(September 16, 2009 at 11:41 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:When you say "such" people, what are you referring to exactly? I'm just curious.

Anyone not like her of course.


One thing I can say about DLF; she's nothing if not predictable.

I like a lot of people that aren't like myself. I will proudly voice my disliking of terrorism, radical religions, abuse of women, and people who think it's ok to marry and have sex with nine year old girls to the point that they are hospitalized because their small vaginas cannot take the abuse. THAT is what Muslims do. They are terrible people.

(September 16, 2009 at 11:40 pm)dry land fish Wrote:

(September 16, 2009 at 11:35 pm)Retorth Wrote: If taxing head scarfs is a way to discourage its use, in an attempt to encourage socializing (if that is indeed the cause), I would agree with it, but the tax itself is insanely high.




When you say "such" people, what are you referring to exactly? I'm just curious.

I said I had such a disgust for those people. Those people being Muslims. It's a very radical and dangerous religion. The human race needs to just get rid of that whole belief system.

The belief system, in the radical sense is insane and needs to be removed completely, I agree. There are non-radical, normal muslims as well who are really nice people. The problem is that we only see the crazies on TV. In Singapore, we have a lot of muslims, so I do have a handful of really nice friends who are muslim.

We have to remember that it is religion that we are against, not all the people who follow it. Some may be crazy too but there are a lot of wonderful people who sadly fall prey to religion. I recall a post of yours that you do mention this too. So it just struck me as odd that you claim to dislike "muslims" as a whole.

---

Oh and just so we aren't mistaken:

Muslim = follower
Islam = religion

So I'm thinking you mean to refer to islam in this case.

(September 16, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(September 16, 2009 at 3:23 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: Sure, but besides the issue. How would you feel if the forums t-shirts would be taxed 890 pounds a year because of the way others look at them?

Our forum t-shirts aren't concealing our appearance,

Neither does a Hijab. Unless you want to count hair as concealing appearance.

(September 16, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Tiberius Wrote: or being forced on women against their will.

Newsflash, not everyone wears Hijabs or burqa's because they are being forced to, but because they chose to.

(September 16, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Tiberius Wrote: It's not being proposed because of the way other people look at them, it's being proposed because they are anti-social.

And they are being anti-social not because of the way society looks at them?

So basically you would agree on a tax for the way people present themselves in public, how very libertarian of you.

---

(September 16, 2009 at 7:19 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: By false advertisement Leo, I was talking about what the Religion that the scarf represents stands for. I didn't just say false advertising, I said:

EvF Wrote:[...]the difference is the issue of false-advertising and the potential harm that can come from it.

(Emphasis added now). As I said, among other things - it's a symbol of injustice to women, all with no support. It gets a free ticket, it shouldn't. Whenever we think "Religion" we might as well think "Delusion" - and I don't think it's ever a good thing to give delusion - and potentially harmful delusion at that - a free ride. It just doesn't cut it to claim it's 'only a scarf'. It's what it represents that matters. It's not something that should just be taken out of context like that.

And who are you to decide what it represents to the person wearing it?

EvF Wrote:[...]the difference is the issue of false-advertising and the potential harm that can come from it.

(My emphasis added now).

You want to cherrypick your quote, so can I.

You were talking about are shirts being secular (they are not, there is nothing about a politial system in the shirts) but yet you would agree with a tax a government would impose on a specific religion.

And you don't think that is hypocritical in the slightest?

(September 16, 2009 at 7:19 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: The scarfs don't' just represent scarfs, they represent injustice, and the free ticket that the delusion that is religion gets in general.

Prove it, show me where it represents injustice on the women that wears a hijab. What should be taxed next EVF? Crosses around peoples necks? Turbans?

Ok, I was thinking of the burka not the hijab. My bad.

Nevertheless, I think you can probably understand why we don't allow disguises in public places like banks or other high security areas. The burka is a method of concealment, and should be banned from public areas. Being Libertarian doesn't mean everyone can do whatever the hell they want, it means that people's individual liberties are not excluded at the expense of the safety of anyone else.

People have robbed stores with burkas on before, and they present a security risk in general. If a man walked into a bank with a balaclava on, we'd be suspicious and ask him to remove it. The same should happen for the burka. I don't think a tax is the right idea, but people shouldn't be allowed to walk around in disguise like that.

I support public smoking bans for the same reasons. I don't care if people smoke (I want the unfair taxes on cigarettes removed), but I care that innocent non-smokers can be affected by it. That goes against their liberty to breathe clean air. I would much rather see some kind of "smoking house" set up where people can go smoke in public if they want, but only if the building gets a license.

So now you are shifting the focus on the Burqa. I agree that in security sensitive areas they should not be allowed any more than motorcycle helmets. But that is not what this is about, this is about taxation on a personal choice of what someone wants to wear.

Yeah I was shifting focus to the burka, because that's what I would agree to banning. If someone wants to tax the hijab I'm against it; all it is is a scarf (correct me if I'm wrong on that).

(September 16, 2009 at 11:13 pm)dry land fish Wrote: I really couldn't care less if they tax Muslims for their head scarves.

That's some nice Libertarianism you've got there.

(September 17, 2009 at 11:27 am)Meatball Wrote:

(September 16, 2009 at 11:13 pm)dry land fish Wrote: I really couldn't care less if they tax Muslims for their head scarves.

That's some nice Libertarianism you've got there.

Yeah well screw them and any follower of Islam I don't care how mean it is. There is no peace in Islam. I love how people talk about "peaceful" followers. They all would make us convert if it were up to them.

If I may add, on the contrary, my country is very much on the radar. We have a lot of friction with Malaysia over a number of issues. We're surrounded by muslim countries and Singapore itself is so tiny, we're pretty vulnerable. However, I think the social harmony is quite tight so far, thankfully.

I understand where you're coming from though, to be very fair.

(September 17, 2009 at 1:14 pm)Retorth Wrote: If I may add, on the contrary, my country is very much on the radar. We have a lot of friction with Malaysia over a number of issues. We're surrounded by muslim countries and Singapore itself is so tiny, we're pretty vulnerable. However, I think the social harmony is quite tight so far, thankfully.

I understand where you're coming from though, to be very fair.

The Muslims around here smell so bad. I promise you that all of the Muslims I've met including some at school smell like they haven't showered in years. My friend goes to a Muslim doctor and she says he even smells. Do the muslims around where you live wipe their butts with their bare left hand or have they became civilized and use toilet paper?