Why has religion retained its appeal?

[Cyclone 10]

8 hours ago, danot said:

You've  taken my counter argument and turned it against me. How uninventive of you. 

You have entitled theists to be just as disrespectful of you not wanting to discuss or hear what they insist on telling you by showing disrespect for their belief. Like I said, no one need take any further interest in whether they're being disrespectful of anything you're offended by because respect is a two way thing.

Well, if that were important then I'd be concerned.  But I'm not the one who's banging on that anyone should respect my opinion or worry about offending me.

8 hours ago, danot said:

I said there were 'restrictive  measures' in place preventing you from concealing your face in certain places and establishments, I never mentioned the legality of concealing your face. 

 

Agreed, banks are permitted to refuse service to someone wearing a motorcycle helmet, and have them forcefully removed from the premises if they refuse to remove it, and now we've agreed on that, what about someone wearing a niqab, will the same restrictive measures permit banks to refuse them service?

No you didn't.

You were talking about in public, not in certain places or establishments.

And you suggested that someone could somehow force me to remove my headgear.  Something you don't seem so sure about now.

 

Forcibly removed?  No.  Not until they've asked them to leave and that person reaches the point of trespassing.  They can't just start throwing people out for ignoring their demands.

Banks are of course fully entitled to establish the identity of any and all customers.  Why would you think that they aren't?

8 hours ago, danot said:

Give it a go, refusing to remove it when asked, then get back to me and tell me how you got on.

You couldn't, or didn't answer the question about who might be asking you to remove it though.

Is that because you realised that nobody would or could demand such a thing?

 

Is that why we've segued from "in public" to in a private business that needs to establish your identity?
Finding the entire point rather difficult to back up now are you?

[RootsBooster 24]

10 hours ago, danot said:

Nothing at all.  We're allowed to wear face concealing headwear, but when we're out in the public domain, there's restrictive measures in place that would prevent us from Doing so in certain places and establishments. Not so when wearing face concealing headwear headwear that has religious significance.

Could you give an example of this?

[danot 10]

34 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Well, if that were important then I'd be concerned.  But I'm not the one who's banging on that anyone should respect my opinion or worry about offending me.

No you didn't.

You were talking about in public, not in certain places or establishments.

And you suggested that someone could somehow force me to remove my headgear.  Something you don't seem so sure about now.

 

Forcibly removed?  No.  Not until they've asked them to leave and that person reaches the point of trespassing.  They can't just start throwing people out for ignoring their demands.

Banks are of course fully entitled to establish the identity of any and all customers.  Why would you think that they aren't?

You couldn't, or didn't answer the question about who might be asking you to remove it though.

Is that because you realised that nobody would or could demand such a thing?

 

Is that why we've segued from "in public" to in a private business that needs to establish your identity?
Finding the entire point rather difficult to back up now are you?

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? 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, RootsBooster said:

Could you give an example of this?

On a plane.

[Halibut 12]

37 minutes ago, danot said:

 

 

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

You do know why they ask motorcyclists to remover their helmets yes?

Why would they ask a woman to remove her niqab?

[danot 10]

1 minute ago, Halibut said:

You do know why they ask motorcyclists to remover their helmets yes?

Why would they ask a woman to remove her niqab?

You describe the niqab wearer as being female while the sex of the motorcyclist isn't known. There's something amiss here but I just can't put my finger on what it is Halibut.  

[RootsBooster 24]

49 minutes ago, danot said:

On a plane.

Can you be more specific?

[danot 10]

Just now, RootsBooster said:

Can you be more specific?

Yes,  I could be, but why? I can rule out 'wood plane' if that's what's throwing you.

[Halibut 12]

7 minutes ago, danot said:

You describe the niqab wearer as being female while the sex of the motorcyclist isn't known. There's something amiss here but I just can't put my finger on what it is Halibut.  

Why would the gender of the motorcyclist be relevant?

[danot 10]

Just now, Halibut said:

Why would the gender of the motorcyclist be relevant?

Why presume the sex of the niqab wearer?

[Halibut 12]

Just now, danot said:

Why presume the sex of the niqab wearer?

Because it's an item of female attire. Look, I can't be doing with your silly back and forth so I'll just lay it out for you. Motorcyclists are asked to remove their helmets because they have a long association with armed robbery.

This isn't true of women wearing niqab.

 

[woodview 10]

1 minute ago, Halibut said:

Because it's an item of female attire. Look, I can't be doing with your silly back and forth so I'll just lay it out for you. Motorcyclists are asked to remove their helmets because they have a long association with armed robbery.

This isn't true of women wearing niqab.

 

I know lots of motorcylists. None of them have done time for armed robbery.

[danot 10]

9 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Because it's an item of female attire. Look, I can't be doing with your silly back and forth so I'll just lay it out for you. Motorcyclists are asked to remove their helmets because they have a long association with armed robbery.

This isn't true of women wearing niqab.

 

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. 

Edited March 19, 2019 by danot