Jump to content

Why has religion retained its appeal?

Vaati

This is the final warning this thread will get, any further bickering, baiting or posts that break the forum rules the thread will be closed. Accounts will be suspended.

Message added by Vaati

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, FinBak said:

You have NEVER SEEN?...Well it's about time You opened Your eyes.!

 

The BBC. Quite Often Dear.

 

Last week.

 

Syria.

 

 

I have quite often seen "Dear" on the BBC but never do I "... often see women wearing Niqabs going into buildings and blowing them selves..."

But you do, so please give us a clue so we can all be enlightened.

 

Which day last week did the BBC show this footage on the news of someone walking into a building wearing niqab in Syria?

Other occasions?

 

Syria is a really bad example to choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, danot said:

No. I'm not back-peddling at all. Why would I need to produce evidence when it's self-evident that restrictive measures prevent us from doing it. If I am wrong about this and airlines do allow passengers to board their planes with their faces concealed, if it's far more common than I actually realise, it shouldn't be too difficult for someone  to find evidence that shows I'm wrong.  Maybe a photograph or something. I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. 

There you go.                                                   a-muslim-woman-on-a-plane-wearing-a-niqa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Halibut said:

There you go.                                                   a-muslim-woman-on-a-plane-wearing-a-niqa

To be fair, he was talking about non-religious face coverings. He, like many others, regards the burka as a religious garment.

I think he's trying to say that the religious get to cover their face but non-religious can't. He's not doing very well with it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RootsBooster said:

To be fair, he was talking about non-religious face coverings. He, like many others, regards the burka as a religious garment.

I think he's trying to say that the religious get to cover their face but non-religious can't. He's not doing very well with it though.

https://www.skyscanner.com.au/news/flights/why-flying-can-make-you-sick-and-how-to-stay-well

 

Fourth image down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, danot said:

No. I'm not back-peddling at all. Why would I need to produce evidence when it's self-evident that restrictive measures prevent us from doing it. If I am wrong about this and airlines do allow passengers to board their planes with their faces concealed, if it's far more common than I actually realise, it shouldn't be too difficult for someone  to find evidence that shows I'm wrong.  Maybe a photograph or something. I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. 

Why would you need to provide evidence?

Because you've made a claim, the burden of proof is on you. You've spent so much time and effort now avoiding giving evidence, it would have been much easier for yourself just to post a link to some news article or policy, they must exist.

I've covered my face with a Buff (a tubular kind of face scarf/head wrap) on a flight before because it was cold and I couldn't sleep. Here's some more stuff...

 

sam-smith-mask-instagram--1448534558-viesheet-mask_hero_600x390-600x390.jpeg239F6D4400000578-0-She_s_relaxing_Lady_G

Edited by RootsBooster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, RootsBooster said:

Why would you need to provide evidence?

Because you've made a claim, the burden of proof is on you. You've spent so much time and effort now avoiding giving evidence, it would have been much easier for yourself just to post a link to some news article or policy, they must exist.

I've covered my face with a Buff (a tubular kind of face scarf/head wrap) on a flight before because it was cold and I couldn't sleep. Here's some more stuff...

 

sam-smith-mask-instagram--1448534558-viesheet-mask_hero_600x390-600x390.jpeg239F6D4400000578-0-She_s_relaxing_Lady_G

Tenuous, but still a none religious face covering so I concede. Well done. 

Edited by danot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RootsBooster said:

To be fair, he was talking about non-religious face coverings. He, like many others, regards the burka as a religious garment.

I think he's trying to say that the religious get to cover their face but non-religious can't. He's not doing very well with it though.

The 'niqab', the face concealing garment being worn in the picture Halibut provided is a religious garment. Unless there's further evidence of it being worn for none Islamic purposes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, danot said:

Tenuous, but still a none religious face covering so I concede. Well done. 

Nothing tenuous about it, you were wrong, end of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, danot said:

Okay. You said something on the lines of- 'Respecting other people's delusions, well, respect is something you earn, so I'll respect their decision as long as they don't discuss it with me and it doesn't impinge on me'. Something on those lines.

Which is all good and dandy, so long as someone doesn't start discussing their 'delusions' with you and persists discussing them with you in full knowledge of your obvious disinterest,  showing little regard for you or your disinterest, as it's going to be fair game isn't it.

 

And you're mistaken here.  I said 'certain public places', maybe in post 699, not sure now. It's there abouts anyhow, so claiming I only said 'the public' isn't going to wash I'm afraid.

And where did I say someone could forcibly remove your headwear? 

I think you'll find that I said you'd be forcibly removed from a bank if 'you' refused to remove your headwear, which quite obviously implies that you were asked to remove it and outstayed your welcome after refusing. Assuming that you refused that is.

 

As far as banks are concerned, wasnt it you that introduced it as specific place business?  As far as I'm aware, I've only made reference to ' The public domain and certain public places and establishments'. I'll double check.

 

So you think the restrictive measures that permit banks to ask motorcyclists to remove their helmets also permit banks to ask someone to remove their niqab? 

 

 

 

On a plane.

So you admit that you switched from public places, to private places then?

Yes, banks are entitled to ascertain the identity of their customers.  They are in fact free to not serve anyone and/or ask anyone to leave the premises.  Just like any other private place.

Oh, and "on a plane" is not a public place.

13 hours ago, danot said:

Banks being held-up by armed motorcyclists is by-the-by. All I've been trying to establish is whether the restrictive measures that prevent none religious face concealing headwear being worn in certain public places and edstablishments applies to face concealing headwear that has religious significance. 

You've yet to identify any public place though where you think someone has the authority to demand you remove head coverings.

11 hours ago, danot said:

You won't find any. You'll probably struggle finding any examples or laws that forbid hoodies on planes too, but we weren't talking about burkas or hoodies, we were talking about none religious face concealing headwear weren't we? 

Can you find any that ban balaclavas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, danot said:

No. I'm not back-peddling at all. Why would I need to produce evidence when it's self-evident that restrictive measures prevent us from doing it. If I am wrong about this and airlines do allow passengers to board their planes with their faces concealed, if it's far more common than I actually realise, it shouldn't be too difficult for someone  to find evidence that shows I'm wrong.  Maybe a photograph or something. I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. 

It's not self evident.  That's why you can't produce any evidence.

Planes are NOT PUBLIC places.

Airlines have the right (and duty) to establish the identity of people boarding planes.  This would include seeing the faces of female muslim passengers if they wish, or they can deny them boarding.  I presume they would do this sensitively, in a private room with female staff.

2 hours ago, RootsBooster said:

To be fair, he was talking about non-religious face coverings. He, like many others, regards the burka as a religious garment.

I think he's trying to say that the religious get to cover their face but non-religious can't. He's not doing very well with it though.

I think it was all an argument he concocted out of you saying something about religious people not being given special consideration.  He thinks that he's found an example of when the rules are different for the religious.

Even if it were true that certain garments were allowed (perhaps the Kirpan would have been a good example), the fact is that anyone could wear those items, religion isn't something that comes with a stamp of approval, so in reality if hat wearing were illegal except for Fez's, then we could all wear a Fez, no matter that I'm actually atheist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Nothing tenuous about it, you were wrong, end of.

In my humble defence, I find these examples so tenuous, they may as well have been pictures of passengers with their faces heavily bandaged or wearing oxygen masks seeing as these face concealing items are being worn for medical and hygiene reasons. In fact, you know what.  I'm going to retract my submission now on the grounds of good old fashioned general principle.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Halibut said:

Nothing tenuous about it, you were wrong, end of.

I'm not familiar with airport procedures, but doesn't everyone have to show their faces to customs prior to boarding the aircraft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.