French ban the burka

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

OK.

Muslim countries forcing non-Muslim residents or visitors to do or not do something should never be used as an argument in favour of western countries forcing Muslim residents or visitors to do or not do something.

Reason being, extremists muslim countries tend to have quite a few reprehensible laws based on reprehensible morality. They are not places who's lead we should ever consider following.

I can't believe you need to have that explained to you.

I wanted to see how you would defend Muslims demanding that visitors follow their laws but that Muslims didn't have to follow the laws of other countries.

Good luck with that whole sharia law thing you have going on over there. I see interesting legal times (in the Chinese sense) ahead for you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 3]

What happens if a woman isn't wearing a burka but an abaya instead?

Pretty flippin' sure most Saudi women don't actually wear burkas.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wmw999 2,166]

Quote

I wanted to see how you would defend Muslims demanding that visitors follow their laws but that Muslims didn't have to follow the laws of other countries.

We require people to wear clothing on the beach. Not all countries do. Here there are a few where it's not required, but most do.

Is that as unreasonable an imposition of moral standards on visitors? Can we at least have a little sympathy for the male speedo-wearer?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

What happens if a woman isn't wearing a burka but an abaya instead?

Pretty flippin' sure most Saudi women don't actually wear burkas.

No problem with the abaya as it doesn't cover the face hands or feet. Ban that and Nuns would be stuck indoors!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
As Europe ages rapidly and is having fewer and fewer children to replace the old retiring workers, immigrants from muslim countries are filling that gap, and they are coming in faster than Europeans are having babies.

In a generation or two, this issue could get a lot more complicated if you wish to protect free society in Europe.

Got any links on that?

You should try and read more competent papers than just the yellow press - or publications of the American Nazi Party.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Can we at least have a little sympathy for the male speedo-wearer?

Wendy P.

Butter up Remi in bonfire, not here....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,271]

Me: Reason being, extremists muslim countries tend to have quite a few reprehensible laws based on reprehensible morality. They are not places who's lead we should ever consider following.

Mike: I wanted to see how you would defend Muslims demanding that visitors follow their laws but that Muslims didn't have to follow the laws of other countries.


Mike, can you actually read? I mean, genuinely, are you capable of absorbing information from the written word?

Nothing I have written in this thread, either before the above post or in it indicated that I would be either defending Muslim nations or arguing that Muslims should be exempt from the laws of nations they live in.

Edit:

Quote

Good luck with that whole sharia law thing you have going on over there. I see interesting legal times (in the Chinese sense) ahead for you.

Eh?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

What happens if a woman isn't wearing a burka but an abaya instead?
Pretty flippin' sure most Saudi women don't actually wear burkas.

No problem with the abaya as it doesn't cover the face hands or feet. Ban that and Nuns would be stuck indoors!

Well, in your original post you had specifically mentioned Saudi.

Trust me, I'm no lover of the KSA, but I don't think the burka issue in France has anything to do with them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Got any links on that?

Population Reference Bureau

States that Muslim populations in Europe *do* have higher birth rates in general, but that the difference between the Muslim and native population birthrates has been decreasing.

Quote

You should try and read more competent papers than just the yellow press - or publications of the American Nazi Party.

Maybe you should try to RESEARCH first instead of ASSuming where the info came from, nicht wahr?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Me: Reason being, extremists muslim countries tend to have quite a few reprehensible laws based on reprehensible morality. They are not places who's lead we should ever consider following.

Mike: I wanted to see how you would defend Muslims demanding that visitors follow their laws but that Muslims didn't have to follow the laws of other countries.


Mike, can you actually read? I mean, genuinely, are you capable of absorbing information from the written word?

Can you?

Quote

Nothing I have written in this thread, either before the above post or in it indicated that I would be either defending Muslim nations or arguing that Muslims should be exempt from the laws of nations they live in.

And nothing that *I* have written in this thread has indicated that I "want our western nations to follow extremist Muslim nations lead in law making".

Quote

Edit:

Quote

Good luck with that whole sharia law thing you have going on over there. I see interesting legal times (in the Chinese sense) ahead for you.

Eh?

clicky

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,271]

Quote

And nothing that *I* have written in this thread has indicated that I "want our western nations to follow extremist Muslim nations lead in law making".

If you considered the part of skyrider's post that you specifically quoted to be a valid point, that would indeed be what you were supporting. Since you say that you don't, I'm not exactly sure why you needed Andy (and then me) to address it.


Now, if you have an explanation (apart from wild preconcieved notions) for how you arrived at the conclusions you did about what I was going to say, I'd love to hear it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If you considered the part of skyrider's post that you specifically quoted to be a valid point, that would indeed be what you were supporting.

The part of skyrider's post that I quoted did not advocate making any sort of law, and nothing in my quote suggested support for said law.

Quote

Now, if you have an explanation (apart from wild preconcieved notions) for how you arrived at the conclusions you did about what I was going to say, I'd love to hear it.

After you. Maybe you can show where what was quoted was in ANY way suggestive of support for any law, to begin with. Then, you can address how my providing the quote was in ANY way suggestive of support of any law.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,463]

>My local service station will not serve me if I don't take off my full face
>helmet, it is a similar concept.

I've got no problem with a store that won't serve you if you wear X. (A full face helmet, a ski mask, a Chargers hat.)

Now, would you be OK with a law that said you couldn't wear that full face helmet in public?

[jakee 1,271]

Quote

The part of skyrider's post that I quoted did not advocate making any sort of law, and nothing in my quote suggested support for said law.

The whole of skyrider's post was supporting the law banning burka's, the part you quoted was part of his reasoning. reasoning being used in favour of a law banning burka's which, you may have noticed, is the focal point of this thread.

Now generally speaking, when you quote someone elses argument, and demand that another person address it, that very strongly indicates that you think the argument has merit. Further, you could consider that my original reply to you was an illustration of the underlying logic of skyrider's argument, so you could figure out for yourself where it falls down without needing someone else to actually spell it out for you. Kinda pointless, unfortunately, since you needed that anyway.

Quote

After you. Maybe you can show where what was quoted was in ANY way suggestive of support for any law, to begin with. Then, you can address how my providing the quote was in ANY way suggestive of support of any law.

See above.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The part of skyrider's post that I quoted did not advocate making any sort of law, and nothing in my quote suggested support for said law.

The whole of skyrider's post was supporting the law banning burka's, the part you quoted was part of his reasoning. reasoning being used in favour of a law banning burka's which, you may have noticed, is the focal point of this thread.

What was quoted did not.

Quote

Now generally speaking, when you quote someone elses argument, and demand that another person address it, that very strongly indicates that you think the argument has merit. Further, you could consider that my original reply to you was an illustration of the underlying logic of skyrider's argument, so you could figure out for yourself where it falls down without needing someone else to actually spell it out for you. Kinda pointless, unfortunately, since you needed that anyway.

And generally, when you answer a post, you don't add things to it that aren't there.

Quote

After you. Maybe you can show where what was quoted was in ANY way suggestive of support for any law, to begin with. Then, you can address how my providing the quote was in ANY way suggestive of support of any law.

See above.

[jakee 1,271]

Quote

What was quoted did not.

The whole of skyrider's post was in support of the law. The part that you quoted was part of his reasoning.

If you don't think it had anything to do with anti burka laws, what on earth do you think it was about?

Quote

So, you're unable to answer the post as written either upthread or here,

I have done, several times now. If you don't understand the answers (or even the question), that's your problem.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So, you're unable to answer the post as written either upthread or here,

I have done, several times now.

[jakee 1,271]

Quote

No, you haven't - you've answered your strawman.

There is no strawman. There is what has been written.

Quote

The fact that you have to keep going back to mentioning skyrider's whole argument shows that.

Skyrider's post is where this line of argument came from. It is what is being discussed. You can't pretend it isn't relevant, it is the basis of what we are talking about.

And I notice you're still dodging explaining how exactly you came to the conclusions you did about my posts. I'm really quite interested to see how Mike-logic works...

Quote

If you don't understand the post, that's your problem.

Y'know what I told you a few days ago about parroting back criticisms where they don't apply? Still makes you look silly.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's a disgraceful, appalling law to have in a modern, Western nation that holds itself out as one of the world's democratic republics, and I'm disgusted. I've written on it before.

So you think peopel hiding their face in banks and stores is OK?

You do realise many suicide bombers have been men in Burka's., to fool officials?

wearing a mask has ben illegal in many places since the 1800's...If the Muslims don; liek it, they are welcome to move back to thier countries...when Our women Visit them, "They have to cover up" so why shoudl they require we bend to their rules, Yet they wont bend to ours?

The French law has absolutely nothing to do with robberies or terrorism.
As for the rest, I don't argue with race-motivated rants.

Race???

Last time I check, Muslim was a religion...Now they are a "race"?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

No, you haven't - you've answered your strawman.

There is no strawman. There is what has been written.

It's not what *I'VE* written - therefore, a strawman. QED.

Quote

Quote

The fact that you have to keep going back to mentioning skyrider's whole argument shows that.

Skyrider's post is where this line of argument came from. It is what is being discussed. You can't pretend it isn't relevant, it is the basis of what we are talking about.

His post is on the first page - feel free to go argue it with him.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,271]

Quote

It's not what *I'VE* written - therefore, a strawman. QED.

I've explained the relationship between what he wrote and what you wrote, I wont do it again.

Quote

His post is on the first page - feel free to go argue it with him.

So first you demand an answer to his point, now that we've been discussing it you don't want to be involved. OK.

And you still haven't provided an explanation for your comments.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,271]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's a disgraceful, appalling law to have in a modern, Western nation that holds itself out as one of the world's democratic republics, and I'm disgusted. I've written on it before.

So you think peopel hiding their face in banks and stores is OK?

You do realise many suicide bombers have been men in Burka's., to fool officials?

wearing a mask has ben illegal in many places since the 1800's...If the Muslims don; liek it, they are welcome to move back to thier countries...when Our women Visit them, "They have to cover up" so why shoudl they require we bend to their rules, Yet they wont bend to ours?

The French law has absolutely nothing to do with robberies or terrorism.
As for the rest, I don't argue with race-motivated rants.

Race???

Last time I check, Muslim was a religion...Now they are a "race"?

That is precisely his point. The country of origin for many American muslims is... America. They can't go "back to their country" - they are already in it. Same for French, British, German etc.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

It's not what *I'VE* written - therefore, a strawman. QED.

I've explained the relationship between what he wrote and what you wrote, I wont do it again.

Good - I don't need to hear yet again why you think your strawman argument is valid.

Quote

Quote

His post is on the first page - feel free to go argue it with him.

So first you demand an answer to his point, now that we've been discussing it you don't want to be involved. OK.

When you wish to comment on what I posted vs what you read into my post, feel free.

Since (so far), all your arguments have been against skyrider's post talking about people covering their face (he's made no comment about the law itself, which concerns a full-body covering), I merely gave you the info to a more direct route in which to air your grievances.

Actually, since neither skyrider or myself have mentioned the law itself, maybe you should be responding to Skyrad in the OP.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,271]

Quote

When you wish to comment on what I posted vs what you read into my post, feel free.

Since (so far), all your arguments have been against skyrider's post talking about people covering their face (he's made no comment about the law itself, which concerns a full-body covering), I merely gave you the info to a more direct route in which to air your grievances.

Actually, since neither skyrider or myself have mentioned the law itself, maybe you should be responding to Skyrad in the OP.

That really is top notch obfuscation. A masterclass for which I must give you credit.

TBH though, whether you are (as it appears) determined to keep twisting around the meaning of what's been written, or you actually do believe what you're saying there's not really much point in going any further.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

When you wish to comment on what I posted vs what you read into my post, feel free.

Since (so far), all your arguments have been against skyrider's post talking about people covering their face (he's made no comment about the law itself, which concerns a full-body covering), I merely gave you the info to a more direct route in which to air your grievances.

Actually, since neither skyrider or myself have mentioned the law itself, maybe you should be responding to Skyrad in the OP.

That really is top notch obfuscation. A masterclass for which I must give you credit.

Subthreads happen - all you had to do was answer what *I* wrote instead of trying to bring the other stuff skyrider mentioned and which I never quoted.

Quote

TBH though, whether you are (as it appears) determined to keep twisting around the meaning of what's been written, or you actually do believe what you're saying there's not really much point in going any further.

I'm twisting nothing - as I said, when you wish to discuss what I actually wrote, feel free.

I'll even restate it, so you don't feel so tempted:

Do you feel it is right for Muslims to demand that other people obey their laws, while refusing to obey other people's laws?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706