Boris

[Yafo]

You cannot be offended by Boris's comments without knowing why.

So I am prejudice and wrong? Really? I am wrong to be concerned about the welfare of oppressed women? Is that the same way you think those kids dancing were stupid? Well, I think you are prejudiced and wrong too.

As I just said:
Debate, education, moving forward. Not preaching to others that that very debate is harmful because we run the risk of offending.

Nothing wrong in having that debate.

Plenty wrong in making it inflammatory for political gain. If you can't or won't see that, then it is not debate, it is a force of opinion. Op ression.

 

[Yafo]

History.
Clue in that word.

And yes, people should be able to speak up. Such as in the cases of FGM and child marriages. These practices are harmful in any country. So is imprisoning women, attacking women, giving women lashes for not wearing a headscarf or dancing in a video.. If you think all of these practices that are oppressing women, and any other things that oppress others are not worth speaking up about then there is no talking to you.

For someone who goes on and on about racism and minorities and trying to protect them from abuse (quite rightly, I may add) you seem to be very selective on who you think should be protected.

Changing the goalposts, moving the argument. Known as a swerve.

Boris was wrong because of inflammatory comments, not about the discussion of any subject.

 

[Yafo]

Yes, if their practices are harming anyone.

What about child brides, forced marriages, FGM? All these things are part of a culture as well as face/head coverings. Do you think other countries should sit there like meek little mice and not say anything against such practices? Yes, you're correct in some respects about not trying to control what goes on in other countries and other cultures, but when does protecting children and women become less important than offending others

When things like that happen here, yes it is right to uphold our laws. I beieve there are laws in place for such things?

Whole different ballgame when it is elsewhere, and that is a totally different debate to this 1, which to remind you, was about unnecessary inflammatory language by Boris. If you want to discuss what we should do about elsewhere in the world, may I suggest you start a different thread?

Did Boris help or potentially risk the safety of certain people by his comments? To remind you, the subject is ok to discuss, but the 1 or 2 sentences that were added purely for political gain, at the expense of who ? Those very women and children you are concerned about.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Boris was wrong because of inflammatory comments, not about the discussion of any subject.

Then why were they inflammatory? Without understanding history and the oppression of coverings then they would be just like people saying nuns look like penguins. I am sure you agree that nobody seems to get up in arms about that comparison. Unless you're making this a racist or a inciting hatred type comment by Boris? If so, I disagree, and so did the Met police.

It's not swerving. It's debating and understanding the history.

 

[sodthisforfun]

I'm merely pointing out how hypocritical you are



Hmm...



I guess the clue is in there somewhere...

Unless of course you misunderstood your own post yet again

He seems to think that a, I oppress my family. Not true. Otherwise he's trying to compare an oppressive history of women who were to cover up head to toe to some bloke telling his daughter he doesn't like her clothes.
Pretty poor comparison and is trivialising. Bit like your school uniform.

 

[Yafo]

Then why were they inflammatory? Without understanding history and the oppression of coverings then they would be just like people saying nuns look like penguins. I am sure you agree that nobody seems to get up in arms about that comparison. Unless you're making this a racist or a inciting hatred type comment by Boris? If so, I disagree, and so did the Met police.

It's not swerving. It's debating and understanding the history.

The debate about the wearing of the item is fully acceptable.

Comparison to postboxes and bankrobbers did nothing to support a valid point did it. So, what was it included for? Getting the attention and support of people, like you, for political gain, and stoking racial issues.

It really is that simple.

 

[Yafo]

He seems to think that a, I oppress my family. Not true. Otherwise he's trying to compare an oppressive history of women who were to cover up head to toe to some bloke telling his daughter he doesn't like her clothes.
Pretty poor comparison and is trivialising. Bit like your school uniform.

Poor comparison, or poor understanding of op ression ?

 

[sodthisforfun]

The debate about the wearing of the item is fully acceptable.

Comparison to postboxes and bankrobbers did nothing to support a valid point did it. So, what was it included for? Getting the attention and support of people, like you, for political gain, and stoking racial issues.

It really is that simple.

So you DO think his comments was racist. Then I think you're wrong. So did the police.
So please, answer the question I put towards you the other day instead of repeating the same stuff. WHY is it racist or possibly stoking racial issues?

 

[ellal]

I'm sure that is only because your wife does not wear, for whatever reason, what you would think inappropriate?

Nope...

Any woman has a right to wear what she likes.
(even a burkha can be a turn on to some)

So, that involves drawing lines at different positions at different times.

Well if you have a teenage daughter and then question that stance, you obviously don't give a monkeys about the situations they could find themselves in today's world!

It shouldn't have to be, but that is the reality.

So what does that make you?

At a guess I'd be hard put to choose between naive and stupid - or maybe both!

 

[sodthisforfun]

Poor comparison, or poor understanding of op ression ?

Poor comparison and trivialising.

A dad telling his kid he doesn't like the clothes V a history of the oppressive clothing that can see women face lashes and/or imprisonment for not wearing or wearing correctly.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Nope...

Any woman has a right to wear what she likes.
(Even a burkha can be a turn on to some)


Well if you have a teenage daughter and then question that stance, you obviously don't give a monkeys about the situations they could find themselves in today's world!

It shouldn't have to be, but that is the reality.

So what does that make you?

At a guess I'd be hard put to choose between naive and stupid - or maybe both!

And more insults.
You could try getting your opinion over without insulting people. Try it sometime.

 

[Yafo]

So you DO think his comments was racist. Then I think you're wrong. So did the police.
So please, answer the question I put towards you the other day instead of repeating the same stuff. WHY is it racist or possibly stoking racial issues?

I really can't dumb it down any more.

The debate is acceptable. Unnecessary use of language for political gain is not.

 

[Yafo]

Poor comparison and trivialising.

A dad telling his kid he doesn't like the clothes V a history of the oppressive clothing that can see women face lashes and/or imprisonment for not wearing or wearing correctly.

Then you do not understand op ression.

 

[ellal]

And more insults.
You could try getting your opinion over without insulting people. Try it sometime.

Oh how you make me laugh...

How about you start to answer points/questions put to you?

'Try it sometime'...

You might even begin to work out what you actually think, not what you think 'others' want to hear!
(a long shot I realise )

 

[sodthisforfun]

I really can't dumb it down any more.

The debate is acceptable. Unnecessary use of language for political gain is not.

Still not answering the question.
Why is it racist? Why do you think so when others do not, including the police and law?
It's obviously your point of view so I'd like you to explain how you come to that point of view.