Response to Edward

Submitted by Straight_Talk_Luigi (United States), Jul 18, 2008 at 21:08

I always love it when bloggers reply to you formally at the start and then act smart:

See Mr/Mrs Straight_Talk_Luigi, i suspect that you submitted this article with the strong belief that the two reasons why someone's dress matters do make sence. I dont think so. Here is why.

1) Workplace safety. Who said neck ties dont get caught in machines?

They do, and it's probably why you don't see too many assemblers or lab workers wearing them or a dress code that forbids them for such work.

Anyway, incase you have any idea about employment law, an employer is required to ensure that ALL moving parts of machinery within a working environment are sufficiently fenced off to guarantee no physical contact between workers and machines.

I do, because I used to work in such an environment, and this is impossible to achieve.

Besides, who told you that every covered up muslim woman is going to work at whatever place there are moving parts? Do clothes get caught up in computers, car steering wheels, pens pencils and all? What did you want to mean?

So far, all I've heard is that women in the USA can wear hijab unless it endangers them. Feel free to provide counterexamples, but I wouldn't be surprised if you don't respond at all.

2) Voting. if you must look at someone's thighs and breasts to be able to identify them for voting purposes,

I was actually referring to the FACE, Edward.

i am afraid you ought to be behind bars for life because it does not need telling what your intentions are.

It's nice to know you think I am after sex, but believe me, I know how and where I can get a Muslim woman---or ANY woman---- for those services without waiting around for election day.

But anyway, for a fact, in an age where there are technologies that can identify a headless and legless person by merely a thumbprint, it shocks me that you had the nerve to suggest that you must see someone's body exposed to be able to identify them for voting.

One word: cost. Not in the interest of the nation-state. Besides, a lot of these rules also include nuns, but I don't hear you bickering about that? Funny how that is.

Or did you mean something else?

I think my replies speak for themselves. If you do respond to this, my advice is to cut the attitude and the false accusations (in some places, that's a crime) before you make a fool out of yourself.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".