Boris

[sodthisforfun]

If we have freedom of speech, we also, implicitly, have freedom to not speak.
Just because you ask questions does not require anyone to answer them.

Especially when caught out as another user hey?

So, another question, why only highlight mine ?
What about this one?

PS. Stupid me...You always avoid answering questions

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Who is this man? Some sort of activist at a guess. Warn him first to remove above shoulder clothing. If he refuses slam him down cuff and arrest him.

Your making a very weak argument.

Oops!

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Especially when caught out as another user hey?

I will take your word for it, hey!

So, another question, why only highlight mine ?

Was the answer to Ellal's question unverifiable?
To ask such questions is pointless, and do not deserve an answer.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

IF that is true, he may well not be the only one judging by the rapid decline in the value of sterling.

That is also incorrect, since Ellal has already said he is making money out of a sterling fall.

A conditional statement can not be correct or incorrect. It is a conditional statement, conditionally reliant on the outcome of IF.
If you had simply said that "Ellal has already said he is making money out of a sterling fall" you would have been responding to the "IF". But to claim that a conditional statement is incorrect is nonsense. It may explain how you see these discussion; one is incorrect, vis-a-vis, the other must be correct. To claim that the 'other' is incorrect would imply that you are correct. But your premise is faulty.
We have had this discussion before. I have explained a conditional statement to you before.

I now realise why you feel the need to include some form of abuse, insult or ad hominem attack with each of your comments.
You consider your argument to be so weak that you feel the need to reinforce it with such abuse, insult or ad hominem attack.
If your argument is strong it will stand unsupported without abusive content.

Back to Boris why did Boris feel the need to include such offensive expressions in his article?
Maybe he was arguing for one thing, whilst appealing to the right wing of his party.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Let everyone wear what they like...pierce themselves..tattoo themselves...eat what they like....What could possibly go wrong......ONE of the fattest laziest countries in EU is where the UK is going.

That I would like to see!....A proper scientific double blind study!!

I, also, would like to see your "proper scientific double blind study" that informs your opinions.

 

[motorbiking]

Personally I find the fact that schools in the UK (one of only a couple of countries in Europe I believe) force pupils to wear a uniform 'oppressive'.
And that is on a much larger scale!

I disagree, uniforms serve a different purpose. They exist in adult life too. They create brand, identity, separate work from play and level kids irrelevant of wealth. Take a rich kid and a poor kid and dress them for school. There is much less scope for displays of wealth if we all wear the same.

 

[sodthisforfun]

To ask such questions is pointless, and do not deserve an answer.

So you are telling my my questions are pointless and don't deserve answers? Why do you think you are in charge of who's questions are valid?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

So you are telling my my questions are pointless and don't deserve answers?

What do you think of your question: "Can I ask, those women who say they wish to wear burkas, have they simply been 'conditioned'?"
If you meant socialised, we have all been socialised. It is the way we fit into society. It determines our behaviour and contribution to that society.
We make society and society makes us.

 

[ellal]

I disagree, uniforms serve a different purpose. They exist in adult life too. They create brand, identity, separate work from play and level kids irrelevant of wealth. Take a rich kid and a poor kid and dress them for school. There is much less scope for displays of wealth if we all wear the same.

Well if that's the case then maybe we ought to buy up the second hand Chaiman Mao suits that the Chinese appear to have now discarded!

So maybe you ought to ask yourself this...

Of all those 'entrepeneurs' who have succeeded, how many were individuals/mavericks?
And how many of those telling you what to do/ruling your life wear a 'uniform'?

But thank you anyway for confirming that the 'purpose' behind uniforms is simply a 'conditioning' towards a subserviant lifestyle!
(I've only worn a suit once in the last 35 years, and am envied by most of my friends/family for that!)

 

[sodthisforfun]

What do you think of your question: "Can I ask, those women who say they wish to wear burkas, have they simply been 'conditioned'?"
If you meant socialised, we have all been socialised. It is the way we fit into society. It determines our behaviour and contribution to that society.
We make society and society makes us.

I used the same term as Ellal used to me about school uniforms.

So the women wearing burkas have been conditioned? Is that a good thing I wonder... and if the women wearing burkas fit into Western society, considering we are 'socialised' differently.

 

[EFLImpudence]

BUT - would it be acceptable to say that a uniform look silly (if it does - Greek Soldiers, anyone?) and liken them to an everyday object or another person wearing something that looks like it?

Also, I presume no one thinks a letter box is something to be offended by so is it just the 'bank robber' reference that has upset everyone (assuming lots are offended)?

 

[sodthisforfun]

BUT - would it be acceptable to say that a uniform look silly (if it does - Greek Soldiers, anyone?) and liken them to an everyday object or another person wearing something that looks like it?

Also, I presume no one thinks a letter box is something to be offended by so is it just the 'bank robber' reference that has upset everyone (assuming lots are offended)?

Well, Cressida Dick said no laws have been broken by comparing uniforms to other items..... I guess people will just have to settle in being offended.

 

[ellal]

and if the women wearing burkas fit into Western society, considering we are 'socialised' differently.

I refer you to an earlier post

I disagree, uniforms serve a different purpose. They exist in adult life too. They create brand, identity, separate work from play and level kids irrelevant of wealth. Take a rich kid and a poor kid and dress them for school. There is much less scope for displays of wealth if we all wear the same.

'socialised' differently indeed, but still oppressed!
(Well in the UK anyway as regards 'dress codes'* - although too many are oblivious of it!)


*notchy anti-uk post alert

 

[ellal]

Well, Cressida Dick said no laws have been broken by comparing uniforms to other items..... I guess people will just have to settle in being offended.

She said something similar about a Brazilian electrician and multiple headshots - look how 'offensive' that turned out