Plain Talker Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 She needs you like she needs to toothache . Sound familiar? Is that a line you use?? How does one "to toothache"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 (edited) The Swastika is actually a symbol of Hinduism adopted by Hitler because he liked the idea of the higher cast.I know that. But the plate in question says 'Bavaria, 1941' and, crowned as that swastika is with the Nazi 'geometric' eagle, it's most definitely not the Hindu version (which I have seen in a couple of museums, on centenaries-old regalia garments made of pure silk and stitched with gold thread, truly sumptuous and sights to craftsmanship to behold). Edited November 6, 2014 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Lest we forget, say the oldens, and ever fewer of them. I'm not likely to. Whilst I agree in one way I also think we have to move on. It's a complicated situation, as I said in my previous post I have cause to remember the wars for personal reasons, in addition to my father being affected by the Second war his elder brother who I knew well, served in the RN in the first War and was sunk on three occasions. Their first cousin, who was my first cousin also, was killed on 1st July 1916 and is buried in Luke copse cemetery Serre Picardy. It is a difficult balance, we should never forget, and yet at the same time we need to accept that it is history and look to the future. The future belongs to the young, we can only hope that they won't repeat the mistakes of the past. The omens are not good, Tony Blair is on record as saying that he wasn't interested in history. Well, that was a pity, because this country had been defeated on three previous occasions in Afghanistan and now it's four. We need to find a way to remember and learn from the past, without it making us prejudiced in the present. I am not holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Ooh look! Thousands wearing face coverings and guess what? Not enough coppers to remove them. How does that fit in with your theory? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29919083 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Would you object if certain people went around in Nazi uniforms or would you accept it as part of our tolerance ? Serious question. Didn't the (then) 4th in line to the thrown wear a nazi uniform to a fancy dress party... He'd look a bit odd wearing it day to day I admit, but whether people object or not isn't the point. The point is that it's not and shouldn't be illegal. ---------- Post added 07-11-2014 at 07:31 ---------- The fact that you have absolutely no concept of what action the government would take in the event of mass identity concealment shows a level of naivety which rules you out of being able to contribute any meaningful argument to the debate. Ignoring the links to the demonstrations involving hundreds or thousands of people covering their faces are you? And using your mind reading powers to claim that you know what the government would do, and nobody else can know. ---------- Post added 07-11-2014 at 07:33 ---------- How about I don't do you the injury of posting a few definitions (several independent sources, for balance) of fascism, and you drop the Godwin bit in this debate already? Godwin doesn't refer to political ideologies, but one specific example of one specific ideology. Sorry. And passing laws to restrict personal freedom to enforce the "cultural values" is exactly what fascists do (amongst other things). Particularly if they get to define what the values are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavannahP Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Ooh look! Thousands wearing face coverings and guess what? Not enough coppers to remove them. How does that fit in with your theory? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29919083 If wearing one was a criminal offense there wouldn't be thousands wearing them, and the people that are would be easily spotted and arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 MJW47 keeps insisting that people aren't free to cover their faces. This proves him wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavannahP Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 MJW47 keeps insisting that people aren't free to cover their faces. This proves him wrong. It doesn't prove him wrong because he hasn't made such a claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 If wearing one was a criminal offense there wouldn't be thousands wearing them, and the people that are would be easily spotted and arrested. Precisely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) Godwin doesn't refer to political ideologies, but one specific example of one specific ideology. Sorry.That's a cop-out in anyone's book. Surprising, from you...but in this thread, perhaps not, actually. And passing laws to restrict personal freedom to enforce the "cultural values" is exactly what fascists do (amongst other things). Particularly if they get to define what the values are.Then you won't mind classing the UK as a fascist state, then? Because the UK might not ban the burka currently, but it certainly has form for banning plenty of other acts, items (including garments) and people (from entry) in relevant circumstances. For instance (non-exhaustively), political marches by the UK's National Front in 1970s and, more recently, civil orders banning specific items of clothing: 13. In February 2003, a 16-year-old boy was banned from showing his tattoos, wearing a single golf glove, or wearing a balaclava in public anywhere in the country. He was also forbidden from congregating in public places in groups of more than three people. (Source—Statewatch ASBOwatch) <...> 18. In September 2004, on the same day as he was released from prison, a 21-year-old found himself back in court being served with an interim order which banned him from entering any car park in England and Wales, touching any car without the owners permission, and riding a bicycle. On the full application hearing, the Council also managed to have him banned from wearing all forms of headwear in public. (Source—Statewatch ASBOwatch) (official source) and, more recently still, enforcing secularism with a distinctly French-like banning approach. There is also (still for example, non-exhaustively) the issue of Dieudonné being banned from entry into the UK, when he's an EU national and has not committed any crime in the UK. The reason for the ban? He is rather the anti-Semite, and you will have got to known of him (at least indirectly) through the "quenelle" affair. The list goes on, and it's a long one. Edited November 7, 2014 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts