get the last word in. By all means have the last word, just don't do me the ignominy of twisting my words in bad faith to justify your calling me a liar. I await your apology. Without holding my breath. Not forthcoming, you refuse to engage or actually say what you mean (apparently). Lastly, as regards enforcement of republican secularity, I'll refer you back to these links, if need be: 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State Contemporary French political secularism. and for PUBLIC enforcement, see for example: French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools. A recent law, but which was effectively applied in PUBLIC state schools (and other PUBLIC state environments, buildings, etc.) for decades and more before its codification and passing. There are other comparable enforcing measures within the Military Code, the Employment Code and many other pieces of French legislation, all intended to suppress overt expressions of faith by PUBLIC employees in PUBLIC buildings and areas (e.g. State-run museums, parks, etc.). I'm not interested in bans within places. We're talking about in general public places. ---------- Post added 30-10-2014 at 17:09 ---------- Faiths and multicultural integration is a topic which I hold dear, roosterboost, for a variety of reasons. This article explains why, in part and to an extent (I am a native from that area, and helped on the civil administration side -a little- with the topic raised in the 1998 'multifaith' letter mentioned in there). Don't feel obliged to read the thread, and you can always put my on ignore to shorten it Personal freedom is a topic I hold dear. When the state starts to dictate what you can't wear you're on the road to fascism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavannahP Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Personal freedom is a topic I hold dear. When the state starts to dictate what you can't wear you're on the road to fascism. People have been arrested, charged and found guilty of wearing items of clothing that some people find offensive, one man was arrested and and locked up because some people were offended when he didn't wear any cloths. The freedom you talk of would surely allow everyone to wear or not wear what they want regardless of how offensive other people find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 People have been arrested, charged and found guilty of wearing items of clothing that some people find offensive, one man was arrested and and locked up because some people were offended when he didn't wear any cloths. The freedom you talk of would surely allow everyone to wear or not wear what they want regardless of how offensive other people find it. You're talking about extremes there aren't you? There are places that people can walk about naked without indecently exposing themselves. I think people should be able to wear what they want, when they want, unless their profession requires a uniform. Same with things like tattoos and piercings. I think there should be no discrimination against people who choose to have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 It should be made law that no one can wear the burka in this Country. It's unacceptable garb. Angel1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts