Why has religion retained its appeal?

[Halibut 12]

1 hour ago, danot said: I just think the wearers of both ought to be thought of and treated equally out in public.  And NO,  they're not.   

What needs to happen in order for both to be treated equally?

[danot 10]

1 minute ago, Halibut said:

What needs to happen in order for both to be treated equally?

Let's have a think. How's about- The crime associative prejudices against certain none religious face concealing headwear being lawfully and socially accepted as a hate crime.  Too much?

[Halibut 12]

5 minutes ago, danot said:

Let's have a think. How's about- The crime associative prejudices against certain none religious face concealing headwear being lawfully and socially accepted as a hate crime.  Too much?

Utterly laughable. What are you claiming these 'crime associative prejudices' are and against which non religious face concealing headware are they evident?

[woodview 10]

9 minutes ago, danot said:

Let's have a think. How's about- The crime associative prejudices against certain none religious face concealing headwear being lawfully and socially accepted as a hate crime.  Too much?

No, not too much. The balaclavians have been oppressed and suffered for their beliefs for too long.

[RootsBooster 24]

1 hour ago, danot said:

For me, balaclava wearing is a unrestricted freedom, and if the police do stop a balaclava wearer in public to have a quick chat, you'll be witnessing  a 'restrictive measure'. 

Authorities wouldn't want balaclava wearing to catch on, it'd complicate policing somewhat for starters, not to mention Big Brother style street surveillance, which is why the police tend treat it as a matter of interest, and why there seems to be a mild stigma attached to wearing one or accompanying a wearer out in public. It's not the done thing,  despite it being one of the many unrestricted freedoms of this country. Anyhow. You're right.    Enough about balaclavas.  

Do you consider it restrictive if somebody stops you to ask for directions?

[danot 10]

26 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Utterly laughable. What are you claiming these 'crime associative prejudices' are and against which non religious face concealing headware are they evident?

The types of headwear are apparent. I'm wont be listing them for you because we've already discussed them. And why do you always persist in denying the blindingly obvious truth?  Accept life as it is instead of always defending society's ideals.  

Just now, RootsBooster said:

Do you consider it restrictive if somebody stops you to ask for directions?

No?

[Cyclone 10]

7 hours ago, danot said:

You've yet to explain why wearing a balaclava in public for no apparent reason on a warm day should be of interest to the police.

Bizarre, it's like you're deliberately ignoring the multiple explanations you've been given...

1 hour ago, danot said:

For me, balaclava wearing is a unrestricted freedom, and if the police do stop a balaclava wearer in public to have a quick chat, you'll be witnessing  a 'restrictive measure'. 

Authorities wouldn't want balaclava wearing to catch on, it'd complicate policing somewhat for starters, not to mention Big Brother style street surveillance, which is why the police tend treat it as a matter of interest, and why there seems to be a mild stigma attached to wearing one or accompanying a wearer out in public. It's not the done thing,  despite it being one of the many unrestricted freedoms of this country. Anyhow. You're right.    Enough about balaclavas.  

So you're now saying that whenever the police speak to anyone who is doing something unusual, that's a "restrictive practice".  And because it's not unusual to wear a niqab and so the police don't speak to such people, actually those people are getting special treatment.

That's broken logic.

[danot 10]

5 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Bizarre, it's like you're deliberately ignoring the multiple explanations you've been given...

So you're now saying that whenever the police speak to anyone who is doing something unusual, that's a "restrictive practice".  And because it's not unusual to wear a niqab and so the police don't speak to such people, actually those people are getting special treatment.

That's broken logic.

I haven't ignored explanations. I've dismissed them because they're bias.

[RootsBooster 24]

54 minutes ago, danot said:

 

No?

Then why do you think it would be restrictive for police to stop and ask about a balaclava?

[danot 10]

Just now, RootsBooster said:

Then why do you think it would be restrictive for police to stop and ask about a balaclava?

If I was walking down the street wearing a balaclava on a blisteringly hot day and a police officer stopped me to ask for directions then went on his/her way... 

 

C'mon. Need I continue?  

[RootsBooster 24]

15 minutes ago, danot said:

If I was walking down the street wearing a balaclava on a blisteringly hot day and a police officer stopped me to ask for directions then went on his/her way... 

 

C'mon. Need I continue?  

Yes, you're being extremely ambiguous and indefinite with your posts. 

What is restrictive about the police asking you one question and letting you go on your way but not restrictive if they ask you another question and let you go on your way?

[danot 10]

1 minute ago, RootsBooster said:

Yes, you're being extremely ambiguous and indefinite with your posts. 

What is restrictive about the police asking you one question and letting you go on your way but not restrictive if they ask you another question and let you go on your way?

Do you believe they've have stopped me to ask me some random question if I hadn't been wearing the balaclava?