|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 15, 2018 19:21:22 GMT 1
I take it you quite like BoJo, then. Oh dear. Never met him, so I don't know if I might like him. I found him entertaining on the telly but all Tory politicians are fundamentally loathsome, so he'd have to work as hard as Churchill to redeem himself in my eyes. Being loathsome doesn't prevent a person from being correct about a few things. My favorite was Enoch Powell's still-unanswered question: if you can pay a woman less for doing the same job, why does anyone employ men?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 16, 2018 19:00:16 GMT 1
I must disagree with the OP though. The women dress this way because they have been brought up to believe that going out in public without being covered up is indecent. My questions are always polite. That's not the reason you or Jean hardly ever answer them! No one needs to "read more". Everyone knows this straightforward and undisputed information. If they didn't, they'd have learned it already from my post. A simple logical error - I'll tell you its latin name, if you like? (Your imputation of it to me is merely your standard clunking rudeness, on the other hand.) And as I said, a highly dubious proposition. If one comes from a culture where the verses of your religious texts are taken at their most extreme ("modest" means covering yourself up entirely, for example) then on what basis are you assuming that the hundred or so verses enjoining moslems to use the sword to enforce their faith are not so taken? I would myself outlaw such garb from the public space - I think Boris has this one wrong. An understandable error. Like me, he's a libertarian, and it goes against the grain. But the grounds for prohibiting such dress is not for "suspicion of plotting violence". The grounds are themselves libertarian. This is a country that has discovered certain values that such dress is in direct conflict with - if you choose to live here, you should respect those values. That's what our laws should represent. This is one of those very unusual conflicts where such a clash of values manifests, due to past and temporarily persisting policies of immigration and "multiculturalism" - it was a tolerable conflict when the numbers were low and the threat to social stability minor; now, given demographic projection and the rise of Islamism, it's past the point where toleration of the intolerant becomes tolerable. It's not really the question - that's just the way you've framed it, for some reason. Turning Islamic extremists away from all sorts of practices that are not concordant with Western values is the way I'd frame it - primarily, but not exclusively, in the arena of women's rights. If you're going to start rewriting the dictionary, you are.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 16, 2018 19:16:24 GMT 1
WOULD YOU TRUST THIS MAN TO POST A LETTER TO YOU, AND WANT THIS WOMAN TO DELIVER IT? Maybe I don't get it? Explain, please. Both questions strike me as utterly juvenile, even offensive on several levels - without even the excuse of being slightly amusing.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 16, 2018 19:18:57 GMT 1
From your tone it appearts as if you do not approve of Johnson's comments I wonder why? Is it that you share the tendency of leftists to not reognise fascism unless the proponent is white with a St George T-shirt, and totally reject the concept if the proponent is predominantly brown? No.Do you not recognise that Labour's anti-semitism problem is in part because it relies so heavily on the Moslem vote and many Moslems are unashamedly anti-Jew Yes.Are you not aware that many moderate Moslems abhor the manifestations of extreme Islam that we see in Britian; do you not recognise that a burqa wearer is almot guaranteed to support the tenets of extreme Islamism with all its anti-liberalism baggage that iplaces it side-by-side with many fascist organisation Yes to a bit, and NO,No to much elseAre you aware that the following predominatly Moslem countries ban the burqa - Chad, Turkestan, Morocco, Turkey (until recently, Kosovo (since 2009), Azerbaijan (since 2010), Tunisia - and that Egypt is considering doing the same Yes generally, not comprehensively, but it's a good thing.Would you like some advice on how to properly format your posts? Before you get lambasted by Jean - she gets very upset by such lackadaisical infringements of the rules. As do you, I recall.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 16, 2018 19:24:11 GMT 1
As far as I can see, BoJo is and always has been a berk and a narcissist and many other things ending in -ist, and now thinks he can rekindle the spirit of Enoch Powell thru classical allusion. For what purpose? His own. Aqua - you really are an ignorant, ideological tosspot. Sorry to pass that information along in such a blunt manner. You've no subtelty, man - no powers of discrimination. Too much fucking Little Nell and Bill Sykes. The world isn't black and white - you're supposed to have learned a bit since you were a 14-yr old!
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 16, 2018 22:19:29 GMT 1
No, everyone must obey the laws of this country. I have mentioned this before, but won't apologise for raising it again. The chink in this sensible legal armor was caused by the (at the time) entirely reasonable concession to Sikhs to wear turbans rather than crash helmets. This now extends to various public service dress uniforms and fire brigades have designed special breathing apparatus to accommodate full beards. All very gracious compromises in favor of a group whose general integration and contribution to British life has been exemplary. But the basis, making concessions on the grounds of a person's religion, is flawed because the concept of religion is too undefined, and the scope of "legitimate" concessions is thus theoretically unlimited. Assuming it is advisable to prevent the erosion of law by faith, how can his be limited? It turns out that UK blasphemy laws only protect the sensibilities of christians, so can we draw a line around sikh concessions? Or should we scrap them entirely? Yes, as I said, it's a thankfully rare circumstance where such conflict becomes manifest. It was a mistake to allow this piffling exception. Then again, it was a mistake to draft such an authoritarian law in the first place - the socialist nanny state, as so perfectly personified by our Barbara.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 16, 2018 22:35:34 GMT 1
You should never accuse a politician of any motive other than self-interest, but that is irrelevant. And dangerously self-defeatingly cynical. Myself, I assume most politicians, of all stripes, are generally interested in "doing good"- making the country a better place. I think most start out that way, at least. Their "self-interest" is a very slippery notion anyway, in such a field. What do you think they're after? Hardly "power" - if that's your motive, much better fields where you have a better chance of exercising it. Teacher, for example, that's what attracts most of them. Money? For the most knuckle-dragging Labour politician, perhaps - not for the vast majority. Fame? If ridicule and loathing is a tolerable price for fame, for some, maybe. Or a subjugated woman, kept in her place via her own wish to retain her social membership in a culture where that is the jealously guarded norm. Banning the wearing of a red white and black armband sporting a swastika is not obnoxious. It's a symbol, promoting ideas beliefs and aspirations that our national culture does not deem acceptable. I don;t think it's outlawed, but it could be, if it became prevalent enough; and it is where there is such a lurking danger. Yes, but it would be a cop-out, an easy piece of bad faith. We've had centuries of hard-fought for battles to liberate women, and to create a society where the values such symbolic clothing is antithetical towards. We believe in these values. And we should be prepared to defend them. Terribly politically incorrect, and it drives the liberal-left into a complete dither - but that's their problem.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 16, 2018 23:19:53 GMT 1
I think you're wrong. By deliberately using tasteless similes BoJo has grabbed the headlines, which was his intention. What he has not done is facilitated a reasoned discussion - indeed he's probably made it impossible, a bit like Powell 50 years ago. Did you read what he wrote - it was a model of reasonableness, that included 3 words that are causing the furore - letter -box and bank robbers. Would that the Islamic extremist (which include burqa wearers) employ such mild reasonableness I don't know what post-boxes feel about such an insult, but speaking as an ex-bank robber I was deeply offended.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 16, 2018 23:27:55 GMT 1
I think he has initiated if not mean facilitated a reasoned discussion right here... You mean on this board?This is no place for reasoned discussion, as the most cursory glance will reveal. You're not always here. And? Maybe where ideologues like you two are concerned. Impossible to know what the magic key might be. I presume you are both capable of making reasonable arguments, given the right imput that doesn't offend your "cultural beliefs"? You should tell us. Aqua's confessed to being a communist, and it didn't cost him much, except his last sliver of adult intellectual self-respect. Or was that Alan? The short one, or the fat one. Anyway, you should say. I'm yer loony-lefty teacher's union activist from Liverpooool... with some fat lesbian overtones and simmering issues of resentment against all men and fear of private ownership of rail after being rejected by Jimmy Savile on a train, and I simply refuse not to be looked up to. Oh, yes, and I'm waahhhhrrkghin class, cos although I live in the posh middle-class area of Liverpool, off a fat pension screwed out of unemployed miners, I don't know how to drive, refuse to take anything in if it's not approved of by the State sanctioned national curriculum, and do my utmost to use the NHS as much as I can.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 16, 2018 23:43:22 GMT 1
Aqua - you really are an ignorant, ideological tosspot. Sorry to pass that information along in such a blunt manner. You've no subtelty, man - no powers of discrimination. Too much fucking Little Nell and Bill Sykes. The world isn't black and white - you're supposed to have learned a bit since you were a 14-yr old! Gotcha - pre-emptive insults.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 16, 2018 23:48:31 GMT 1
Aqua - you really are an ignorant, ideological tosspot. Sorry to pass that information along in such a blunt manner. You've no subtelty, man - no powers of discrimination. Too much fucking Little Nell and Bill Sykes. The world isn't black and white - you're supposed to have learned a bit since you were a 14-yr old! Gotcha - pre-emptive insults. Boris is a friend of mine. Not strictly true - his dad is though. Anyway, it wasn't strictly speaking an insult. Look upon it as a school report, with career advice. Become a civil servant - there's no hope of anything else. Nah - you did get me, indeed. Caught me on an off-day. Shall we have a truce? I won;t insultyou, if you show a bit of thought. Just a teensy-weeeensy leedle bit? Deal?
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 17, 2018 0:07:55 GMT 1
You may not think I show some thought. But how else, to keep my posts short. A guy like you sits like a duck. And doesn't give a flying f**k.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 17, 2018 0:14:02 GMT 1
You may not think I show some thought. But how else, to keep my posts short. A guy like you sits like a duck. And doesn't give a flying f**k. Hmmmmm. Hmmmmm. A leedle. I think we can agree. It sort of almost scans. Not much sense, but, look, he's 14-yr old level, ffs! That's a fuckin genius these days. A truce then, maestro. So what do you think of this Brexit idea?
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 17, 2018 0:31:56 GMT 1
Scans perfectly.
Octopus Octameter. A / bit of subtlety, which you may / never appreciate yourself.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 17, 2018 0:47:57 GMT 1
Scans perfectly. Octopus Octameter. Sorry. I forgot your degree was in medieval French poetry. I'll take your word for it. Even though it stinks. Hmmm. Yeah. A Third was a mite generous really, don't you think? I'm jossing with ya! You're the poet, man. Me, I know nowt about it. It leaves me cold, the whole caboodle. Poetry-blind, I am, I'm on disability for it, if you must know. Blind as snow. Like a cow. Strewn of its newborn calf. Not half. See? Anyway, give us more! It's an interesting substitute for thought, they say, and who am I to argue, being om disability benefit and all. What do ye cognise about the doom-ringing shadow cloud of the Brexit creature, teeth dripping with the blood of Devonshire grandchildren?
|
|