Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Jack)
    It's not an argument, it is a view.
    And how does this view add anything interesting to the discussion? It's like if there was a discussion about gun control, and your input was "I don't see what the problem is, I think guns look cool".

    It's just a pointless, vacuous thing to say.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dysto)
    I watched the Prisoner of Azkaban on shrooms and to this day my heart races when ever I see a niqab.
    Best HP film plus best drug.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dysto)
    I don't think covering your face should be legal, there's freedom then there's religious over-privilege.
    Why not?


    Would you ban Halloween costumes or motorbike helmets? This aside the central core of the issue is that the act of covering one's face does not in of itself infringe upon the rights of others and so should not be made illegal on the grounds that a criminal may also cover his or her face. It's an absurdity to argue such a point, criminals also eat food and breathe the air, should such things also be outlawed?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    This is the worst attempt at an argument I've seen on here for a long time, and that is saying something.

    Ladies and gents, I give you the TSR mods.
    I hope that in time you see the hypocrisy in outlawing harmless items of clothing on account of perceived risk rather than actual harm, but I do share a pained cringe at the level of hippy dippy circlejerking people use to shut down debate.


    It always makes me laugh in fact, I wonder how Muslims would feel if they knew White libs support their rights ''because they look cool'' :rofl:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DicksOut4Haraam)
    The state has no business policing people's choice of clothing.
    It already does and has always done it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    It already does and has always done it.
    Not an argument.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DicksOut4Haraam)
    Not an argument.
    Yes, it's a remark.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Yes, it's a remark.
    Then why make that comment?


    The state does something and has been doing it for a long time doesn't justify that act to begin with, it's completely circular.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Bunch of authoritarians.

    (Original post by Josb)
    Britain First is glad to know that TSR support their right to wear what they want against the oppression of the British government.
    I do. Although it is not the same. A burka wearing women is an oppressed victim. A brown shirt is a fascist actavist. Still, people can wear Nazi uniforms if they so wish.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DicksOut4Haraam)
    Then why make that comment?


    The state does something and has been doing it for a long time doesn't justify that act to begin with, it's completely circular.
    I said that because it seems that most TSR users think that banning clothes would be something new and, for some, the road to authoritarianism.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    To everybody claiming that people are free to wear what they want, etc., do you know that the Public Order Act of 1936 is still in use? It bans the use of "political uniform" in "any public place": http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...6/1/6/contents

    This act was voted to fight the British Union of Fascists whose supporters wore black shirts. Paul Golding, the leader of Britain First, was indeed fined for wearing a political uniform last year: http://www.essexlive.news/britain-le...ail/story.html

    Britain First is glad to know that TSR support their right to wear what they want against the oppression of the British government.

    This act could be used against the burqa as it is advocated by the Shariah, which is a kind of political code.
    I don't think you could; the court doesn't engage in interpretation of religious texts. You'd be laughed out of the court for attempting to argue a case by reading out and interpreting passages from the Qur'an.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Bunch of authoritarians.
    Did you see my comment above? British Fascists were prevented from wearing their black shirts or more recently, the leader of Britain First was fined for his jacket.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I said that because it seems that most TSR users think that banning clothes would be something new and, for some, the road to authoritarianism.
    It's not on the road to authoritarianism, it is authoritarian. The French talk about freedom from religion, I want freedom from the state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Did you see my comment above? British Fascists were prevented from wearing their black shirts or more recently, the leader of Britain First was fined for his jacket.
    So long as they aren't attacking Jewish businesses or in the case of BF, Muslims, they should be allowed to wear whatever pathetic uniform they so choose if it makes them feel like big men.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Did you see my comment above? British Fascists were prevented from wearing their black shirts or more recently, the leader of Britain First was fined for his jacket.
    Did you see my edit?

    Leader of Britain First can wear his stupid jacket.

    Although it is not the same. A burka wearing women is an oppressed victim. A brown shirt is a fascist activist. Still, people can wear Nazi uniforms if they so wish. I bet France has made it so oppressed Muslim women can no longer go to the beach. Great job in liberating women you bunch of victim blaming numnuts :top:

    (Original post by DicksOut4Haraam)
    The French talk about freedom from religion, I want freedom from the state.
    This. ****ing this. France can shove its state religion back up its *********.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    I don't think you could; the court doesn't engage in interpretation of religious texts. You'd be laughed out of the court for attempting to argue a case by reading out and interpreting passages from the Qur'an.
    The Quran doesn't mention the burqa/niqab, it would be difficult to read passages about these clothes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DicksOut4Haraam)
    It's not on the road to authoritarianism, it is authoritarian. The French talk about freedom from religion, I want freedom from the state.
    Any law is authoritarian then.

    The French don't talk that much about "freedom from religion", the point is to remove the symbols of extremist ideologies from public places.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)

    Although it is not the same. A burka wearing women is an oppressed victim.
    I dislike this argument that every woman wearing a burqa is a victim, if it's her choice, she's not a victim and if she's being prevented from wearing her burqa, it's the government who are acting like authoritarian bullies not Muslims.


    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    A brown shirt is a fascist activist.
    It's perfectly possible for fascists to also be victims. The reason we are taught to hate fascists is because they are racist authoritarians, except for hundreds of years the leaders of Britain were a load of racist authoritarians themselves. It's completely ridiculous that Churchill is some sort of left wing hero in contrast to Oswald Mosley even though both held views the modern world would consider contemptible, yet one belonged to the school of political thought which won out in the end so we have created a false history around him to reconcile the dissonance


    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Still, people can wear Nazi uniforms if they so wish. I bet France has made it so oppressed Muslim women can no longer go to the beach. Great job in liberating women :top:
    Islamic State are probably happy that the burqini is banned ironically, they are obviously not going to want women out having fun like normal people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Did you see my edit?

    Leader of Britain First can wear his stupid jacket.

    Although it is not the same. A burka wearing women is an oppressed victim. A brown shirt is a fascist activist. Still, people can wear Nazi uniforms if they so wish.
    "An oppressed victim"? Many insist that it is their choice. They are radical activists like the fascists.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I bet France has made it so oppressed Muslim women can no longer go to the beach. Great job in liberating women you bunch of victim blaming numnuts :top:
    Not every Muslim woman wears a burkini - a few dozens actually.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    This. ****ing this. France can shove its state religion back up its *********.
    There is no state religion in France.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Any law is authoritarian then.
    Nope. Laws should be build up upon a system of axiomatic natural rights where they are created to prevent individuals inhibiting the rights of others, not based on the result of asking a load of daily mail reading boomers, what they like and don't like and guessing from there.

    (Original post by Josb)
    The French don't talk that much about "freedom from religion", the point is to remove the symbols of extremist ideologies from public places.
    What makes a burka a symbol of extremism, how many burka wearing women have killed french people?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.