Banning/Allowing Religious Garbs

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by nik-

Actually it was fine until a rampaging moron came in spouting his typical nonsense, which then summoned his doppelganger on the other side of the issue.

Pretty sure the reason was because of posts like this where some can't refrain from making it personal.

[AltaGuy]

As someone who agrees with some of that threadinator's general ideas, that was over the top. You know it's over the top when Nage is the only one left standing.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

So basically, you're saying the thread was great as long as you and Corsi could dominate discussion

I'm flattered you think I dominated in that thread, but it was 20+ pages long and I think I made about 8 posts... Half of which were on the first page bemoaning what a disaster I expected the discussion was going to become. And then it did.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You shouldn't think that no one noticed you ran and hid once you could no longer frame the discussion as you wanted.

I thought it was a terribly loaded question to start out a thread with, but people left because the vitriol from Crumpy was way, way, over the top. I mostly agreed with what he had to say, but he said it in such an offensive and intolerant manner that it became painful to read. Very painful.

There's nothing wrong, IMO, with a little snark and maybe even a bit of controlled anger. However, flat-out aggression and shouting is no more acceptable on the internet than it is in person; we are not children. Well - most of us aren't.

[Minnie]

These motokinis are kinda cool. Hopefully they don't get harassed or fined too horribly.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm flattered you think I dominated in that thread, but it was 20+ pages long and I think I made about 8 posts... Half of which were on the first page bemoaning what a disaster I expected the discussion was going to become. And then it did.

But it wasn't the discussion, it was the poster.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sorry Crumpy and Nage got your thread closed. Life sucks.

I didn't get any thread closed. I also didn't post anything controversial.

Attacking someones name versus an argument might seem cool in your little circle, it also demonstrates low intelligence.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Pretty sure the reason was because of posts like this where some can't refrain from making it personal.

Nah, it wasn't.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

As someone who agrees with some of that threadinator's general ideas, that was over the top. You know it's over the top when Nage is the only one left standing.

Like I just posted earlier, you guys attack me instead of what I post, and in fact most just attack because someone else did.

If you find something I posted bad, debate it. Attacking someone's reputation is weak and pathetic.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I didn't get any thread closed. I also didn't post anything controversial.

Attacking someones name versus an argument might seem cool in your little circle, it also demonstrates low intelligence.

Who is attacking your name? You don't have a "name" to attack.

"Nage Waza! We've got Nage Waza the thread closer here!"

See? Nobody cares.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Who is attacking your name? You don't have a "name" to attack.

"Nage Waza! We've got Nage Waza the thread closer here!"

See? Nobody cares.

Thanked for Jurrasic Park reference.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm flattered you think I dominated in that thread, but it was 20+ pages long and I think I made about 8 posts... Half of which were on the first page bemoaning what a disaster I expected the discussion was going to become. And then it did.

The stats are available on the right side of every thread, clicked it for fun and it says you had 29, the 6th most active poster in the thread.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah I forgot I had a long pointless argument in the first couple of pages of that thread about whether Christopher Hitchens was a Trotskyite or not.

Anyway thanks for specifically taking the time to look that up. You really do seem to strongly dislike me, huh? It's like it's personal. Glad you're in Toronto or I'd be mildly worried.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I bet you might have been able to get away with putting in a "That's the joke" there to save face.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah I forgot I had a long pointless argument in the first couple of pages of that thread about whether Christopher Hitchens was a Trotskyite or not.

Anyway thanks for specifically taking the time to look that up. You really do seem to strongly dislike me, huh? It's like it's personal. Glad you're in Toronto or I'd be mildly worried.

Haha, nothing personal, I do get a kick out of your sheer posting volume, though. There's no time involved, btw, it's just one click on the post count button on the side of the thread. It displays everyone's post count in order of who's posted the most.

The first time someone posted stats like that I thought they actually went and put effort into finding out how many times a person posted and how much more so than others., but it's literally a set, clickable stat.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by peter12

I actually think that some of the calumnious agitators actually know that if they troll or obfuscate enough, they will get the thread shut down or so frustrate the other side, that the debate will preemptively shut down.

I really believe that it is an intentional effort to shut down the other side without actually engaging with their ideas.

It doesn't happen a lot, it doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of good debate on this board, but it is certainly a thing.

I'd like to point out that

1) this is completely based in your personal dislike of others and not in anything resembling facts

2) it's bordering on a paranoid delusion

3) you were the one who asked for admin intervention in that thread.

And two extra for Thor:

4) there are still open threads where people have spent tons of time complaining about the same issue, which you know because you pointed to their existence when you started your own thread. That makes your claim of pseudo-censorship blatantly disingenuous

5) you use a long and by many opinions relative high quality discussion where liberals where willing to discuss their view at length as an example of discussion somehow being "silenced". The amount of confirmation bias required for this is simply beyond me.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Itse

I'd like to point out that

1) this is completely based in your personal dislike of others and not in anything resembling facts

2) it's bordering on a paranoid delusion

3) you were the one who asked for admin intervention in that thread.

And two extra for Thor:

4) there are still open threads where people have spent tons of time complaining about the same issue, which you know because you pointed to their existence when you started your own thread. That makes your claim of pseudo-censorship blatantly disingenuous

5) you use a long and by many opinions relative high quality discussion where liberals where willing to discuss their view at length as an example of discussion somehow being "silenced". The amount of confirmation bias required for this is simply beyond me.

I mean the poster admitted to doing exactly what peter is talking about. So where's the paranoia? The fact that you completely gloss over what that guy is all about because you agree with his stance in general says a lot.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You really do seem to strongly dislike me, huh? It's like it's personal.

Rough day, bro? Iggy bought you this Islam thread... we... we thought it'd cheer you up.

[Looch City]

Back on topic shall we?

France's burkini ban overturned by highest court
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/burkini...rned-1.3736823

France's top administrative court has overturned a town burkini ban amid shock and anger worldwide after some Muslim women were ordered to remove body-concealing garments on French Riviera beaches.

The ruling by the Council of State Friday specifically concerns a ban in the Riviera town of Villeneuve-Loubet, but the binding decision is expected to set a legal precedent for all the 30 or so French resort municipalities that have issued similar decrees.

The mayor of Sisco in northern Corsica said he won't lift his ban on the burkini despite the ruling by France's top administrative court.

Ange-Pierre Vivoni had banned the burkini after an Aug. 13 clash on a beach in Sisco.

He told BFM-TV Friday: "Here the tension is very, very, very strong, and I won't withdraw it."

He conceded he doesn't know whether a woman was actually wearing a burkini the day a clash occurred that set a group of sunbathers of North African origin, from another town, against villagers from Sisco.

It took days to untangle the events leading to the violence that many immediately assumed was over a burkini sighting.

Going to be some interesting times in France...

Haha that bolded part...It seems almost as absurd as banning religious cartoons?

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by GGG

As far as I can tell there is no law about having your face covered in a bank.

In Bill 309 it bans face coverings in a riot and this appears to not include any caveats for Burkas.

So this whole discussion is likely moot.

However it's absolutely reasonable to distinguish between types of face coverings used to commit robberies when deciding whether or not to restrict a face covering in a place of business.

If there is 1 Burka robbery vs millions of ski mask robberies (no idea what the real numbers are) you'd absolutely be justified in ignoring the burka robberies until it became an issue. You evaluate the risk of each situation independently and react accordingly.

Now if your crafting a law the law similar to banning face masks in a riot is a good model as it only criminalizes criminal behaviour. So in the same way that committing a crime with a weapon carries a higher penalty you could (and there might already be a law like this) increase the penalty for committing a crime with your face obscured.

However it's perfectly reasonable to evaluate face coverings on a case by case basis looking to accommodate rather than exclude.

I think we probably agree on this, and our anti masking laws as you say, do not have caveats for burkas. Disguise with intent IS a separate law that will carry extra charges for those involved in criminal activity while having their face covered.

However it's absolutely reasonable to distinguish between types of face coverings used to commit robberies when deciding whether or not to restrict a face covering in a place of business.

I'm not sure I agree with this however. Either your face is covered or it isn't. The anti masking laws do not cover specific types of headwear as I'm sure the intent is the issue. Or am I'm misunderstanding your meaning here?

The issue at the bank with sunglasses or headwear HAS to be company policy. Not sure why I have to show my face to the nice lady I've known for years otherwise. Smile for the camera?