ohnonotgmail wrote: » well i'm sure you think you do but in reality you only do for the most patronising of reasons. And even that is assuming you do give a fcuk and it's not just another excuse to have a pop at islam.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Will you make up your mind. Am I a feminist or not? Am I an anti Muslim or an Islamphobe. You're not distinguishing yourself here.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Just to clarify, because there's a danger I'm after missing your point in suggesting I'm a bigot because I'm not overt in my bigotry. You think I'm a bigot because I have a view on an extremist ideology of a religon (setting aside its geographical origin), that members within the same religon themselves reject. So a Muslim who thinks a burka should be banned (as I am arguing here) is an anti Muslim bigot... That surely is the pinnacle of your foolish utterances, [the ne plus ultra... I cant believe you've exposed yourself this badly You were doing so well. Anyone associated with that post should be embarrassed. I'm scarlet for you. I suggest you withdraw from the field, you've soiled your own armour, figuratively speaking. Regroup. Come back when I've forgotten.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » I think you will find it is you not distinguishing yourself. You have put forward a couple of reasons why you want it banned and frankly none of them pass the sniff test.
Captain Obvious wrote: » No Roger, I'm just pointing out how idiotic your "I didn't fire a Muslim or kick one out of my house defence" is.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » No you accused me of being a bigot (presumably because I'm arguing against an extremist symbol), which i deny and supported with just today's interaction with Muslim people, professionally and socially. How else would I demonstrate im not a bigot as charged, but treat Muslim people as I treat all people. I don't afford them a special status, immune from criticism. I think i see the problem for you. You're clearly unable to accept I might not be a bigot. It's ok though, I'm ok with that. You've expressed yourself quite clearly. I appreciate who I'm dealing with.
Captain Obvious wrote: » That wasn't me you were replying to.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » But you replied to me stating how silly I was, and suggesting what a bigot I was ...and doubling down how idiotic I was Change of tack now... distancing yourself from accusing me of being a bigot. Interesting.
Captain Obvious wrote: » I didn't call you a bigot Roger but I do think you are one. And not because of your little stories about all the Muslims you don't spit on or your objection to unrestricted immigration but because you use a persons religion or origin as an assessment of their character.
Samsong wrote: » We wouldn't need this conversation if we just banned Muslims from the country altogether. I haven't met anyone who is actually happy that they are here anyway
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » How would you implement that?
Samsong wrote: » Me personally? I'd close all of those Saudi Arabian funded mosques and outlaw the practice of the religion here. Halal food would be first to go in an effort to starve them out. Mass deportations would be a bi monthly event. I would then turn my attention to Christians. They can go too. Out ta ****
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » At least your consistent.
Samsong wrote: » Harsh but fair. It's the only way
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Good luck with your crusade so, ill donate a €.or 2 toward your funeral :rolleyes:
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » How would the zealots of the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster fare? Out tae fcuk too? Surely not the IPUists?
Samsong wrote: » I don't know who they are but if they are adults who believe in fairy tales then they are gone too
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » You're going to need a lot of planes. Or boats.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Nothing of the sort sport! Wrong as Molls bell. Continue to disabuse yourself.. I'm interpreting your use of "Islamophobe" as me being anti Muslim...? Am I right? So I'd better rip up the probabation report I'm completing for HR on one of my recent recruits, to take her off probabation, who I interviewd and hired. A Muslim. Didnt bother me then, doesnt now. When I get home, I'd better kick the two Palestinian kids off the Xbox with mine, ban them from playing FIFA 17 (i know) or Minecraft in my home... better stop teaching the young lad how to hold a Hurley...take back the bike I gave him... better cancel the invitation to the couple to call up Saturday, (fcuk I'll miss the delicious cinnamon buns)...stop the girls playing with their LOL dolls. Actually, now I think of it, i think one of the kids I train in soccer might be Muslim, his dad usually drops him, and he has a brown face, he must be Muslim... Oh it's a clever little neologism all right. Shut down any criticism of your sacred cow, especially when you're afraid to fuly commit to using "Muslimophobe" because you know in your heart you're wrong as fcuk. "Humpty Dumpty" language as Salman Rushdie called it. A nonsense word. (Ironically that a burqa not even originally Islamic being wholly lost on you)But if you're using it as tarring me as being against the Islamisization of Europe, you'd probably be correct. I've no wish to live in an Islamic "republic". I doubt you have either. Maybe you do. If not we're both Islamophobes... Which context are you using it in? You're probably not even sure. Maybe you dont know the difference. But when people reach for their goto "insult" , it simply reveals their whole argument as being built on sand, no foundation, susceptible to collapse, predicated on the assumption if someone else expresses an opinion other than the one they cling to, they're either a bigot or a racist. Or both. "An Islamophobe". GTFO, you're out of your depth. And chapeau to you for changing your mind. I'm glad you stayed, your exit would have been the threads loss... So any way back to your latest contribution. My "comment below showed me for what I am" Indeed. So what am I? Notwithstanding, you omitted a pertinent little detail that suggests the list is not exhaustive, "things like that" suggests an oppurtunity for further discussion. Am I demanding too much? I'd love to know what there is tyraniccal? I'd be sure to never again suggest an ability to freely talk to someone of the opposite sex is a desirable component of a functional and egalitarian society. Please point out the errors in my train of thought...So what would you regard as a fully engaged participant in society? How a woman in a burka fulfils these criteria... Feel free to add/ amend my nonexhaustive list of examples. I'd be very interested to see what I've gotten wrong, I'm certainly amenable to change my view.
Dannyriver wrote: » Someone who doesn t break the law will do me and even that s debatable because the law can be an ass sometimes ...but hey who am I to judge anothers choices ...I dont see it as my place to judge how anyone is or isn t a 'fully engaged participant in society' people are who they are and they are that way for many reasons based on their biological psychological and sociological make up. Even you Roger ... like I said people are complex and from an existentialist perspective so is life as are the vagaries that inevitably accompany it .
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » That's an interesting take on it. While I dont necessarily disagree with you, I think theres more to it than just not breaking society's laws I'd regard such a person as a law abiding citizen though. An essential component nonetheless. Theres a risk such a view might be compared to asking someone whether they dont "sin" because it's wrong in the eyes of their god, or because it's the right thing to do, e.g. steal or kill. Is it the rules that dictate how you behave? or altruism, empathy, charity, kindness etc.
Dannyriver wrote: » https://www.joe.ie/news/james-obrien-lbc-irish-people-microchipped-brexit-623241 Isn t it remarkable how Peter from Bury is so sure in his understanding of a situation that he knows absolutely nothing about, and so adamant that his solution will work and so politely dismissive of those who actually do understand the situation, and so ignorant of the fact that its his feeling of superiority to the Irish that gives him licence to know the best solution. I'm sure he sees himself as a nice understanding man and perhaps he is, but ?
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Dude, I gotta ask. What's this got to do with burkas?
Dannyriver wrote: » I suppose I could just as easily ask you When has this ever been about Burkas?
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Other then the fact the thread title is "Should Dublin ban burkas?"you have me...
Dannyriver wrote: » I doubt if I do Roger
