|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 21, 2018 0:24:18 GMT 1
On the other hand I simply say it is reasonable for the police to suspect that anyone who has chosen to cover his face may have a nefarious reason for doing so, and let the fuzz interpret "reasonable" in the context of riot, pollution, or any other circumstance. I'm not for telling anyone what to do or even in this context what not to do, but to warn everyone of the consequences of acting suspiciously. The strongest words in English law are "reasonable" and "normally" - abandon them at your peril and you are en route for a dictatorship or theocracy. That's all very well. But what if a burkha-wearer doesn't think she's acting suspiciously, but - in your word - knows she's acting 'normally', for her and most of her community?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 21, 2018 10:50:39 GMT 1
Why assume "she"?
It is the job of the police (and everyone else) to investigate whatever they consider to be suspicious. Despite a lot of training, coppers are not psychic and cannot read the beliefs of those they suspect. Not that it makes any difference: suicide bombers, jihadi executioners, female genital mutilators, racists and paedophile priests of all denominations say that they are behaving normally or even honorably for their community, but those who choose to live in my community must accept that our definition of abnormal may bear legal authority to investigate.
It is entirely normal (indeed mandatory) for a biker to wear a skid lid and visor on the road, but to do so inside a bank, shop or post office would be considered suspicious. How is that different from a burkha?
I don't live in a perfect world. I do however live in a country where we (still) distinguish between suspicion (investigated by the police) and guilt (determined by the courts), and for the most part a crime is defined by action or intent rather than motivation. Not sure I'd want to introduce the Thought Police implied by your concerns.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 21, 2018 15:13:24 GMT 1
It's a trochaic bouillabaisse. You Klutz. It's schmuck. You putz.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 21, 2018 15:53:21 GMT 1
mrsonde said Wrong on both counts. It is not true to say your questions always polite, Jean and I frequently answer your questions. Sorry, though consistent, you're quite wrong. It is true to say my questions are always polite, and you or Jean rarely answer them. No, I did not. I asked why you were making that contention, not the reasons you believed it! If you wasted everyone's time writing a post asserting without rationale "Grass is green, and buttercups are yellow, to normal sighted people", I might, if I had the patience, ask you much the same thing. It's so interpeted by extremists, not by the vast majority of the Islamic world. Given the issue under discussion, it's irrelevant why they do it, and even why they say they do it, whch are very likely to be two very different things (and that distinction is relevant.) I've made several posts about what I - and moslems - mean by moderate Islam and its converse before, and there's no need to add to them. I didn't. I knew you wouldn't want to actually learn anything, least of all how to think better. That wasn't my leap - that was your typical half-assed laziness at reading properly again. As such, the rudeness is once again yours, madam. Where is there any suggestion that you support those practices? The suggestion was quite clear: it's your argument that supports it. Hence, the suggestion is: your argument is trash and needs rethought. No "proof" is required. Unless it's by you, for some reason - you're the one raising the issue. As I've said, that's not the question - and I'm not aware of anyone ever saying it is. But, as a side question, seeing as you're so distracted by its irrelevance, I'd say it was highly likely that a woman who wears the burka or niqab would not feel it was open to them to question the five religious schools' interpretation of the Koran - it is after all strictly forbidden to do so. Or, at the very least, even if they did so in the privacy of their modest little heads, they would not have the courage or inclination to do so openly. And the hijab, imo. Not really. Again, you've rather missed the point. You sort of get in roughly the same international postcode region of it always, but on questions of this sophisticated complexity that's just not good enough. And all sorts of people have to wear uniforms at work, suits and ties to reflect the seriousness of their role, and so forth, and so forth. This isn't the point. The point is the one I gave you, and you've ignored. Sigh. No. It wouldn't, and grass is green and buttercups are yellow. Now can we get back to the issue being discussed by everyone else in the country, please? Is that an attempt at humour, Fing?! If so, it earns a Out of encouraging politeness. But, actually, assuming it's down to reading, writing, and comprehension skills again, I think you might do better turning on your spellchecker.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 21, 2018 16:40:03 GMT 1
It's a trochaic bouillabaisse. You Klutz. It's schmuck. You putz. I think you mean dreck. Shmuck and putz are tautologous nouns, whereas dreck can be used adjectivally as in English.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 21, 2018 16:53:53 GMT 1
I think you mean dreck. Shmuck and putz are tautologous nouns, whereas dreck can be used adjectivally as in English. Alright, I'll bite. What is a "tautologous noun"? Perhaps you're mistaken in thinking they have the same meaning? As a keen student of Jewish heritage, especially Yiddish and Hassidism, I assure you they do not (and therein lies the intended...joke's a bit strong. Joshing - Mensch that Aqua is.) And "dreck", too, is something else. Though I admit my poetry is inevitably dreck, if you were being a wisenheimer enough to have paid such a compliment? But for Aqua's efforts, you'd be being unfair, I think. Me, I'd say it was kak, or fakakte, or verkakte to be more critically polite about it - but then I'm disabled, and think that about most poetry. I kvetch about it every week the TLS wastes precious pages on the stuff...If I wasn't so grateful for my benefits, I might suspect there was something about the Emperor's new clothes about it all.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 21, 2018 17:43:18 GMT 1
And the discussion is already under way, as the incident I cite should remind you. Johnson has enabled nothing No one claimed the dicussion wasn't underway, did they? FYI, Boris was commenting on a very recent change in the law in Denmark. Your opinion. Not mine, nor of anyone with a working knowledge of how the standard conventions of language and journalism work - no dilution occurred. Most people are normally perfectly capable of understanding humour in its context. People like you and Yasmin whatshername are a rarity, and in any case move "the discussion" - precisely because of their comical "seriousness", their ideological rigidity, their inability to be reasonable - not an iota. If anything they hinder any possible progress on the matter. A bit of appropriate mockery, on the other hand, can work wonders.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 21, 2018 18:39:28 GMT 1
Both shmuck and putz originally meant "penis". Putz has retained its anatomical meaning for the most part, though usually implying "little prick" as an insult, whereas schmuck or schmoe has become softened by usage and replaced schlimiel in American slang. I can't think of a single-word English equivalent, though dumbass or klutz will do. Ergo schmuck/putz is a tautology, and neither word is ever used to describe anything non-human.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 21, 2018 19:06:05 GMT 1
Both shmuck and putz originally meant "penis". Hmmm...are you sure that's true? Putz I know has acquired that meaning... Prick, I agree. The little bit is usually the intent os the schm...prefix. , I can't agree with any of that either. The OED notoriously (amongst Yiddish speakers) made that contention some time ago, but as with many of their asserted derivations, it's highly doubtful. A schmoe is a joe, an Americanism, but not just a run-of-the-mill bloke - he's one worthy of mild derision. A schmiel or schliemiel is more severe than a schmuck - both are dumbasses, but the former is congenitally so, the latter contingentally so. A communist who can;t realise his ridiculous foolishness is a schmiel; one who mutates into just a socialist is just a schmuck. The essential quality of a klutz is his clumsiness. Gordon Brown was a schmuck, and a schmiel, and a klutz, but it's like getting three cherries in a row on the fruit machine. Aint necessarily so. Ahhh...you mean they're synonyms. Though you're mistaken. The beauty of Yiddish lies in these fine distinctions, like the cut and colour of diamonds. I gather you misunderstood Aqua's terse post, and hence my reply. Neither of us is non-human, impressions sometimes to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 22, 2018 0:03:02 GMT 1
Because this thread is about women wearing burkhas, no? It is the job of the police (and everyone else) to investigate whatever they consider to be suspicious. Despite a lot of training, coppers are not psychic and cannot read the beliefs of those they suspect. Not that it makes any difference: suicide bombers, jihadi executioners, female genital mutilators, racists and paedophile priests of all denominations say that they are behaving normally or even honorably for their community, but those who choose to live in my community must accept that our definition of abnormal may bear legal authority to investigate. It is entirely normal (indeed mandatory) for a biker to wear a skid lid and visor on the road, but to do so inside a bank, shop or post office would be considered suspicious. How is that different from a burkha? I don't live in a perfect world. I do however live in a country where we (still) distinguish between suspicion (investigated by the police) and guilt (determined by the courts), and for the most part a crime is defined by action or intent rather than motivation. Not sure I'd want to introduce the Thought Police implied by your concerns It seems to me that you're just pitting one form of subjectivity against another. My claim of the burkha-wearer being more objective relies on the fact that over 99.9% put their garment on without planning to do nefarious acts while wearing it. Those who, on the other side, believe it's reasonable to be suspicious of anyone (ie, 100%, everyone) wearing a burkha, appear to be being much more subjective, even prejudiced. Somebody even said the burkha was ugly. I fail to see that as objective.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 22, 2018 8:04:11 GMT 1
The thread is about burkhas. There is no way to tell the sex of the wearer from a distance. This is a scientific forum.
The statistics are very interesting. As the IRA used to taunt the police: "We only need to win once - you need to win every time." AFAIK 99.9% of bikers are honest citizens, but society has deemed that anyone wearing a helmet in a bank should be regarded with suspicion, because 0.1% is too big a risk. What's the difference?
The burkha is intended to be unattractive. I wouldn't describe a pillar box or a helmet as "ugly" (though gas masks come close) but neither would I consider them to be attractive. Entirely beside the point. The question is "why is he/she wearing it in a context where it is unnecessary and facial recognition is part of everyday business?" More often than not, it seems, she is a victim of an oppressive, perverted theocracy and in some countries could legitimately be beaten to death for not wearing it. So let's take a stand whilst civilisation still prevails in the UK.
I'm all in favor of the taxpayer funding one-way tickets in exchange for their passports, for anyone who would prefer to live in a theocracy. Including Northern Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 22, 2018 8:41:27 GMT 1
mrsonde said: Here is just one example of an impolite question by mrsonde So that renders the first part of his statement, at least, to be false
Pro A seemed to say that the burkha wearers were saying that they supported Islamic extremism. I was saying that they appeared to wearing it for other reasons.
Well, Pro A seems to think it is relevant.
You could just summarise it in a sentence.
No, you said "Your general thesis is that people who have been brought up abroad should be allowed to carry on behaving in whatever way they used to do there if they choose to come and live here, I take it? They should, for example, be allowed to have six wives? Marry or merely have sex with nine year olds? Own slaves, perhaps?". In that you asserted that you "take it" that I think people be allowed to carry on behaving in whatever way they did abroad. That is false, rude and insulting.
So what is the reason why you say "I would myself outlaw such garb from the public space". (Presumably Alan might say to that "Like the appalling European Union and most religions, you pretend that there is no difference between mandate and freedom. Whether you wear a burqua, a welding mask or a bikini is of no importance to me or in English law. I simply want anyone to be able to refuse you service if he can't see your face. ") I want to know the reason why. Your given reason is "This is a country that has discovered certain values that such dress is in direct conflict with", but that doesn't justify the making of a law to ban it.
I will when you learn to spell my name properly.
|
|