Jump to content

BC_chick

Member
  • Posts

    4,585
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BC_chick

  1. This is what you sound like if you were Iranian: No because there are examples of dress codes being imposed on people as terms of residency all the time. The attire women are asked to wear at certain countries present a certain moral code that the the governing society want to present. And women are free to not play chess at these countries. In the case of the restaurants, women are being told to submit to a misogynistic restaurant practices to serve food. And some women object to it by threatening to boycott, I'm asking if that's being too uptight and are the women right to boycott or pressure the Human Rights Commission in intervening and changing the unreasonable dress codes.
  2. I honestly don't think it's apples and oranges, I'm showing you that you're comfortable forcing women to wear certain things under certain circumstances while standing on a soapbox shouting at those who do the same thing for different reasons. 1) Cleavage and high heels have nothing to with serving food, but you think it's a reasonable dress code just because it's a private establishment. You think any woman who doesn't like it should simply not work there even though those restaurants are the most lucrative places to work. 2_ Throwing a scarf on the back of one's head has nothing to do with playing chess but Iran thinks it's reasonable because they are a free nation (read - private establishment). Iran thinks any woman who doesn't like it should simply not go even though this is the most lucrative of the competitions out there. You don't see the similarity?
  3. Yes it is a cultural stipulation in Iran. Women have to throw a scarf on their head (even if their hair shows) and men have dress codes too (they can't wear shorts etc). In fact, it's less sexist than our restaurant codes where only women are subjected to objectification and men aren't. Personally, I'd rather see women in Iran *and* in Cactus Club having options so long as they are reasonable, but I do find it odd that you'd object to one and not the other.
  4. As a woman I don't know, they're both equally offensive. I would definitely not put on a burqa or chador for the life in me, but if I had to choose between wearing what is required of women in Iran and being forced to show cleavage and wear high heels, I'd say it's a tough call which one I find more offensive. One suppresses while the other objectifies. Both take away a woman's choice to wear what she wants.
  5. Weren't you one of the people who thought restaurants should have a right to require cleavage and high heels from women (as opposed to giving them choice) because they're a private establishment and anyone who doesn't like it should simply refrain from going to them?
  6. Gotta love election years. Nothing brings 'em out more....
  7. I think there is more to it than economic misfortune. Conservative governments want the best of both worlds. They cut back on taxes but they spend like liberals (albeit prioritizing differently). Everyone had their evils, but I really respect Chretien and Martin for paying down the debt as they did. Trudeau's fiscal policy has been a disaster and so was Harper's.
  8. They're not always older. The article provided not so cut and dry examples where the bride is 15 and the husband is 18.
  9. When did I say it's cool? I think the part about 'all the power to those who want to boycott' was pretty much indicative of my thoughts about the issue not being cool. I'm just pointing out that they're not being forced to cover their hair, wear a chador or burqa.
  10. All the power to anyone who wants to boycott, but if any of you are unaware, the hijab issue in Iran is actually pretty tame compared to places like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. They tried to toughen up the laws last year but it was struck down. Women in Iran look like this: http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2015/01/hijab-635x357.png Full article here: http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-shoots-down-controversial-new-hijab-law/
  11. To clarify, when I said it's not a bad idea it wasn't referring to not borrowing unless it's an emergency, I was referring to the idea of having a proper amortization period when borrowing. I don't know how feasible it would be in reality, but if it there is a way to come up with amortization periods, I would prefer it to continually accumulating debt without a proper payment structure. Of course the economy is more unpredictable than someone's income but paying down a debt should be considered a necessary part of expenditure. It makes for more responsible borrowing.
  12. I had the exact same thoughts, bcsapper. My gut reaction was a strong no, but it became less emphatic no (but still no) after reading the article. What a terrible situation.
  13. US military personnel are divided between a guy who doesn't know what Aleppo is and a guy who wants to see more nukes in the world. This is where it becomes difficult to feel bad for them when they get sent out to needless wars.

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. msj

      msj

      But yeah, I would not choose to join the military given the history of W Bush and the likes of Donald Trump.

    3. BC_chick

      BC_chick

      But they do have other choices yet Gary Johnson and Donald Trump are virtually tied in a poll of military personnel. http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/this-poll-of-the-us-military-has-gary-johnson-tied-with-donald-trump-in-the-race-for-president

    4. sharkman

      sharkman

      When the president is gift wrapping nuclear weapons to Iran then it doesn't matter what the next one will do, it'll be to late to prevent another war.

  14. That's actually not a bad idea, but why are you singling out Trudeau? Mulroney and Harper spent like a couple of rich kids with daddy's credit card and I don't see you saying boo about them.In fact, in the time I've known you you've supported and voted for Harper in spite of his mass deficits.
  15. What far-left source are you talking about? Google???
  16. Really, this needs to be spelled out for you? Ok, I don't know if you're aware, but he's displaying the exact same callous disregard for FN lives which has been the subject of much criticism over the years. Oh, she was just a drunk, meh. They all die early so why waste time and resources investigating. Maybe you agree with that, but generally, the police try and deny they harbour these beliefs. He's an idiot.
  17. I just googled "Trump laughing" and clicked to images. The first two he was laughing but that was it! Incredible, what a sad soul.
  18. How generous of you.
  19. That's because the cop would not have brought race into it if he were white.
  20. There is plenty I don't like about Trudeau but I don't have an obsessive derangement about him either like some on the right. When it comes to the environment, yes, I had higher hopes. Not because of the Liberal name, but because he' young, has small kids, and I thought if any PM in recently history of Canada would have a strong environmental consciousness, it would be someone like him. As for your interpretation of Poochy/TimG, I disagree but even under your pretext, it still doesn't change the fact that we made commitments based on certain assertions and ideas. If there is now a question of the credibility of these assertions, WTF did we put up such a showmanship pretending to go along with them?
  21. You're getting into an area on which I've already given my opinion. For the third or fourth time - the issue of economy and environment did not spring out of nowhere. Trudeau knew there is a fine balance when he made the environmental commitments that he did. I think he was a phony for doing that. Poochy and TimG are denying the claim that scientists pretty much unanimously believe CC is human caused. That's a different discussion all together.
  22. Funny, that's exactly what I think about people who believe in religion!
  23. Shoot who to believe: NASA or TimG and Poochy? Big decision. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
  24. Shhh, I'm on a covert operation to take myself down.
  25. What a dummy. I'm even careful which posts I 'like' using my Facebook account. The world is a small place and I'm well aware that many of the people I do business with may not like my opinions. I'm even vague enough on this forum to not give away too much about myself. If I were they type to assume the worst about someone's death just because of stereotypes about their culture, then yes, I would definitely not do it using my FB account. Double that if I was a public servant. Idiot.
×
×
  • Create New...