cybercoma Posted March 17, 2015 Author Report Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) It was also to correct you on the long history of the swastika which you berated the other poster for. I didn't "berate" him. I'm saying "long" is subjective. It's not a fact. Forty years might be long to some. Four hundred to others. 4 million to others. Edited March 17, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
GostHacked Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 I didn't "berate" him. I'm saying "long" is subjective. It's not a fact. Forty years might be long to some. Four hundred to others. 4 million to others. I think we can all agree that 10,000 years is a long time. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 17, 2015 Author Report Posted March 17, 2015 I think we can all agree that 10,000 years is a long time. Depends in what context you're referring to 10,000 years. It's not a long time when talking about the life of a star. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 Depends in what context you're referring to 10,000 years. It's not a long time when talking about the life of a star. A facetious argument at best. How about a comparison? Nazis used the symbol for about a decade compared to the 10,000 year history. You know this actually seems to predate the Pyramids. That's a looooooooooooong time dude. Quote
Argus Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 Again: it's one interpretation. It's the ONLY interpretation. It's also irrelevant to the question of the extent to which the state should dictate fashion choices. Bu entirely so to your statement it was not a symbol of oppression. That's one interpretation. I've presented another by someone who actually wears the niqab. Do you let the members of the cult telling you how wonderful it is to give all your possessions and freedom to the cult leader, and walk away satisfied? Funny how you often rail against the left for infantalizing women and making them out to be perpetual victims, yet you're doing the same thing here. I'm not doing so with women, I'm doing so with orthodox Muslim women who come to Canada but remain prisoners of their own minds and their own families. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Nice job, Forum Police. Way to stay above the fray. Where in the HELL did I ever suggest I was 'above the fray'? You lob insults at me I'm sure as hell going to point out your intellectual inadequacies every freaking time. I am not a 'turn the other cheek' type of person. Edited March 17, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 You don't need a niqab to be beaten excluded or discriminated against. But it sure helps... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Now the other Larry Miller , the really unfunny one, has been slapped by his mentor he is now recanting his words but "said that he stands by his views that those who wish to be sworn in as citizens should uncover their face." http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/conservative-mp-larry-miller-recants-inflammatory-niqab-ban-comment/ar-AA9TnHm I repeat, most Canadians would have no problem with his original statement. Edited March 17, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 Perhaps just take a pause and think about that. And then get back to us with why that has anything to do with a woman choosing to wear what she wants. The comparison is valid, however much you shy away from admitting what you are defending. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) I was hoping someone would point that out. Of course its doubtful it will have any impact, but kudos for the effort. Seems obsessive to me given I've never pretended to be a pacifist. I would prefer to conduct discussions in a more congenial fashion, but certain people seem incapable of that. Edited March 17, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 Seems obsessive to me given I've never pretended to be a pacifist. I would prefer to conduct discussions in a more congenial fashion, but certain people seem incapable of that. Maybe you should go back and read the compilation BlackDog put together and try again. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 The comparison is valid, however much you shy away from admitting what you are defending. Not valid at all. Perhaps you are unaware, conveniently or otherwise, that a woman mounted a court challenge against the illegal ban put in place by a Harper cabinet minister, which led to that ban being struck down. Or are you going to stay with the stilted logic that her husband must have beaten her and forced her into court... Quote
Argus Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 Maybe you should go back and read the compilation BlackDog put together and try again. Maybe you should read the posts each of those replies was directed at and get back to me when you find one which was polite. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 Not valid at all. Perhaps you are unaware, conveniently or otherwise, that a woman mounted a court challenge against the illegal ban put in place by a Harper cabinet minister, which led to that ban being struck down. Or are you going to stay with the stilted logic that her husband must have beaten her and forced her into court... Sigh. The willful, desperate blindness of the left on this issue really is deserving of some kind of psychology study. Look, either she is an extremely orthodox Muslim or she's not. If she IS, then there are a set of very strict beliefs which come attached to that, whether you like it or not. Just because she doesn't voluntarily say that she expects to be beaten if she displeases her husband does not mean that she and he do not believe he has that right. After all, it's in the Koran, and Islamic scholars and judges have found that it is a legitimate right. I've seen surveys of Muslim women, true, not Orthodox Canadian Muslim women (but then they all came from elsewhere anyway) which bluntly say that the majority of women EXPECT to be beaten if they do anything to displease their husbands including such things as making a medical appointment for themselves without his permission, or going out without his permission. You simply will not accept that an orthodox Muslim woman is chattel and can do virtually nothing without her husband's permission. Domestic violence isn't even against the law in many Muslim states. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Black Dog Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 Do you let the members of the cult telling you how wonderful it is to give all your possessions and freedom to the cult leader, and walk away satisfied? I take it you didn't read the link, then. I'm not doing so with women, I'm doing so with orthodox Muslim women who come to Canada but remain prisoners of their own minds and their own families. I take it you didn't read the link, then. Quote
Queenmandy85 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) I wonder what would happen if Mr. John Reid, a law enforcement officer from the southern United States, wished to become a Canadian. Mr. Reid, a member of the Texas Rangers until he had to retire after being injured in the line of duty, went on to bring over a thousand serious crimminals to justice. Would the fact that he wore a mask bar him from becoming a Canadian citizen? Trivia fact: In the apprehension of all those crimminals, he never killed anyone . Edited March 18, 2015 by Queenmandy85 Quote A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
On Guard for Thee Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 Sigh. The willful, desperate blindness of the left on this issue really is deserving of some kind of psychology study. Look, either she is an extremely orthodox Muslim or she's not. If she IS, then there are a set of very strict beliefs which come attached to that, whether you like it or not. Just because she doesn't voluntarily say that she expects to be beaten if she displeases her husband does not mean that she and he do not believe he has that right. After all, it's in the Koran, and Islamic scholars and judges have found that it is a legitimate right. I've seen surveys of Muslim women, true, not Orthodox Canadian Muslim women (but then they all came from elsewhere anyway) which bluntly say that the majority of women EXPECT to be beaten if they do anything to displease their husbands including such things as making a medical appointment for themselves without his permission, or going out without his permission. You simply will not accept that an orthodox Muslim woman is chattel and can do virtually nothing without her husband's permission. Domestic violence isn't even against the law in many Muslim states. Sigh. Your constant and baseless assumptions indicate a mode of thinking that is in a bit of a rut, and not likely to accept any of the various posts and posters who have pointed that out. So....carry on I guess. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 Would the fact that he wore a mask bar him from becoming a Canadian citizen? I would say it probably would, unless he was wearing it for religious reasons. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted March 18, 2015 Author Report Posted March 18, 2015 A facetious argument at best. How about a comparison? Nazis used the symbol for about a decade compared to the 10,000 year history. You know this actually seems to predate the Pyramids. That's a looooooooooooong time dude. When you say the Swastika has been used for 10,000 years, that's a fact. When say it has been used for a "long time," that's an opinion. This is simple stuff. I'm not sure where the argument is here. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 When you say the Swastika has been used for 10,000 years, that's a fact. When say it has been used for a "long time," that's an opinion. This is simple stuff. I'm not sure where the argument is here. Splitting hairs really. Like I said a facetious argument at best which detracts from what was intended from that member's post. Just because asshatery is allowed on this forum, does not mean we should resort to being like those we know who are shitting up threads. Quote
Black Dog Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 Where in the HELL did I ever suggest I was 'above the fray'? You lob insults at me I'm sure as hell going to point out your intellectual inadequacies every freaking time. I am not a 'turn the other cheek' type of person. Clearly, which makes you part of the problem. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 18, 2015 Author Report Posted March 18, 2015 Splitting hairs really. Like I said a facetious argument at best which detracts from what was intended from that member's post. Just because asshatery is allowed on this forum, does not mean we should resort to being like those we know who are shitting up threads. You're the one splitting hairs. I'm merely pointing out that there's a difference between fact and opinion. Saying that the niqab is a symbol of female oppression is not a fact. You're the one who has come in to split hairs about an irrelevant example. Quote
PIK Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 What millar said is what a majority of canadians wish they could say. A lot of people are tired of others telling us what to do and think, Like he said if they don't like our rules stay the hell home. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Black Dog Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 What millar said is what a majority of canadians wish they could say. A lot of people are tired of others telling us what to do and think, Like he said if they don't like our rules stay the hell home. Mom on your ass about cleaning your room again? Quote
jacee Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) What millar said is what a majority of canadians wish they could say. A lot of people are tired of others telling us what to do and think, Like he said if they don't like our rules stay the hell home.Those aren't "our rules" according to the court. You don't have the right to dictate what a woman wears in public. . Edited March 18, 2015 by jacee Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.