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

14 hours ago, danot said:

I didn't switch. This is what actually happened.  After saying 'the public' way, way back in post 699. in post 700 RootsBooster asked me-

 

To which I replied in post 705-

There. you see. When asked I clarified what I meant. You've known what I meant all along yet you're trying to make out I'm out to deceive people.  Well how could I when it's all here to read.  You're the one using underhand tactics Cyclone by deliberately misrepresenting people and falsely accusing them of deceit.    

So it comes down to you being annoyed that private establishments can impose certain rules of their own choosing, am I understanding that right?

Edited by RootsBooster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was all to do with disagreeing with a statement that religion shouldn't merit special treatment I think.

On 18/03/2019 at 18:51, RootsBooster said:

I do respect people's right to have those beliefs, however I don't think that they should come with any special privileges or protection.

This, I think he wanted to somehow catch you out, by presumably "tricking" you into saying that religious clothing should be a special case.

Share this post


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

You quite specifically if 699 said public several times, and then in 705 you think that private businesses are a clarification of "public"?

I clarified what I specifically meant in page 705. If you want to continue ignoring what I actually mean crack-on. 

Share this post


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

So it comes down to you being annoyed that private establishments can impose certain rules of their own choosing, am I understanding that right?

I wouldn't say i'm annoyed about it, I'm just illustrating how the wearers of religious  face concealing headwear (with emphasis on my use of the word 'religious' because it is a religious garment since the Muslim women that wear it have given it its religious significance, exclusively associating it with Islam, much like the habits and turbans are associated with religion) are privledged in the respect that they're right to wear it unreservedly is protected from restrive measures that certain public places and establishments are permitted to impose on wearers of none religious face concealing headwear. Unfortunately, my actual point was side tracked by the usual brand of context trickery.

Share this post


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

I clarified what I specifically meant in page 705. If you want to continue ignoring what I actually mean crack-on. 

I'm happy to accept that you entirely changed what you meant in post #705 after having pointed out just how incorrect you were in your previous statement.

 

So what point do you wish to make about private establishments and the fact that they can request to see your face to verify your identity?  There IS NO religious exemption in those locations, everyone is exactly the same.

6 minutes ago, danot said:

I wouldn't say i'm annoyed about it, I'm just illustrating how the wearers of religious  face concealing headwear (with emphasis on my use of the word 'religious' because it is a religious garment since the Muslim women that wear it have given it its religious significance, exclusively associating it with Islam, much like the habits and turbans are associated with religion) are privledged in the respect that they're right to wear it unreservedly is protected from restrive measures that certain public places and establishments are permitted to impose on wearers of none religious face concealing headwear. Unfortunately, my actual point was side tracked by the usual brand of context trickery.

They do not have this right.  You've made it up.  It's not true.

Do we need it in sky writing or tattoo'd to your hand before you understand this?

 

And why are you STILL saying PUBLIC, when you in fact have exclusively identified a number of private businesses?

 

You don't have an actual point.  You are relying on something that is not true to try to prove something else that is not true.

Share this post


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

I'm happy to accept that you entirely changed what you meant in post #705 after having pointed out just how incorrect you were in your previous statement.

 

So what point do you wish to make about private establishments and the fact that they can request to see your face to verify your identity?  There IS NO religious exemption in those locations, everyone is exactly the same.

They do not have this right.  You've made it up.  It's not true.

Do we need it in sky writing or tattoo'd to your hand before you understand this?

 

And why are you STILL saying PUBLIC, when you in fact have exclusively identified a number of private businesses?

 

You don't have an actual point.  You are relying on something that is not true to try to prove something else that is not true.

 You appear to have a fixation on the word 'public', but why when it's the 'restrive measures' that permit the police to stop a civilian to ask why they're wearing a balaclava in public on such a nice day, and don't even attempt to argue that they wouldn't do that because anyone with half of a brain cell knows they would. 

Share this post


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

 You appear to have a fixation on the word 'public', but why when it's the 'restrive measures' that permit the police to stop a civilian to ask why they're wearing a balaclava in public on such a nice day, and don't even attempt to argue that they wouldn't do that because anyone with half of a brain cell knows they would. 

There are no such measures.  We asked you to prove that pages ago and you couldn't.

 

I've fixated on the word public because it's a word that you used and which made your assertion untrue, wrong, not correct, false.  Do you see?

Share this post


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

There are no such measures.  We asked you to prove that pages ago and you couldn't.

 

I've fixated on the word public because it's a word that you used and which made your assertion untrue, wrong, not correct, false.  Do you see?

 

Yes.  I see exactly what you're saying. However, most people wouldn't bat an eye lid if a guy wearing a balaclava in public for no apparent reason was approaded by a passing police officer who fancied a quick chat with him.  That's because some of us are now accustomed to restrictive measures that make the wearing of a balaclava for no apparent reason in public a matter of interest for the police. I won't waste my time asking if you see. 

Edited by danot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what is it you think that you've now established?

On 18/03/2019 at 18:51, RootsBooster said:

I do respect people's right to have those beliefs, however I don't think that they should come with any special privileges or protection.

After what, 10 pages, you think that you've proven that reality isn't how RootsBooster thinks it should be?

But you've not really have you.  As you say, on a sunny day like today, wearing a balaclava on the high street would be a little weird, and the police (if you happen to be so lucky as to see one in person) tend to take an interest in weird.

They won't of course demand that you remove it, as you claimed, they can't, they have no legal power to do that, and to do it forcibly would be assault.

But if you were wearing a niquab, they probably wouldn't approach you at all, as it's not weird.

 

So, you've established that the police will possibly speak to people behaving strangely in public, is that it?

Edited by Cyclone

Share this post


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

So, what is it you think that you've now established?

After what, 10 pages, you think that you've proven that reality isn't how RootsBooster thinks it should be?

But you've not really have you.  As you say, on a sunny day like today, wearing a balaclava on the high street would be a little wierd, and the police (if you happen to be so lucky as to see one in person) tend to take an interest in wierd.

They won't of course demand that you remove it, as you claimed, they can't, they have no legal power to do that, and to do it forcibly would be assault.

But if you were wearing a niquab, they probably wouldn't approach you at all, as it's not weird.

 

So, you've established that the police will possibly speak to people behaving strangely in public, is that it? 

If I was so inclined and not the man that I am,  I could so easily dedicate the next ten pages to giving you a reeeealy hard time over how you've just switched to using the word 'strangely' when you originally used the word wierd.. not just once, but twice.

But I won't. I'm not that kinda guy.

 

 

So, we're finally in agreement of there being no laws against wearing a balaclava in public, not even on a warm day. We're also in agreement of there being a kind of mild stigma(my term)about wearing a balaclava in public for no apparent reason on a warm day that the police and members of the general public consider wierd, or strange.

Any idea what makes it wierd, or stran....  enough of that, can you let me know which word we're using.

 

Let's have a recap. 

 

We agree there's no law against covering our faces when out in public. 

 

We agree there's no law against wearing a balaclava when out in public.

 

We agree there's no law against keeping our head warm on a nice day when out it public.

 

The only thing we can't agree on is the restrictive measures I've mentioned. 

 

To me, and please, do share if I'm overlooking the obvious- there appears to be no lawful or purposeful reason for why the police would stop and question someone just because they're wearing a balaclava in public for no apparent reason on a warm day other than the 'restrictive measures' that I've mentioned.  Can you think of anything else?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by danot

Share this post


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

If I was so inclined and not the man that I am,  I could so easily dedicate the next ten pages to giving you a reeeealy hard time over how you've just switched to using the word 'strangely' when you originally used the word wierd.

I'd like to see you try. They're synonyms.

12 minutes ago, danot said:

 

 

To me, and please, do share if I'm overlooking the obvious- there appears to be no lawful or purposeful reason for why the police would stop and question someone just because they're wearing a balaclava in public for no apparent reason on a warm day other than the 'restrictive measures' that I've mentioned.  Can you think of anything else?

There aren't any. You've comprehensively failed to demonstrate that they exist.

 

 

Share this post


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

I'd like to see you try. They're synonyms.

Halibut. Go into your settings and switch the 'joke notification' feature to on.

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.