Face Covering in Public in Canada

[Remiel]

I'll tolerate my neighbors, won't turn the other cheek because odds are that one will be hit to I'd rather defend myself, and I don't think sin is real. Didn't need a bronze age book to explain any of this to me.

Sin does not have to be real for it to contain a valuable lesson. I could just has easily say, " Let he who has never wronged another cast the first stone. "

But besides that, I do not think your particular preference for other modes of resolution is a particular compelling criticism of some of the more positive things in the Bible, just as, " Well I do not do things that way, " would not be a particularly compelling criticism by me of Nozick's work. Additionally, you should know well enough that, " He said all this other bad stuff so he must be wrong, " is completely fallacious.

And, by the way, I am pretty sure the New Testament is Iron Age. Late Iron Age.

[Guest TrueMetis]

He said very little that was right. "he who has never sinned cast the first stone" If it's a metaphor it essentially means that we can't punish people. If it's literal we shouldn't be casting stones at all.

Edited August 5, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Bonam]

You do not think that, " Love the neighbour, " " Turn the other cheek, " " Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone, " and similar examples are worthwhile?

Nope. They are BS designed to keep a slave population servile, in hope of some illusory reward in a non-existent magical afterlife. I am no slave.

[Remiel]

Nope. They are BS designed to keep a slave population servile, in hope of some illusory reward in a non-existent magical afterlife. I am no slave.

That sounds more like how Augustine convinced the Emperor to adopt Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire than like its origin.

[Bonam]

That sounds more like how Augustine convinced the Emperor to adopt Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire than like its origin.

I don't care so much about it's origin as about it's nature, which I have offered my opinion on. I spit on teachings along the lines of "turn the other cheek"; they are a recipe for weakness, submission, and death, nothing else.

[Remiel]

I don't care so much about it's origin as about it's nature, which I have offered my opinion on. I spit on teachings along the lines of "turn the other cheek"; they are a recipe for weakness, submission, and death, nothing else.

Well, Gandhi and Martin Luther King did die; there is no disputing that.

[Bonam]

Well, Gandhi and Martin Luther King did die; there is no disputing that.

Gandhi and MLK succeeded because the forces they resisted did not have the will to inflict vast harm in order to enforce the old order. In the time of Gandhi, The British did not have the will to maintain their world empire by the exertion of military force. Nor, in the time of MLK, did a substantial portion of Americans have the will/desire to keep blacks oppressed by physical force. In such situations, when facing a situation where your enemy/oppressor is unsure, ready to back off, a war of words and nonviolence can succeed.

But that is not the nature of the enemy we face in radical Islam, nor is it the nature of the enemy that peoples face in any kind of existential struggle. When you face an enemy who wants to kill you, you must fight back with all your strength, rather than rolling over and dying. And, such struggles happen and have happened on a fairly regular basis throughout the human history. Anyone who truly follows the teaching of "turn the cheek" is nothing more than suicidal when exposed to such a scenario. Note that even at the heights of Christianity's influence on Western civilization, no Western nations showed a "turn the cheek" attitude to their foreign affairs. In fact, they were quite the opposite.

It is for the peasants to turn their cheeks, while their masters fight wars for fame and profit. It is a horrible, servile, suicidal, teaching. One of the low points of Christianity.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Bonam

[DogOnPorch]

The 1600s were the low point of Christianity. Thirty Year War...Civil Wars....Cromwell...Witch Hunters. Some quarter-million died in Germany during the Witch Craze.

[betsy]

So you figure someone thats already decided to shoot people or blow stuff up is going to obey a laws prohibiting them from wearing face coverings?

The possibility of getting identified is definietly a deterrant, otherwise why would criminals bother with ski masks at all?

As I said, why make it easier for terrorists?

Even if they did blow themselves up....the fact that they've been seen/identified could help in the investigation. Who were they associating with....staying with....connected with etc.., Are they acting alone or part of a group? It could help prevent further mayhem.

Sure is more progressive approach than just wailing and doing a group hug and attending counselling and asking..."how could anyone do such a ghastly thing?"

Edited August 5, 2010 by betsy

[betsy]

Could you list the number of attacks in Canada that were performed by people wearing these sorts of veils.

I don't know the specific numbers....but I know that hundreds of crimes were perpetrated by people wearing ski masks or baclavas - similar to burquas and niqabs!

Actually, could you list the number of Criminal Code offenses in Canada and felonies in the United States commited by people wearing these sorts of veils.

Interesting how you insists on calling these apparels "veils." If you prefer to call them by any other name - the word " ski mask" would be more appropriate.

Want to prove to me that there is a threat anywhere but in your fevered imagination, then show me some damned numbers.

Could you list the number of planes that were deliberately slammed by terrorists into highrise buildings BEFORE 9/11.

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it never will.

By the way, if you say you agree with some restrictions like in government buildings etc.., then obviously we agree on this issue. Really, I don't understand what you're on about now....

And you have not answered the question about banning ski-masked men in your child's schoolyard.

Edited August 5, 2010 by betsy

[Wild Bill]

Could you list the number of attacks in Canada that were performed by people wearing these sorts of veils. Actually, could you list the number of Criminal Code offenses in Canada and felonies in the United States commited by people wearing these sorts of veils.

Want to prove to me that there is a threat anywhere but in your fevered imagination, then show me some damned numbers.

You must be having an off day here, TB! You're always one of the smarter guys, even if I happen to disagree.

The question is not the number of attacks by veiled people so far. Rather, it is how many would we have if veils or burkhas became common?

There have been incidents reported of terrorists hiding under burkhas to commit terrorist acts in the middle east. Obviously, if it could be done here sooner or later someone would do it! It would be just to tempting a tactic to ignore.

[Shwa]

You must be having an off day here, TB! You're always one of the smarter guys, even if I happen to disagree.

The question is not the number of attacks by veiled people so far. Rather, it is how many would we have if veils or burkhas became common?

There have been incidents reported of terrorists hiding under burkhas to commit terrorist acts in the middle east. Obviously, if it could be done here sooner or later someone would do it! It would be just to tempting a tactic to ignore.

Right on! There would certainly be more bank robberies since they wouldn't even have to change! That's pretty dangerous. I can feel the banks practically being robbed as I write this! We need to arm the tellers.

[g_bambino]

Yes you can conceal weapons in trench coats but the perpetrators were identifiable! That is the problem with the niqab and the burka! You cannot determine any identity at all plus you can hide weapons/explosives in them.

So Hallow'een masks are okay. And muumuus are okay. But Hallow'een masks and muumuus together must immediately be banned because combined they pose a continual theat to public safety?

[Smallc]

You must be having an off day here, TB! You're always one of the smarter guys, even if I happen to disagree.

The question is not the number of attacks by veiled people so far. Rather, it is how many would we have if veils or burkhas became common?

There have been incidents reported of terrorists hiding under burkhas to commit terrorist acts in the middle east. Obviously, if it could be done here sooner or later someone would do it! It would be just to tempting a tactic to ignore.

So then we should ignore religious freedoms....because people are afraid of something that hasn't happened here? TB is perhaps the most intelligent and well read poster on this board...and that post was no different.

[Smallc]

But Hallow'een masks and muumuus together must immediately be banned because combined they pose a continual theat to public safety?

Definitely. Haven't you heard what happens when you mix Halloween and a muumuu?

[Jack Weber]

Definitely. Haven't you heard what happens when you mix Halloween and a muumuu?

Scary fat people in masks???

[Smallc]

Scary fat people in masks???

Have you ever been near a guy that was fat enough to have to wear a muumuu? I want to be able to identify that guy, because he might be carrying some dangerous toxins....if you know what I mean.

[DogOnPorch]

Try walking into a bank with a Halloween mask on...report back with the results.

[fellowtraveller]

Try walking into a bank with a Halloween mask on...report back with the results.

Quite a few bars here don't allow Halloween masks at Halloween. People get shitfaced, know they are anonymous and go crazy.

[dre]

Try walking into a bank with a Halloween mask on...report back with the results.

Right... and people would laugh at the idea of banning halloween masks in all public places.

[Wild Bill]

So then we should ignore religious freedoms....because people are afraid of something that hasn't happened here? TB is perhaps the most intelligent and well read poster on this board...and that post was no different.

Security must trump religious freedom. If citizens are not safe then everything breaks down. It's pretty hard to tell the family of someone dead because of a terrorist hiding under a burkha that they should feel better because at least religious freedoms were respected.

However, I will admit that so far it is not a very likely circumstance but only because the numbers involved are so few. I can understand how some people would believe that because a thing hasn't happened yet it will therefore never happen. I don't agree with the logic but I understand some people think that way.

So I suggest that we allow veils and burkas, with one stipulation. If it ever happens that a terrorist hides under a veil or a burkha then at that point they are banned forevermore!

We should test the premise. We need only to sit back and wait. If nothing happens, well and good!

Edited August 5, 2010 by Wild Bill

[dre]

Security must trump religious freedom. If citizens are not safe then everything breaks down. It's pretty hard to tell the family of someone dead because of a terrorist hiding under a burkha that they should feel better because at least religious freedoms were respected.

However, I will admit that so far it is not a very likely circumstance but only because the numbers involved are so few. I can understand how some people would believe that because a thing hasn't happened yet it will therefore never happen. I don't agree with the logic but I understand some people think that way.

So I suggest that we allow veils and burkas, with one stipulation. If it ever happens that a terrorist hides under a veil or a burkha then at that point they are banned forevermore!

We should test the premise. We need only to sit back and wait. If nothing happens, well and good!

Security must trump religious freedom.

No, security must NOT trump rights and freedoms. As soon as you go down this road an argument from utility can be made to remove literally ANY of our rights and freedoms in the name of security. Cowards that would surrender their values based on trumped up security concerns dont even DESERVE to be secure.

[Bonam]

No, security must NOT trump rights and freedoms. As soon as you go down this road an argument from utility can be made to remove literally ANY of our rights and freedoms in the name of security. Cowards that would surrender their values based on trumped up security concerns dont even DESERVE to be secure.

What? People don't "deserve" to be secure merely because they don't share your exact priorities in terms of what society should uphold first? If they are a "coward" as per the definition of Emperor Dre the Great, they must be thrown into mortal danger?

Care to elaborate on this theme?

[dre]

What? People don't "deserve" to be secure merely because they don't share your exact priorities in terms of what society should uphold first? If they are a "coward" as per the definition of Emperor Dre the Great, they must be thrown into mortal danger?

Care to elaborate on this theme?

They arent MY priorities. They are the priorities of a free society. The people tasked with providing us with security are supposed to do so within a constitutional framework that preserves our rights. The founders of our society knew that very first thing government would try to do when the shit hit the fan was make arguments from utility why they didnt have to follow the rules anymore, and why our rights could be superceded, and they knew that a cowardly population of reactionary sycophants would buy those arguments from utility hook line and sinker. So they made sure that those rights supercede security in all but a few extreme situations.

Like I said... if you take the position that security trumps the law, then you can justify literally ANYTHING. Lets face it, we would be way more "secure" if society was locked down, and authorities listened to our every word and watched our every move.

[Jack Weber]

Have you ever been near a guy that was fat enough to have to wear a muumuu? I want to be able to identify that guy, because he might be carrying some dangerous toxins....if you know what I mean.

Yes I have and I know exactly what you mean...

Of course,the fat guy ain't gettin' away to quickly...But he does have homemade people repellent...