Senior German ministers call for ban on wearing the burqa

originally posted by: ColCurious
a reply to: intrptr & starwarsisreal

originally posted by: ColCurious
[...] there are substantiated concerns they will cater to the far-right too much, in order to beat radicals in the next elections.
Conservatism must not lose sight of its original statutes (like it happened in the U.S.).

Seeing this 'far-right influence' become more of a problem the more refugees are brought in. The 'far right' wants war, loves conflict. Being a member state of the EU also means being a member state of NATO, currently waging endless war across the Middle East. How to generate more support for more defense spending is to create more fear at home, thus, more refugees, strange customs, language and terror. Terror from actual attacks on civilians and perceived terror from simple things such as religion and attire.

This can only result in stricter control measures and more persecution down the road.

a reply to: intrptr

Do you agree that in situations where people are generally prohibited from masking their face, such as banks and government offices, that exemptions should not be provided for religious faith or cultural reasons?

Simple question so no need to bang on about NATO bombing the middle east if you choose to reply.

I've asked a few times in this thread and all you've done is deflect.

I believe in equality when it comes to any population being required to show their face for security reasons.
Do you agree with equality?

a reply to: grainofsand

i don't dance to your tune, either.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: grainofsand

i don't dance to your tune, either.

Ah, so all you can do is go off topic about NATO bombing the middle east in every single thread which involves anything related to the Islamic faith.

You make yourself look almost trollish, certainly childish, with your constant efforts to go off-topic and refusal to discuss the issue at hand. I'll give you a chance to stay on-topic and ask again:

Do you agree that in situations where people are generally prohibited from masking their face, such as banks and government offices, that exemptions should not be provided for religious faith or cultural reasons?

Simple yes or no, or other qualified response which does not involve whining about NATO bombing the middle east.
That's not too difficult is it?

a reply to: grainofsand



Just a simple yes or no answer to support whatever fearful loathsome position you adopt on another fear and loathing thread?

See ya on the next anti middle east thread, you pretty much guaranteed I won't answer whatever demands you make there, either.

a reply to: intrptr

Fear and loathing, demands?
Lol, you off topic drama queen.

So do you have an on topic opinion on any religious or cultural demographic getting an exemption from state sponsored surveillance and facial recognition?

I'm not a supporter of such broad surveillance generally but if it happens then I do support equality for all demographics, with no 'get out of jail' card based on religious grounds.
Perhaps you disagree?

Perhaps you've just shown you have no intention to debate rationally and impartially like an adult?

a reply to: grainofsand
You wont get him to say that because then he can´t argue with you further more on off-topic points. It´s so simple and logic that there is simply no argument against treating people equally.

That´s why he circumvents the answer.

a reply to: grainofsand

Fear and loathing, demands?

Yah, you. Fear and loathing of 'burkas' and on about demands of "answer my questions!". Phobics and control freaks are the worst.

Either that or a proponent of a police state, more war, whatever.

a reply to: verschickter

Yes, a mature debate about equality for all regarding options for avoiding state sponsored surveillance is too emotionally challenging for some members.

It clearly is discriminatory if a particular religion or culture get a free pass to hide their faces where others can not.

Equality for all of us potentially under surveillance I say....and unverifiable religious faith should be dismissed as any reason to be excepted.
That of course would be discriminatory against people who do not believe in such things.

Oh and I practice and promote equality in my thoughts of all religious faith, I ridicule them equally.
Claims of anti Islam are silly...if Zoroastrians started hiding their faces I would have the same equality of surveillance issues with them.
Religion should not provide a free pass from state sponsored surveillance and facial recognition cameras...equality for all.

a reply to: intrptr

So do you agree with equality of surveillance?
Or do you advocate that religious beliefs should provide an exception not provided to non believers?

...you debate like a child by the way.

a reply to: grainofsand

'Children' use insult and ridicule as argument.

a reply to: intrptr

Children refuse to share their opinion about valid questions in a discussion.

...so again, do you agree that no demographic should get a free pass from state sponsored surveillance based solely on religious beliefs, or not?

a reply to: intrptr

Wait. Isn´t that what you´ve been doing by calling him a phobic control freak?
Mirrors and all that.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: intrptr

Wait. Isn´t that what you´ve been doing by calling him a phobic control freak?
Mirrors and all that.

Lol, the honourable member does it in pretty much every thread involving either discussion related to Islam and/or refugee's.

I'm all for mature debate, you know, calm and rational observation about the subject, even happy to have my opinion changed if the argument makes me re-think...always good to learn something new.

I am yet to hear a reasoned argument for religious belief to be a valid reason to exempt people from the same state sponsored surveillance that everyone else is subject to. The 'right' to hide your face for example.
Now, the argument about surveillance is a separate issue and I am of course against it generally, this being ATS and all that, but religious faith as an exemption is clearly discriminatory against those who do not hold such beliefs.

You know it, I know it, but some folk refuse to admit it because it doesn't support their particular narrative.
I'm personally rather sick of members going off-topic with "It's because NATO bomb the middle east!!!" when the topic is about religious faith having an exemption from state sponsored surveillance and the inequality that clearly represents for those who do not share said faith.

a reply to: grainofsand
So you noticed the pattern, too. It´s always the same.
Like a yes/no chart on a sheet of paper.
It becomes predictive behavior.

a reply to: verschickter

I find it intellectually stimulating though, hence my persistence like a dog with a bone to challenge every single deflection.
The freedom to evade facial recognition cameras in situations where others can not due to their particular beliefs is clearly divisive and discriminatory.

...unless someone else reading this thread is able to argue differently, and not by just deflecting with "It's because NATO bombed the middle east!!!" or "You all hate Muslims!!!".
The religious exemption from state sponsored surveillance is divisive and discriminatory in itself. Removing that exemption creates equality for all in any Orwellian state.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: intrptr

Wait. Isn´t that what you´ve been doing by calling him a phobic control freak?
Mirrors and all that.

No, identifying phobia isn't name calling. This is...

Typical lame arse intrptr argument...crap.

I already addressed Islamaphobia here, too...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
As far as members replies to me, they always include a barely veiled insult combined with "answer my question!" . What a broken record.

Meh.

a reply to: intrptr

Yeah your argument is poor because you refuse to share your opinion on the inequality of any religious faith getting an exemption from state surveillance with freedom to mask their faces.

You instead bleat and whine that this is about hating on Islam, yet it isn't.
Islam happens to have a thing where females can hide their entire face, and apparently enjoy freedom from state surveillance where others can not.
It is discriminatory, clearly, and while I am absolutely against any state surveillance, while it happens I want equality for all.
What could you possibly argue against that?

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Agreed.Very well said.Wearing a Burka to a business meeting would be disrespectful,I would think.I couldn't take seriously someone wearing one while doing business.Face to face is essential in business.

a reply to: buckwhizzle

I'd do business with someone wearing a clowns mask.
I don't need to see someones face to take their money.

...security concerns are a different matter of course, for obvious reasons of confirming identity.