freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 8:39pm:

Gawd, don't be so stupid! Now you can't tell the difference between ridicule and threats???

You want to uphold freedom but you don't even know where it ends and intimidation begins?  Being a jack-in-the-box who pops up with some new angle as his stream of consciousness dicates is NOT a cohesive argument, FD.

Where do YOU think the border is between ridicule and intimidation?? Are they actually neighbours? Is there anything else in the neighbourhood?  Self-sensorship, perhaps? Behead all who insult Islam? Show us yer tits, love? What?

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 10:21pm:



FD, you are a ridiculous prick and you take great pleasure in coming up with stupid things and we are all laughing at you, falling all over the place, slapping our thighs not quite believing that you are not laughing yourself = ridicule.

Fd, you are a ridiculous prick and someone will cut somebody's thtroat, not excludig yours, unless you desist - threat/intimidation/whatever you think it is.

This would be a good post for you to keep for your descendants to show them just what a pedantic pr!ck they are related to (just joking, FD, ie, ridiculing you)




(I do sincerely appreciate your stance for the whole forum and do salute you. Honest and no crossed fingers behind my back.)


Still, I think you are pulling my leg, pretending to be unable to tell the difference between ridicule and threat.

Soren wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 10:45pm:


Intimidation, not threat. There is a very important difference. A threat can usually be ascertained directly from what is actually said. Intimidation is something far more subtle. Hence my question to you. I am not asking you to get out a dictionary, but to say where you would draw the line, as I expect you would grant yourself far more 'freedom' to harass and intimidate a Muslim woman, under the guise of ridicule, than you would accept in return from someone your own size.

Quote:


I'm not sure why you are being that specific. I would grant them the same rights. I do not think that people should be denied rights because they are being rediculous. That would deny a surprisingly large number of people fundamental rights. This is the true test of whether rights are genuine. If rights where only extended to people and actions you approved of as being sensible and rational, they would not be rights.

BTW, my understanding is that the Ronald costume involves a lot of makeup, but not an actual mask. It is no different to women who plaster their face with so much crap that you would not recognise them without it.

Or are you perhaps referring to the potential legal issues of trademark infringement?

Hello, i am new here. I saw this thread and thought i'd throw n my two cents worth.

Firstly, i have to admit when i see women walking down the street wearing a burqa it is somewhat comfonting and offputting. But that doesn't mean it should be outlawed.

If its okay for women to wear next to nothing when they go to the beach, then why is not okay for a women to go the opposite direction and cover themselves up completely.

The whole things has an air of islamaphobia about it. Its as if Australia as a whole has gotten paranoid with people from overseas taking over Australia.

And for the police and others to say that , for goodness sake how many women go around robbing banks and holding up people at gunpoint. that is a very poor argument for banning the burqa.

I just think we're walking on thin ice if the government starts singling out groups of people and telling them what they can and can't wear.

And although there are women who may be forced to wear a burqa due to religious beliefs and thier culture what about those women that actually WANT to wear a burqa and even LIKE wearing a burqa.

I thought Australia was all about giving everyone a fair go, not matter who they are, what they look like, and what they wear.

Quote:


No. Why?

Grey wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 3:04pm:


I have islamophobia -
it started after 9/11.
Should I seek help?

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 8:50pm:



We mostly assume children to be innocent [...i.e. ignorant, and as yet uninformed].

And mostly, we would be correct.




But with adults, we mostly ascribe motives to their actions.

And mostly, we would be correct.


FD,
Though you may have the legal right to do so, why would you choose NOT to wear a KKK outfit [another assumption] as an adult ???

Does it [choosing, as an adult, not to wear a KKK outfit] have anything to do with the mores of the society to which you belong ???

To wit;
The fact that KKK outfits are associated with people who have motives [i.e. a worldview], which you would not want to be associated with ???

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 1:41pm:


so it's ok to go and murder people just because some preacher or some  old book says so and you believe in it ??