FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Ban the Burka
Ban the Burka
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have announced they will ban the burka if elected " Didn't France ban burka's and other things that cover the face years ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Difficult to enforce and freedom of expression issues, although all face coverings should be banned in context of public order and security threat. Much better to stop or limit immigration from those countries where this is commonplace." But the law should apply equally to all. Giving a section of society the impression they can skip certain laws because of their cultural opens Pandora’s box to all sorts of issues. Scottish culture for example involves the wearing of a knife down a sock. So can they walk down the street with a knife? The burka etc are cultural, not religious garments. The tens of thousands being murdered in Iran at the moment for not wearing one suggests that in many cases it’s not worn willingly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Difficult to enforce and freedom of expression issues, although all face coverings should be banned in context of public order and security threat. Much better to stop or limit immigration from those countries where this is commonplace. But the law should apply equally to all. Giving a section of society the impression they can skip certain laws because of their cultural opens Pandora’s box to all sorts of issues. Scottish culture for example involves the wearing of a knife down a sock. So can they walk down the street with a knife? The burka etc are cultural, not religious garments. The tens of thousands being murdered in Iran at the moment for not wearing one suggests that in many cases it’s not worn willingly. " I can't imagine it's ever worn willingly in the true meaning of that word.😪 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I say face coverings should be prohibited for id reasons, a terrorist has and could use it as a disguise. In fact any criminal could. It's not being racist it's being security safe. " It should be banned, where other face coverings are banned, yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I say face coverings should be prohibited for id reasons, a terrorist has and could use it as a disguise. In fact any criminal could. It's not being racist it's being security safe. " I agree that laws shouldn't be written targeting a specific religion. While I like the idea of banning face coverings in general, where would it leave the people who wear face masks to avoid spreading or catching flu? I think France does the right thing - Ban any type of religious clothing in schools. This way, the children experience days in their lives not wearing them and as adults they tend to embrace the idea of not wearing them. Plus it doesn't target a single religion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I say face coverings should be prohibited for id reasons, a terrorist has and could use it as a disguise. In fact any criminal could. It's not being racist it's being security safe. I agree that laws shouldn't be written targeting a specific religion. While I like the idea of banning face coverings in general, where would it leave the people who wear face masks to avoid spreading or catching flu? I think France does the right thing - Ban any type of religious clothing in schools. This way, the children experience days in their lives not wearing them and as adults they tend to embrace the idea of not wearing them. Plus it doesn't target a single religion." I wonder whether some Muslim girls are kept out of school as a result ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I say face coverings should be prohibited for id reasons, a terrorist has and could use it as a disguise. In fact any criminal could. It's not being racist it's being security safe. I agree that laws shouldn't be written targeting a specific religion. While I like the idea of banning face coverings in general, where would it leave the people who wear face masks to avoid spreading or catching flu? I think France does the right thing - Ban any type of religious clothing in schools. This way, the children experience days in their lives not wearing them and as adults they tend to embrace the idea of not wearing them. Plus it doesn't target a single religion. I wonder whether some Muslim girls are kept out of school as a result ? " That's a good question. Not sure if we have statistics available for that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think France does the right thing - Ban any type of religious clothing in schools. This way, the children experience days in their lives not wearing them and as adults they tend to embrace the idea of not wearing them. Plus it doesn't target a single religion." As a nation, we're mostly okay with Sikhs, Jews, nuns, etc. wearing religious dress. There's no need to ban those, however the French are staunchly secular and forbid the wearing of religious symbols (or signs of religious affiliation) in primary and secondary schools. This seemed, at the time, a way to secularise Muslims (or perhaps drive them out of state schools), with other religions as collateral damage. This is the kind of state interference that we should reject - especially coming from those who are on the right of the political spectrum. This is exactly what we dislike about European control over private life, and it begins a march towards totalitarianism. This requires caution and balance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think France does the right thing - Ban any type of religious clothing in schools. This way, the children experience days in their lives not wearing them and as adults they tend to embrace the idea of not wearing them. Plus it doesn't target a single religion. As a nation, we're mostly okay with Sikhs, Jews, nuns, etc. wearing religious dress. There's no need to ban those, however the French are staunchly secular and forbid the wearing of religious symbols (or signs of religious affiliation) in primary and secondary schools. This seemed, at the time, a way to secularise Muslims (or perhaps drive them out of state schools), with other religions as collateral damage. This is the kind of state interference that we should reject - especially coming from those who are on the right of the political spectrum. This is exactly what we dislike about European control over private life, and it begins a march towards totalitarianism. This requires caution and balance." I see your point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like Reform wants to create a whole new Nanny State where it tells people what they can't wear, how they are allowed to speak and what they are permitted to protest." Where have Reform announced a policy that will limit what people are allowed to say, or when they are allowed to protest? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like Reform wants to create a whole new Nanny State where it tells people what they can't wear, how they are allowed to speak and what they are permitted to protest. Where have Reform announced a policy that will limit what people are allowed to say, or when they are allowed to protest?" Reform wants arrests for chants or placards they view as "extremist" or "inciting violence" (but not if it's Lucy Connolly) They want bans on public demonstrations like Free Palestine (but not for Unite the Kingdom). For a party that bangs on about "freedom" it's very keen to limit what freedom really looks like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like Reform wants to create a whole new Nanny State where it tells people what they can't wear, how they are allowed to speak and what they are permitted to protest." "Where have Reform announced a policy that will limit what people are allowed to say, or when they are allowed to protest?" "Reform wants arrests for chants or placards they view as "extremist" or "inciting violence" (but not if it's Lucy Connolly) They want bans on public demonstrations like Free Palestine (but not for Unite the Kingdom). For a party that bangs on about "freedom" it's very keen to limit what freedom really looks like." Have Reform actually said that, or are you guessing? Can you give us some links, or search terms, so that we can see what was actually said? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have announced they will ban the burka if elected " Good idea, particularly as it bans all face coverings (not just religious ones). Enforcing it will be a different matter, based on the number of intimidating drug dealers on electric bikes around here. They wear coats with the hood up and balaclavas all year round. The police do nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like Reform wants to create a whole new Nanny State where it tells people what they can't wear, how they are allowed to speak and what they are permitted to protest. Where have Reform announced a policy that will limit what people are allowed to say, or when they are allowed to protest?" Here's another one...After the High Court ruled that the UK government’s proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was unlawful - and that the police did not have the power to arrest people simply on the basis of what t-shirt they were wearing, you'd have expected Reform to applaud the ruling. Instead the party of Law and Order went after the judiciary and berated them for applying the law in a way it didn't like. Smell the freedom! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like Reform wants to create a whole new Nanny State where it tells people what they can't wear, how they are allowed to speak and what they are permitted to protest. Where have Reform announced a policy that will limit what people are allowed to say, or when they are allowed to protest? Here's another one...After the High Court ruled that the UK government’s proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was unlawful - and that the police did not have the power to arrest people simply on the basis of what t-shirt they were wearing, you'd have expected Reform to applaud the ruling. Instead the party of Law and Order went after the judiciary and berated them for applying the law in a way it didn't like. Smell the freedom!" Why should people be free to support terrorists? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like Reform wants to create a whole new Nanny State where it tells people what they can't wear, how they are allowed to speak and what they are permitted to protest. Where have Reform announced a policy that will limit what people are allowed to say, or when they are allowed to protest? Reform wants arrests for chants or placards they view as "extremist" or "inciting violence" (but not if it's Lucy Connolly) They want bans on public demonstrations like Free Palestine (but not for Unite the Kingdom). For a party that bangs on about "freedom" it's very keen to limit what freedom really looks like." 'Free Palestine' 🤭 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have announced they will ban the burka if elected Good idea, particularly as it bans all face coverings (not just religious ones). Enforcing it will be a different matter, based on the number of intimidating drug dealers on electric bikes around here. They wear coats with the hood up and balaclavas all year round. The police do nothing." Very good point SH.😕 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like Reform wants to create a whole new Nanny State where it tells people what they can't wear, how they are allowed to speak and what they are permitted to protest." "Where have Reform announced a policy that will limit what people are allowed to say, or when they are allowed to protest?" "Here's another one...After the High Court ruled that the UK government’s proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was unlawful - and that the police did not have the power to arrest people simply on the basis of what t-shirt they were wearing, you'd have expected Reform to applaud the ruling. Instead the party of Law and Order went after the judiciary and berated them for applying the law in a way it didn't like." Again, can you give us any actual quotes from Reform, or links to news stories, or just search terms to allow us to find what you're talking about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the policy "all face coverings" or specifically the burka?" All face coverings in public. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the policy "all face coverings" or specifically the burka? All face coverings in public." That makes sense from a high level perspective and if it could be upheld it would have the potential to bring an end to a lot of the violence and intimidation that has blighted the streets of the country recently. I imagine in practice, far too many will continue to hide behind their face coverings challenging efforts to police with intent. I'm sure the back street solicitors will enjoy yet another tax payer payday when the excuse of wearing for health reasons becomes the main defence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like Reform wants to create a whole new Nanny State where it tells people what they can't wear, how they are allowed to speak and what they are permitted to protest. Where have Reform announced a policy that will limit what people are allowed to say, or when they are allowed to protest? Here's another one...After the High Court ruled that the UK government’s proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was unlawful - and that the police did not have the power to arrest people simply on the basis of what t-shirt they were wearing, you'd have expected Reform to applaud the ruling. Instead the party of Law and Order went after the judiciary and berated them for applying the law in a way it didn't like. Again, can you give us any actual quotes from Reform, or links to news stories, or just search terms to allow us to find what you're talking about." All in the public domain. Your Google is the same as mine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like Reform wants to create a whole new Nanny State where it tells people what they can't wear, how they are allowed to speak and what they are permitted to protest. Where have Reform announced a policy that will limit what people are allowed to say, or when they are allowed to protest? Here's another one...After the High Court ruled that the UK government’s proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was unlawful - and that the police did not have the power to arrest people simply on the basis of what t-shirt they were wearing, you'd have expected Reform to applaud the ruling. Instead the party of Law and Order went after the judiciary and berated them for applying the law in a way it didn't like. Smell the freedom! Why should people be free to support terrorists?" Because one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Either way, you either have freedom of speech or you don't. You can't ban only the bits you disagree with. As with everything Reform does, it's poorly thought through and designed to appeal to emotion rather than being a solid policy. Whenever someone claims a simple solution to a complex problem you can be almost certain they are talking bollocks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should people be free to support terrorists? Because one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Either way, you either have freedom of speech or you don't." According to that logic, people should be free to publicly (and financially?) support the IRA, ISIS, Al-Shabaab, Al Qaeda, West Bank settler violence, far left and right groups, Minor Attracted Militants and the Nazi party. Where, if anywhere, do you draw a line, or are you a free speech absolutist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like Reform wants to create a whole new Nanny State where it tells people what they can't wear, how they are allowed to speak and what they are permitted to protest. Where have Reform announced a policy that will limit what people are allowed to say, or when they are allowed to protest? Here's another one...After the High Court ruled that the UK government’s proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was unlawful - and that the police did not have the power to arrest people simply on the basis of what t-shirt they were wearing, you'd have expected Reform to applaud the ruling. Instead the party of Law and Order went after the judiciary and berated them for applying the law in a way it didn't like. Smell the freedom! Why should people be free to support terrorists? Because one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Either way, you either have freedom of speech or you don't. You can't ban only the bits you disagree with. As with everything Reform does, it's poorly thought through and designed to appeal to emotion rather than being a solid policy. Whenever someone claims a simple solution to a complex problem you can be almost certain they are talking bollocks." Palestine Action are violent terrorists who have caused criminal damage to UK military assets and legitimate private businesses. They have also caused serious injury to front line emergency workers. No excuse for this, and “freedom fighters” is not appropriate at all. The people who support them are either driven by religious hatred or are gullible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like Reform wants to create a whole new Nanny State where it tells people what they can't wear, how they are allowed to speak and what they are permitted to protest." "Where have Reform announced a policy that will limit what people are allowed to say, or when they are allowed to protest?" "Here's another one...After the High Court ruled that the UK government’s proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was unlawful - and that the police did not have the power to arrest people simply on the basis of what t-shirt they were wearing, you'd have expected Reform to applaud the ruling. Instead the party of Law and Order went after the judiciary and berated them for applying the law in a way it didn't like." "Again, can you give us any actual quotes from Reform, or links to news stories, or just search terms to allow us to find what you're talking about." "All in the public domain. Your Google is the same as mine" It's a big internet out there, and I don't know what to search for, since you've given no details. Could you help me out by telling me what you searched for, so that I can see what you've seen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am generally opposed to anyone telling women what they can or can't wear." If the comments above are correct, Reform wouldn't be telling women what to wear. They'd be telling everyone that they can't cover their face. "As for the French example, there were 500 or so burka wearers when they passed the law. All it did was to encourage Muslims who were not otherwise fussed and reaffirm their identity, visible in the increase of women wearing the hijab." You seem to be thinking that the French law was brought in solely to prevent Muslims from being visible, and that it's failed because they are now more visible. If the actual reason for the law was to prevent people covering their faces, then it's succeeded as people have changed their behaviour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am generally opposed to anyone telling women what they can or can't wear. As for the French example, there were 500 or so burka wearers when they passed the law. All it did was to encourage Muslims who were not otherwise fussed and reaffirm their identity, visible in the increase of women wearing the hijab. Reform would make miserable chess players as they never think about the various consequences of their decisions." Perhaps they're excellent chess players, since this outcome might energise their base and extend their message... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am generally opposed to anyone telling women what they can or can't wear. As for the French example, there were 500 or so burka wearers when they passed the law. All it did was to encourage Muslims who were not otherwise fussed and reaffirm their identity, visible in the increase of women wearing the hijab. Reform would make miserable chess players as they never think about the various consequences of their decisions." If women have switched from the burka to hijab that seems like a success to me, and those women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like Reform wants to create a whole new Nanny State where it tells people what they can't wear, how they are allowed to speak and what they are permitted to protest." That’s exactly what Starmer is doing but he’s actually making laws not speeches | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, what happened is that many Muslim women who did not wear any religious covering started wearing a hijab." Neither the burqa or hijab are religious covering. They are cultural markers which are widely embraced and promoted in Muslim communities where there is no ban, such as UK and US. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, what happened is that many Muslim women who did not wear any religious covering started wearing a hijab." And the hijab doesn't cover the face, so there's no problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, what happened is that many Muslim women who did not wear any religious covering started wearing a hijab. Neither the burqa or hijab are religious covering. They are cultural markers which are widely embraced and promoted in Muslim communities where there is no ban, such as UK and US. " From Gemini AI: Surah An-Nur (24:31): This is the most frequently cited verse. It instructs women to "draw their headcovers (khimar) over their chests (juyub)" and not to display their beauty except to their husbands or close family members. ?Interpretation: Scholars generally agree this requires covering the hair, neck, and chest. ?Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59): This verse tells the Prophet to tell his wives, daughters, and the believing women to "bring down over themselves part of their outer garments (jalabib)." ?Purpose: The text states this is so they may be "recognized and not m0lested/annoyed." This verse is often used to justify the wearing of an outer cloak (like an Abaya or Jilbab). It's definitely religious at some level, even if we (or some Muslims, even) would argue around the details/scope. There is definitely a cultural aspect to the style and scope of the covering, but each has some religious significance. The same could be said for aspects of Sikh, Hindu or Hassidic dress. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, what happened is that many Muslim women who did not wear any religious covering started wearing a hijab. Neither the burqa or hijab are religious covering. They are cultural markers which are widely embraced and promoted in Muslim communities where there is no ban, such as UK and US. From Gemini AI: Surah An-Nur (24:31): This is the most frequently cited verse. It instructs women to "draw their headcovers (khimar) over their chests (juyub)" and not to display their beauty except to their husbands or close family members. ?Interpretation: Scholars generally agree this requires covering the hair, neck, and chest. ?Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59): This verse tells the Prophet to tell his wives, daughters, and the believing women to "bring down over themselves part of their outer garments (jalabib)." ?Purpose: The text states this is so they may be "recognized and not m0lested/annoyed." This verse is often used to justify the wearing of an outer cloak (like an Abaya or Jilbab). It's definitely religious at some level, even if we (or some Muslims, even) would argue around the details/scope. There is definitely a cultural aspect to the style and scope of the covering, but each has some religious significance. The same could be said for aspects of Sikh, Hindu or Hassidic dress." None of that says to fully cover the face | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" None of that says to fully cover the face " Some interpret that it is implied. It is no more for us to judge the truth of that than for Muslims to judge whether Catholicism is against the New Testament since it involves idolatry, or for Christians to attempt to debunk the Hindu pantheon. Tolerance isn't tolerance when we agree with people, it's tolerance when we think it's stupid bullshit 
When something becomes egregious (e.g. widow burning), then we throw out the religious/cultural tolerance and put a stop to it. Societies have the right to draw that line (e.g. in France), but it should be approached with caution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should people be free to support terrorists? Because one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Either way, you either have freedom of speech or you don't. According to that logic, people should be free to publicly (and financially?) support the IRA, ISIS, Al-Shabaab, Al Qaeda, West Bank settler violence, far left and right groups, Minor Attracted Militants and the Nazi party. Where, if anywhere, do you draw a line, or are you a free speech absolutist?" Let's keep it to freedom of speech - For all its flaws, the US allows anyone to vocally support anything, however heinous. Their Constitution says that the role of the state is not to control what people say or think. If that was Reform's stance, then fair play. But it isn't. Reform wants free speech for me but not for thee. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like Reform wants to create a whole new Nanny State where it tells people what they can't wear, how they are allowed to speak and what they are permitted to protest. That’s exactly what Starmer is doing but he’s actually making laws not speeches " Name these laws please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, what happened is that many Muslim women who did not wear any religious covering started wearing a hijab." Presumably the hijab does not cover the face so they are complying. What's the concern?. As I understand it the law was brought in to make sure people can be identified. If more Muslim women have decided to wear the hijab then that should not be a problem to anyone, in fact it's a positive outcome | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should people be free to support terrorists? Because one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Either way, you either have freedom of speech or you don't. According to that logic, people should be free to publicly (and financially?) support the IRA, ISIS, Al-Shabaab, Al Qaeda, West Bank settler violence, far left and right groups, Minor Attracted Militants and the Nazi party. Where, if anywhere, do you draw a line, or are you a free speech absolutist? Let's keep it to freedom of speech - For all its flaws, the US allows anyone to vocally support anything, however heinous. Their Constitution says that the role of the state is not to control what people say or think. If that was Reform's stance, then fair play. But it isn't. Reform wants free speech for me but not for thee." This thread is about face coverings though, not freedom of speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, what happened is that many Muslim women who did not wear any religious covering started wearing a hijab. Neither the burqa or hijab are religious covering. They are cultural markers which are widely embraced and promoted in Muslim communities where there is no ban, such as UK and US. From Gemini AI: Surah An-Nur (24:31): This is the most frequently cited verse. It instructs women to "draw their headcovers (khimar) over their chests (juyub)" and not to display their beauty except to their husbands or close family members. ?Interpretation: Scholars generally agree this requires covering the hair, neck, and chest. ?Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59): This verse tells the Prophet to tell his wives, daughters, and the believing women to "bring down over themselves part of their outer garments (jalabib)." ?Purpose: The text states this is so they may be "recognized and not m0lested/annoyed." This verse is often used to justify the wearing of an outer cloak (like an Abaya or Jilbab). It's definitely religious at some level, even if we (or some Muslims, even) would argue around the details/scope. There is definitely a cultural aspect to the style and scope of the covering, but each has some religious significance. The same could be said for aspects of Sikh, Hindu or Hassidic dress." Male 'scholars' I'm guessing  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is about face coverings though, not freedom of speech." In this country it's defined as freedom of expression - which definitely includes whsat you wear. If this government chose to ban the wearing of crucifixes, Reform would have a shit fit - and rightly so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently 23 US States have some kind of ban on face coverings in public. Certainly US airports won't tolerate it in my experience." I must have imagined that year when literally everyone wore a face covering, especially in US airports | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Male 'scholars' I'm guessing "Are any other types permitted...? Definitely not in Afghanistan  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform wants free speech for me but not for thee." You still haven't explained where you get that idea. It's beginning to look like you've just made it up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I say face coverings should be prohibited for id reasons, a terrorist has and could use it as a disguise. In fact any criminal could. It's not being racist it's being security safe. I agree that laws shouldn't be written targeting a specific religion. While I like the idea of banning face coverings in general, where would it leave the people who wear face masks to avoid spreading or catching flu? I think France does the right thing - Ban any type of religious clothing in schools. This way, the children experience days in their lives not wearing them and as adults they tend to embrace the idea of not wearing them. Plus it doesn't target a single religion." Am I to assume that France no longer has convent schools run by nuns? They were widespread at the time when I was of school age. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Am I to assume that France no longer has convent schools run by nuns? They were widespread at the time when I was of school age." That's for public schools. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I say face coverings should be prohibited for id reasons, a terrorist has and could use it as a disguise. In fact any criminal could. It's not being racist it's being security safe. I agree that laws shouldn't be written targeting a specific religion. While I like the idea of banning face coverings in general, where would it leave the people who wear face masks to avoid spreading or catching flu? I think France does the right thing - Ban any type of religious clothing in schools. This way, the children experience days in their lives not wearing them and as adults they tend to embrace the idea of not wearing them. Plus it doesn't target a single religion. Am I to assume that France no longer has convent schools run by nuns? They were widespread at the time when I was of school age." When I was young there were lots of nuns in porn films.😇 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform wants free speech for me but not for thee. You still haven't explained where you get that idea. It's beginning to look like you've just made it up." Check out Lee "hurty words" Anderson whining about being "verbally assaulted". It's a hoot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform wants free speech for me but not for thee." "You still haven't explained where you get that idea. It's beginning to look like you've just made it up." "Check out Lee "hurty words" Anderson whining about being "verbally assaulted". It's a hoot." He said: ......... Justice At Last. In March 2024 a woman harassed and verbally assaulted me in Sutton Town centre. It was a vile tirade of vicious and threatening language that went on for 20 minutes whilst I was out on the campaign trail. This was in front of my family members including my elderly mother. The left wing press had a right giggle over it. Earlier today in court I had the last laugh. This woman was found guilty and she has been sentenced to a 12 month community order and has to perform 80 hours unpaid work and attend 20 rehab days. ......... If you want to accuse him of gloating, I'll agree with you. He's clearly not a pleasant man. But I don't see any whining in that post. I also don't see Anderson saying that she shouldn't have been allowed to use any particular words. He's saying that she shouldn't be allowed to harass people in the street. Given that she was convicted, it appears that the law agrees with him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like Reform wants to create a whole new Nanny State where it tells people what they can't wear, how they are allowed to speak and what they are permitted to protest." Do you think it's ok to walk into a bank with your face covered ? Would you expect to allowed in ? Anyway it seems like several Spanish towns have banned burkas too. Fit in or move out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway it seems like several Spanish towns have banned burkas too. Fit in or move out " People shouldn’t move to a country and create their own little haven where they don’t speak the language and don’t respect local culture. Like Spain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway it seems like several Spanish towns have banned burkas too. Fit in or move out People shouldn’t move to a country and create their own little haven where they don’t speak the language and don’t respect local culture. Like Spain. " Some countries tolerate it because they feel it brings wealth and opportunity. Some countries reject it because they feel it brings poverty and crime. It's certainly up to the country in question how they want to respond. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway it seems like several Spanish towns have banned burkas too. Fit in or move out People shouldn’t move to a country and create their own little haven where they don’t speak the language and don’t respect local culture. Like Spain. Some countries tolerate it because they feel it brings wealth and opportunity. Some countries reject it because they feel it brings poverty and crime. It's certainly up to the country in question how they want to respond." Surely you’re conflating the country en masse and the residents of areas of the country, there? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway it seems like several Spanish towns have banned burkas too. Fit in or move out People shouldn’t move to a country and create their own little haven where they don’t speak the language and don’t respect local culture. Like Spain. Some countries tolerate it because they feel it brings wealth and opportunity. Some countries reject it because they feel it brings poverty and crime. It's certainly up to the country in question how they want to respond. Surely you’re conflating the country en masse and the residents of areas of the country, there? " You said "like Spain", and this happens at a national level all around the world... Like Japan, the USA, etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway it seems like several Spanish towns have banned burkas too. Fit in or move out People shouldn’t move to a country and create their own little haven where they don’t speak the language and don’t respect local culture. Like Spain. Some countries tolerate it because they feel it brings wealth and opportunity. Some countries reject it because they feel it brings poverty and crime. It's certainly up to the country in question how they want to respond. Surely you’re conflating the country en masse and the residents of areas of the country, there? You said "like Spain", and this happens at a national level all around the world... Like Japan, the USA, etc." It does, but that doesn’t answer my question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It does, but that doesn’t answer my question. " Apologies. Please rephrase the question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have announced they will ban the burka if elected " Burka is pretty safe then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another step closer to being voted in government " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anyway it seems like several Spanish towns have banned burkas too. Fit in or move out People shouldn’t move to a country and create their own little haven where they don’t speak the language and don’t respect local culture. Like Spain. " Those damn Brits eh ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We would never ever meet a reform supporter. Never" How would you know ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We would never ever meet a reform supporter. Never How would you know ?" Union Jack tattooed on their head and knuckles dragging on the ground, obviously. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We would never ever meet a reform supporter. Never How would you know ? Union Jack tattooed on their head and knuckles dragging on the ground, obviously. "Fuck, I'm out then ! 🤣🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We would never ever meet a reform supporter. Never How would you know ?" They could be pretending, in order to stimulate debate! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They can fuck right off. Just trying to appeal to the racists. " It’s a growing market these days | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But who actively admits to being racist? What the fuck is the appeal?" It's normal to start with "I'm not a racist but..." and then prove that one is! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We would never ever meet a reform supporter. Never How would you know ? Union Jack tattooed on their head and knuckles dragging on the ground, obviously. "I don't think bigotry is exclusive to knuckle draggers. Its about mentality, not just looks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not a racist but I really don't like the French." I used to like them... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We would never ever meet a reform supporter. Never How would you know ? They could be pretending, in order to stimulate debate!" You cant debate opinion vs fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We would never ever meet a reform supporter. Never How would you know ? They could be pretending, in order to stimulate debate! You cant debate opinion vs fact. " That is just an opinion. Not a fact! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We would never ever meet a reform supporter. Never How would you know ? They could be pretending, in order to stimulate debate! You cant debate opinion vs fact. And there we have it
That is just an opinion. Not a fact!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ban ski masks on hills." It'll be all downhill from there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ban ski masks on hills. It'll be all downhill from there." 🤣🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But who actively admits to being racist? What the fuck is the appeal?" My brother identifies as a racist. He says it makes conversation easier. He'll start a discussion about an ethnic group that isn't integrated with English society, and some one will soon call him a racist. He then says "yes I am, but answer the question". He says some people storm off in a huff, but many continue to argue, and find that their arguments aren't very strong when they don't have the accusation of racism to fall back on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And this is posted in a swingers forum because?" Because it’s a politics forum and this is a political issue. Are you more for restricting people’s right to expression? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But who actively admits to being racist? What the fuck is the appeal? My brother identifies as a racist. He says it makes conversation easier. He'll start a discussion about an ethnic group that isn't integrated with English society, and some one will soon call him a racist. He then says "yes I am, but answer the question". He says some people storm off in a huff, but many continue to argue, and find that their arguments aren't very strong when they don't have the accusation of racism to fall back on." Why bother arguing with him. Hes already admitting hes a repulsive scumbag | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But who actively admits to being racist? What the fuck is the appeal?" "My brother identifies as a racist. He says it makes conversation easier. He'll start a discussion about an ethnic group that isn't integrated with English society, and some one will soon call him a racist. He then says "yes I am, but answer the question". He says some people storm off in a huff, but many continue to argue, and find that their arguments aren't very strong when they don't have the accusation of racism to fall back on." "Why bother arguing with him. Hes already admitting hes a repulsive scumbag" He's not actually a racist, he just claims to be one to take away his opponent's strongest weapon. Once the other guy can't end a discussion by calling him a racist, they have to actually use facts in their argument. He finds many of them aren't used to doing that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But who actively admits to being racist? What the fuck is the appeal? My brother identifies as a racist. He says it makes conversation easier. He'll start a discussion about an ethnic group that isn't integrated with English society, and some one will soon call him a racist. He then says "yes I am, but answer the question". He says some people storm off in a huff, but many continue to argue, and find that their arguments aren't very strong when they don't have the accusation of racism to fall back on. Why bother arguing with him. Hes already admitting hes a repulsive scumbag He's not actually a racist, he just claims to be one to take away his opponent's strongest weapon. Once the other guy can't end a discussion by calling him a racist, they have to actually use facts in their argument. He finds many of them aren't used to doing that." The strongest weapon is always facts, not name calling. But I would also walk away from someone who openly called themselves a racist (regardless of whether it is true or not). Racists are among the very lowest form of humanity. Not even deserving of that word. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Racists are among the very lowest form of humanity. Not even deserving of that word. " Ooooh... That's where it starts! Careful, you're on a slippery slope (really). It's a short leap from there to "anyone who follows the Qur'an is a racist and therefore undeserving of being called human", then "brown people are sub-human". Not you, of course, but it starts somewhere.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Racists are among the very lowest form of humanity. Not even deserving of that word. Ooooh... That's where it starts! Careful, you're on a slippery slope (really). It's a short leap from there to "anyone who follows the Qur'an is a racist and therefore undeserving of being called human", then "brown people are sub-human". Not you, of course, but it starts somewhere. "I treat all racists with equal contempt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Racists are among the very lowest form of humanity. Not even deserving of that word. Ooooh... That's where it starts! Careful, you're on a slippery slope (really). It's a short leap from there to "anyone who follows the Qur'an is a racist and therefore undeserving of being called human", then "brown people are sub-human". Not you, of course, but it starts somewhere. "The previous poster rather missed the point of Mr D's post, which is that the label of 'racist' has just become an excuse not to debate opposing views, rather similar to labelling people as 'thick' for similar reasons. Your post eloquently illustrates where this self righteous thinking can lead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The strongest weapon is always facts, not name calling." I would agree, but it's surprising the number of people that resort to insults when they feel under attack. "But I would also walk away from someone who openly called themselves a racist (regardless of whether it is true or not)." I'm sure you're very proud of your bigotry. But I feel a better course of action would be to engage them in debate, and try to persuade them of the error of their ways. "Racists are among the very lowest form of humanity. Not even deserving of that word." It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Racists are among the very lowest form of humanity. Not even deserving of that word. Ooooh... That's where it starts! Careful, you're on a slippery slope (really). It's a short leap from there to "anyone who follows the Qur'an is a racist and therefore undeserving of being called human", then "brown people are sub-human". Not you, of course, but it starts somewhere.
The previous poster rather missed the point of Mr D's post, which is that the label of 'racist' has just become an excuse not to debate opposing views, rather similar to labelling people as 'thick' for similar reasons. Your post eloquently illustrates where this self righteous thinking can lead."If someone calls someone racist for simply disagreeing on immigration etc the you have a point. If someone is an open racist they’re highly unlikely to possess the critical thinking skills required to sustain debate, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The strongest weapon is always facts, not name calling. I would agree, but it's surprising the number of people that resort to insults when they feel under attack. But I would also walk away from someone who openly called themselves a racist (regardless of whether it is true or not). I'm sure you're very proud of your bigotry. But I feel a better course of action would be to engage them in debate, and try to persuade them of the error of their ways. Racists are among the very lowest form of humanity. Not even deserving of that word. It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way?" That certainly was a very interesting comment. 🤔 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The previous poster rather missed the point of Mr D's post, which is that the label of 'racist' has just become an excuse not to debate opposing views ..." That is indeed the point I was making. It's rather amusing to see people come in and prove the point by accusing him of racism and saying that they'd refuse to discuss it any further. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way?" Would you describe racists any other way? Someone in 2026 with the world of information at their fingertips who makes assumptions about another human being based solely upon the colour of their skin? How else would you describe them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way?" "Would you describe racists any other way?" I wouldn't describe any person as being sub-human, no matter how much I disagreed with their loudly stated opinions. The fact that you are willing to do that is rather disturbing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way? Would you describe racists any other way? I wouldn't describe any person as being sub-human, no matter how much I disagreed with their loudly stated opinions. The fact that you are willing to do that is rather disturbing." That’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion. My views on anyone who is incapable of looking past the tone of skin is strong, I admit - but personally I see no better way to describe someone who holds such dangerous and inhuman views. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way? Would you describe racists any other way? I wouldn't describe any person as being sub-human, no matter how much I disagreed with their loudly stated opinions. The fact that you are willing to do that is rather disturbing." I would say one of the most humane attitudes any of us could have is to try and extend understanding to those whose beliefs or actions repel us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way? Would you describe racists any other way? I wouldn't describe any person as being sub-human, no matter how much I disagreed with their loudly stated opinions. The fact that you are willing to do that is rather disturbing." Imagine what he (or someone like him, in power) would do to a whole country of (mostly) bigots! We're getting somewhere! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way? Would you describe racists any other way? I wouldn't describe any person as being sub-human, no matter how much I disagreed with their loudly stated opinions. The fact that you are willing to do that is rather disturbing. I would say one of the most humane attitudes any of us could have is to try and extend understanding to those whose beliefs or actions repel us. " I wouldn’t extend understanding to anyone who refuses to educate themselves or allows others to help them on something as basic as racism, would you? Obviously a kid or youth can be helped. A grown adult? Not so likely | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way? Would you describe racists any other way? I wouldn't describe any person as being sub-human, no matter how much I disagreed with their loudly stated opinions. The fact that you are willing to do that is rather disturbing. Imagine what he (or someone like him, in power) would do to a whole country of (mostly) bigots! We're getting somewhere!" Well bigotry is seemingly on the rise in the U.K. with reform and Lowe’s rival party seeking to make inroads into the more centrist parties. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way? Would you describe racists any other way? I wouldn't describe any person as being sub-human, no matter how much I disagreed with their loudly stated opinions. The fact that you are willing to do that is rather disturbing. Imagine what he (or someone like him, in power) would do to a whole country of (mostly) bigots! We're getting somewhere! Well bigotry is seemingly on the rise in the U.K. with reform and Lowe’s rival party seeking to make inroads into the more centrist parties. " Bigotry is on the rise on both sides of the political spectrum. It's frightening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way? Would you describe racists any other way? I wouldn't describe any person as being sub-human, no matter how much I disagreed with their loudly stated opinions. The fact that you are willing to do that is rather disturbing. Imagine what he (or someone like him, in power) would do to a whole country of (mostly) bigots! We're getting somewhere!" Let’s change the topic from racism, because it works for any form of extremism (and racism is extremism, let’s be clear about that) If you have an adult who holds extremist, dangerous views, perhaps religious, who refuses to accept that they’re wrong, despite evidence shown to them - what is the correct course of action to take? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way? Would you describe racists any other way? I wouldn't describe any person as being sub-human, no matter how much I disagreed with their loudly stated opinions. The fact that you are willing to do that is rather disturbing. Imagine what he (or someone like him, in power) would do to a whole country of (mostly) bigots! We're getting somewhere! Well bigotry is seemingly on the rise in the U.K. with reform and Lowe’s rival party seeking to make inroads into the more centrist parties. Bigotry is on the rise on both sides of the political spectrum. It's frightening." It is TM. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way? Would you describe racists any other way? I wouldn't describe any person as being sub-human, no matter how much I disagreed with their loudly stated opinions. The fact that you are willing to do that is rather disturbing. Imagine what he (or someone like him, in power) would do to a whole country of (mostly) bigots! We're getting somewhere!" Labelling people as sub-human or less than human (which is of course nonsense from a scientific pov) is pretty much always the first step of actual or would be dictators. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way? Would you describe racists any other way? I wouldn't describe any person as being sub-human, no matter how much I disagreed with their loudly stated opinions. The fact that you are willing to do that is rather disturbing. Imagine what he (or someone like him, in power) would do to a whole country of (mostly) bigots! We're getting somewhere! Labelling people as sub-human or less than human (which is of course nonsense from a scientific pov) is pretty much always the first step of actual or would be dictators." Feel free to engage with any of my questions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way? Would you describe racists any other way? I wouldn't describe any person as being sub-human, no matter how much I disagreed with their loudly stated opinions. The fact that you are willing to do that is rather disturbing. Imagine what he (or someone like him, in power) would do to a whole country of (mostly) bigots! We're getting somewhere! Let’s change the topic from racism, because it works for any form of extremism (and racism is extremism, let’s be clear about that) If you have an adult who holds extremist, dangerous views, perhaps religious, who refuses to accept that they’re wrong, despite evidence shown to them - what is the correct course of action to take?" Whatever you like... It's not the action that's worrying, it's the application of the term "subhuman" that's concerning. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have an adult who holds extremist, dangerous views, perhaps religious, who refuses to accept that they’re wrong, despite evidence shown to them - what is the correct course of action to take?" We probably have very different lived experiences of bigotry, so our viewpoints will probably differ. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting that you are willing to class a group of people as sub-human based on one of their attributes. Can we think of any other people that think that way? Would you describe racists any other way? I wouldn't describe any person as being sub-human, no matter how much I disagreed with their loudly stated opinions. The fact that you are willing to do that is rather disturbing. Imagine what he (or someone like him, in power) would do to a whole country of (mostly) bigots! We're getting somewhere! Let’s change the topic from racism, because it works for any form of extremism (and racism is extremism, let’s be clear about that) If you have an adult who holds extremist, dangerous views, perhaps religious, who refuses to accept that they’re wrong, despite evidence shown to them - what is the correct course of action to take? Whatever you like... It's not the action that's worrying, it's the application of the term "subhuman" that's concerning." It’s a strong term, yes. It’s also not a literal term. There’s no such thing as ‘sub-human’ - but there is behaviour which falls short of human expectations. And racists are guilty of that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have an adult who holds extremist, dangerous views, perhaps religious, who refuses to accept that they’re wrong, despite evidence shown to them - what is the correct course of action to take? We probably have very different lived experiences of bigotry, so our viewpoints will probably differ." Perhaps. I grew up in a household with a massively racist father, then went to a school with a very mixed background and befriended kids from all kinds of backgrounds. I learned quickly and young in life that we’re all the same and my dad’s views were abject bollocks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People seem to think that racism is a different form of extremism (or perhaps incorrectly don’t think it’s extremism at all) I think that’s why there’s a disconnect when strong views are held. Would anyone on the fabs forum be saying ‘we really should treat *insert extremist speaker here* more humanely - so why would you argue that overt racists should be granted the same privilege? " Hence the subtle shift in our responses to "bigotry". Gotta be all-inclusive, right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s change the topic from racism, because it works for any form of extremism (and racism is extremism, let’s be clear about that)" I'm going to say that any world view that allows a person to class others as sub-human is an extremist one. I would class you as an extremist. "If you have an adult who holds extremist, dangerous views, perhaps religious, who refuses to accept that they’re wrong, despite evidence shown to them - what is the correct course of action to take?" It depends on the level of danger. If you were found to be carrying a knife after posting that you'd like to eliminate all racists, I'd say you were dangerous and should be locked up. If all you ever do is rant on here about it, then you aren't dangerous and should just be gently mocked until you realise the error of your ways. Exactly the same thing applies to racists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People seem to think that racism is a different form of extremism (or perhaps incorrectly don’t think it’s extremism at all) I think that’s why there’s a disconnect when strong views are held. Would anyone on the fabs forum be saying ‘we really should treat *insert extremist speaker here* more humanely - so why would you argue that overt racists should be granted the same privilege? Hence the subtle shift in our responses to "bigotry". Gotta be all-inclusive, right? "We should treat all bigots equally, I agree. On the evidence of this forum, many don’t. I do hold less than favourable views towards some - it’s important to recognise your own inherent biases (and we all have them) and try to work through them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It depends on the level of danger. If you were found to be carrying a knife after posting that you'd like to eliminate all racists, I'd say you were dangerous and should be locked up. If all you ever do is rant on here about it, then you aren't dangerous and should just be gently mocked until you realise the error of your ways. " That seems like a very hit and miss approach to policing extremism, to be fair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It depends on the level of danger. If you were found to be carrying a knife after posting that you'd like to eliminate all racists, I'd say you were dangerous and should be locked up. If all you ever do is rant on here about it, then you aren't dangerous and should just be gently mocked until you realise the error of your ways." "That seems like a very hit and miss approach to policing extremism, to be fair." So what do you think is the correct course of action to take? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It depends on the level of danger. If you were found to be carrying a knife after posting that you'd like to eliminate all racists, I'd say you were dangerous and should be locked up. If all you ever do is rant on here about it, then you aren't dangerous and should just be gently mocked until you realise the error of your ways. That seems like a very hit and miss approach to policing extremism, to be fair. So what do you think is the correct course of action to take?" We should be calling out extremism wherever we find it. Whether it’s religious, sexual or indeed racial. And as I said above, we should recognise our own biases and acknowledge them as the weakness they are - attempting to educate ourselves on it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have announced they will ban the burka if elected " U mean they are banning Farage as he is amongst other things good at making a Burkah of himself. Reform are all about soundbites and no idea how to implement the stuff they spout. Remember Farage and the big red bus lie about vote brexit and nhs would get billions of money that would have gone into the eu. Total lies as there were legally binding agreements and uk are still paying for contracts already in place. Remember Farage got busted for illegally using funding for at the time UKIP, the money was not for the partys coffers. Remember Farage is on record stating scrap the NHS, his deluded followers say his backtracked on this the reality is he said that to deflect from his real intentions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have announced they will ban the burka if elected U mean they are banning Farage as he is amongst other things good at making a Burkah of himself. Reform are all about soundbites and no idea how to implement the stuff they spout. Remember Farage and the big red bus lie about vote brexit and nhs would get billions of money that would have gone into the eu. Total lies as there were legally binding agreements and uk are still paying for contracts already in place. Remember Farage got busted for illegally using funding for at the time UKIP, the money was not for the partys coffers. Remember Farage is on record stating scrap the NHS, his deluded followers say his backtracked on this the reality is he said that to deflect from his real intentions " Rather ironic comment considering the lies it contains. The NHS bus was Boris, not Farage, and he has of course never proposed scrapping the NHS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have an adult who holds extremist, dangerous views, perhaps religious, who refuses to accept that they’re wrong, despite evidence shown to them - what is the correct course of action to take? We probably have very different lived experiences of bigotry, so our viewpoints will probably differ. Perhaps. I grew up in a household with a massively racist father, then went to a school with a very mixed background and befriended kids from all kinds of backgrounds. I learned quickly and young in life that we’re all the same and my dad’s views were abject bollocks." I wonder what Freud would say about that... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have announced they will ban the burka if elected U mean they are banning Farage as he is amongst other things good at making a Burkah of himself. Reform are all about soundbites and no idea how to implement the stuff they spout. Remember Farage and the big red bus lie about vote brexit and nhs would get billions of money that would have gone into the eu. Total lies as there were legally binding agreements and uk are still paying for contracts already in place. Remember Farage got busted for illegally using funding for at the time UKIP, the money was not for the partys coffers. Remember Farage is on record stating scrap the NHS, his deluded followers say his backtracked on this the reality is he said that to deflect from his real intentions Rather ironic comment considering the lies it contains. The NHS bus was Boris, not Farage, and he has of course never proposed scrapping the NHS." The bus was indeed Johnson. Farage however did say "I think we're going to have to move to an insurance-based system of healthcare" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have an adult who holds extremist, dangerous views, perhaps religious, who refuses to accept that they’re wrong, despite evidence shown to them - what is the correct course of action to take? We probably have very different lived experiences of bigotry, so our viewpoints will probably differ. Perhaps. I grew up in a household with a massively racist father, then went to a school with a very mixed background and befriended kids from all kinds of backgrounds. I learned quickly and young in life that we’re all the same and my dad’s views were abject bollocks. I wonder what Freud would say about that..." He’d probably say “Your dad was a racist c**t”  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Remember Farage and the big red bus lie about vote brexit and nhs would get billions of money that would have gone into the eu." Ignoring the fact that the bus belonged to Boris - that money did get added to the NHS budget. Even if it hadn't, it would hardly have been Farage's fault since he wasn't in charge of the country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what do you think is the correct course of action to take?" "We should be calling out extremism wherever we find it. Whether it’s religious, sexual or indeed racial. And as I said above, we should recognise our own biases and acknowledge them as the weakness they are - attempting to educate ourselves on it." Then I'm sure you're pleased that several of us have called out your extremist views. I wish you well in your journey of discovery. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Remember Farage and the big red bus lie about vote brexit and nhs would get billions of money that would have gone into the eu. Ignoring the fact that the bus belonged to Boris - that money did get added to the NHS budget. Even if it hadn't, it would hardly have been Farage's fault since he wasn't in charge of the country." Sort of. There was a tax-hike to cover the ‘extra’ money to the NHS. Mainly because the 350million was a doctored figure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what do you think is the correct course of action to take? We should be calling out extremism wherever we find it. Whether it’s religious, sexual or indeed racial. And as I said above, we should recognise our own biases and acknowledge them as the weakness they are - attempting to educate ourselves on it. Then I'm sure you're pleased that several of us have called out your extremist views. I wish you well in your journey of discovery." Well the only thing I’ve been calls out on is the use of ‘sub-human’ which I accept is a harsh term. I’m sure you’d agree that having no time for unabashed racists is just expected human decency. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well the only thing I’ve been calls out on is the use of ‘sub-human’ which I accept is a harsh term." If all of the above isn't clear to you, I'll be more explicit. I'm calling you out on having extremist and unacceptable views. Your position that some people can be considered sub-human is exactly the same position taken by the racists you despise. You believe that your view is acceptable because you're on the side of good and fighting the forces of bad. Racists believe exactly the same thing. You should re-consider your position and ask yourself whether it is ever right to treat any person based on your views of the group you think they fit into. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well the only thing I’ve been calls out on is the use of ‘sub-human’ which I accept is a harsh term. If all of the above isn't clear to you, I'll be more explicit. I'm calling you out on having extremist and unacceptable views. Your position that some people can be considered sub-human is exactly the same position taken by the racists you despise. You believe that your view is acceptable because you're on the side of good and fighting the forces of bad. Racists believe exactly the same thing. You should re-consider your position and ask yourself whether it is ever right to treat any person based on your views of the group you think they fit into." I’ve reconsidered. Unrepentant and unashamed racists are cunts who should be shunned at best. They’re on a similar socially-acceptable level to child abusers and and people who enjoy mayo in sandwiches. Better? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have an adult who holds extremist, dangerous views, perhaps religious, who refuses to accept that they’re wrong, despite evidence shown to them - what is the correct course of action to take? We probably have very different lived experiences of bigotry, so our viewpoints will probably differ. Perhaps. I grew up in a household with a massively racist father, then went to a school with a very mixed background and befriended kids from all kinds of backgrounds. I learned quickly and young in life that we’re all the same and my dad’s views were abject bollocks. I wonder what Freud would say about that... He’d probably say “Your dad was a racist c**t” "I fear you haven't read much Freud. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of only what Ltd company wants. Ban the burks be better. Racists must go" Ban the burks 🤣🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You should re-consider your position and ask yourself whether it is ever right to treat any person based on your views of the group you think they fit into. I’ve reconsidered. Unrepentant and unashamed racists are cunts who should be shunned at best. They’re on a similar socially-acceptable level to child abusers and and people who enjoy mayo in sandwiches. Better? "Actually, yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You should re-consider your position and ask yourself whether it is ever right to treat any person based on your views of the group you think they fit into. I’ve reconsidered. Unrepentant and unashamed racists are cunts who should be shunned at best. They’re on a similar socially-acceptable level to child abusers and and people who enjoy mayo in sandwiches. Better?
Actually, yes."The honesty is refreshing tbh. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have an adult who holds extremist, dangerous views, perhaps religious, who refuses to accept that they’re wrong, despite evidence shown to them - what is the correct course of action to take? We probably have very different lived experiences of bigotry, so our viewpoints will probably differ. Perhaps. I grew up in a household with a massively racist father, then went to a school with a very mixed background and befriended kids from all kinds of backgrounds. I learned quickly and young in life that we’re all the same and my dad’s views were abject bollocks. I wonder what Freud would say about that... He’d probably say “Your dad was a racist c**t”
I fear you haven't read much Freud."No, to be fair I haven’t. Like most people, tbf. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You should re-consider your position and ask yourself whether it is ever right to treat any person based on your views of the group you think they fit into. I’ve reconsidered. Unrepentant and unashamed racists are cunts who should be shunned at best. They’re on a similar socially-acceptable level to child abusers and and people who enjoy mayo in sandwiches. Better?
Actually, yes.
The honesty is refreshing tbh."Anything you disagree with there? You’re not a mayo sandwich guy are you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You’re not a mayo sandwich guy are you? " Ick. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You should re-consider your position and ask yourself whether it is ever right to treat any person based on your views of the group you think they fit into. I’ve reconsidered. Unrepentant and unashamed racists are cunts who should be shunned at best. They’re on a similar socially-acceptable level to child abusers and and people who enjoy mayo in sandwiches. Better?
Actually, yes.
The honesty is refreshing tbh.
Anything you disagree with there?
You’re not a mayo sandwich guy are you?
"I think you have a lot of anger that you've indicated derived from your unhappy relationship with your Dad. I don't think your 'views' are coming from a place of rational consideration so while you have my sympathy I can't honestly take any of your opinions seriously. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You should re-consider your position and ask yourself whether it is ever right to treat any person based on your views of the group you think they fit into. I’ve reconsidered. Unrepentant and unashamed racists are cunts who should be shunned at best. They’re on a similar socially-acceptable level to child abusers and and people who enjoy mayo in sandwiches. Better?
Actually, yes.
The honesty is refreshing tbh.
Anything you disagree with there?
You’re not a mayo sandwich guy are you?
I think you have a lot of anger that you've indicated derived from your unhappy relationship with your Dad. I don't think your 'views' are coming from a place of rational consideration so while you have my sympathy I can't honestly take any of your opinions seriously."You think it’s irrational to dislike racists? Quite an admission, there. Also no need to put ‘views’ in inverted commas. I’m open about my views, and I stand by them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To actually return to the topic of the thread, many people, including many Muslims, would regard the Burqa as the expression of an exterme interpretation of Islam. Therefore following some of the logic expressed here we should not only ban the burqa but make its proponents social pariahs." No, let’s not return just yet. Do you think it’s irrational to dislike racists? That was what you suggested | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh lordy, telling people what to post now ! 🤣" Well you don’t have to respond, I can assume from your subject changing and avoidance that you do indeed think it’s irrational to dislike racists. That reveals much about you
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To actually return to the topic of the thread, many people, including many Muslims, would regard the Burqa as the expression of an exterme interpretation of Islam. Therefore following some of the logic expressed here we should not only ban the burqa but make its proponents social pariahs." Almost every British person, right or left, would agree in the case of forcing it upon women. What's more nuanced is when women want to do it themselves. This is very different, where it's a genuine desire, not coercion. It's evil to beat someone. It's fun to engage in consensual BDSM. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To actually return to the topic of the thread, many people, including many Muslims, would regard the Burqa as the expression of an exterme interpretation of Islam. Therefore following some of the logic expressed here we should not only ban the burqa but make its proponents social pariahs. Almost every British person, right or left, would agree in the case of forcing it upon women. What's more nuanced is when women want to do it themselves. This is very different, where it's a genuine desire, not coercion. It's evil to beat someone. It's fun to engage in consensual BDSM." Yes, I was unaware until I got talking to a woman some years ago, that many Muslim women choose to wear the burqua. It does add nuance to things. No one of us should be policing what people do or indeed do not wear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think you have a lot of anger that you've indicated derived from your unhappy relationship with your Dad. I don't think your 'views' are coming from a place of rational consideration so while you have my sympathy I can't honestly take any of your opinions seriously." "You think it’s irrational to dislike racists? Quite an admission, there." For a person that spent much of a previous thread complaining that he was being misrepresented, this is quite a contortion of logic. It would seem that it's fine for you to do it, but others mustn't be allowed to do it to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think you have a lot of anger that you've indicated derived from your unhappy relationship with your Dad. I don't think your 'views' are coming from a place of rational consideration so while you have my sympathy I can't honestly take any of your opinions seriously. You think it’s irrational to dislike racists? Quite an admission, there. For a person that spent much of a previous thread complaining that he was being misrepresented, this is quite a contortion of logic. It would seem that it's fine for you to do it, but others mustn't be allowed to do it to you." “ I don't think your 'views' (on racists) are coming from a place of rational consideration” i then asked if the poster felt it was irrational to dislike racists. A simple question with what one would think is a simple answer, no? I mean if the chap doesn’t want to answer, that’s his prerogative, but we’re entitled to draw our own conclusions as to why that might be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Almost every British person, right or left, would agree in the case of forcing it upon women. What's more nuanced is when women want to do it themselves. This is very different, where it's a genuine desire, not coercion." When women choose to enter the sex trade, there are plenty of people that step up to say that they must have been coerced because no woman would choose that life. I don't see why we believe that some woman chose to wear the burqa and that no coercion is involved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Almost every British person, right or left, would agree in the case of forcing it upon women. What's more nuanced is when women want to do it themselves. This is very different, where it's a genuine desire, not coercion. When women choose to enter the sex trade, there are plenty of people that step up to say that they must have been coerced because no woman would choose that life. I don't see why we believe that some woman chose to wear the burqa and that no coercion is involved." I would expect there to be women representing both positions, in both those scenarios, no? Probably not balanced equally, but coercion in all cases (or in none)? I’d be very surprised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think you have a lot of anger that you've indicated derived from your unhappy relationship with your Dad. I don't think your 'views' are coming from a place of rational consideration so while you have my sympathy I can't honestly take any of your opinions seriously." "You think it’s irrational to dislike racists? Quite an admission, there." "For a person that spent much of a previous thread complaining that he was being misrepresented, this is quite a contortion of logic. It would seem that it's fine for you to do it, but others mustn't be allowed to do it to you." " “I don't think your 'views' (on racists) are coming from a place of rational consideration” i then asked if the poster felt it was irrational to dislike racists. A simple question with what one would think is a simple answer, no?" You didn't ask a simple question. You phrased it as a rhetorical question, and then added that it was "quite an admission". You know full well that the poster was saying that your views in particular are not coming from a rational consideration. He made no suggestion that being against racism in general was irrational. You deliberately misrepresented him, and you know it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think you have a lot of anger that you've indicated derived from your unhappy relationship with your Dad. I don't think your 'views' are coming from a place of rational consideration so while you have my sympathy I can't honestly take any of your opinions seriously. You think it’s irrational to dislike racists? Quite an admission, there. For a person that spent much of a previous thread complaining that he was being misrepresented, this is quite a contortion of logic. It would seem that it's fine for you to do it, but others mustn't be allowed to do it to you. “I don't think your 'views' (on racists) are coming from a place of rational consideration” i then asked if the poster felt it was irrational to dislike racists. A simple question with what one would think is a simple answer, no? You didn't ask a simple question. You phrased it as a rhetorical question, and then added that it was "quite an admission". You know full well that the poster was saying that your views in particular are not coming from a rational consideration. He made no suggestion that being against racism in general was irrational. You deliberately misrepresented him, and you know it." He claimed they were not coming from a rational consideration (a claim which I refute as abject bollocks btw). And if i’ve misrepresented him, he can correct me and we’ll all be cool, won’t we? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He claimed they were not coming from a rational consideration ..." He said your views were not arrived at rationally. He didn't say that it wasn't rational for others to hold less extreme positions than you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He claimed they were not coming from a rational consideration ... He said your views were not arrived at rationally. He didn't say that it wasn't rational for others to hold less extreme positions than you." So we’re agreed that he made a nonsense assumption based upon nothing but his own imagination at least. Still, no point debating this with you - if he wishes the record be set straight, it’s very easy to do so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh lordy, telling people what to post now ! 🤣 Well you don’t have to respond, I can assume from your subject changing and avoidance that you do indeed think it’s irrational to dislike racists. That reveals much about you
"Oh no, I've given the game away. I fear my reputation among anonymous swingers may be harmed irreparably. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He claimed they were not coming from a rational consideration ... He said your views were not arrived at rationally. He didn't say that it wasn't rational for others to hold less extreme positions than you." Thank you. I couldn't put it any better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's fun to engage in consensual BDSM." Have DMd you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh lordy, telling people what to post now ! 🤣 Well you don’t have to respond, I can assume from your subject changing and avoidance that you do indeed think it’s irrational to dislike racists. That reveals much about you
Oh no, I've given the game away. I fear my reputation among anonymous swingers may be harmed irreparably. "It’s not about reputation. I’d be aghast at myself if anyone even had the slightest suggestion that I was racist or that I didn’t care if other people were. Still, you do you, bro | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Almost every British person, right or left, would agree in the case of forcing it upon women. What's more nuanced is when women want to do it themselves. This is very different, where it's a genuine desire, not coercion. When women choose to enter the sex trade, there are plenty of people that step up to say that they must have been coerced because no woman would choose that life. I don't see why we believe that some woman chose to wear the burqa and that no coercion is involved." Hence the word "genuine". And we would fully support women who intentionally choose to sell sex, but would happily see coercive pimps castrated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have announced they will ban the burka if elected " Interesting thread OP | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
