Where is that formula, once again?

Submitted by Amin Riaz (United Kingdom), Apr 17, 2013 at 20:07

"Clearly I was using this as an example of how dress standards vary within a modern Western Society. Do you feel discriminated against if you are told you must not wear work boots in a private clubs dining room? You probably would, but normal people understand that in certain places there are norms that the greater public expect people to comply with."

Your analogy is poor and false - it doesn't work. There is a great difference between a private instituition and a government.

- - -

"Try and concentrate, I said the "Nazi Swastika" not the hindu symbol. They are demonstrably different. "

Not really - the modern depiction is often very same. It is a simple graphic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

- - -

"Actually your ignorance to the law does not mean certain things are not true. There are specific laws in German that prohibit displaying the "Nazi Swastika""

Swastika per se - for religious use is NOT banned in Germany.

Hence my previous comment:

"The Swastika is also a symbol of Hinduism. In that capacity - again - I doubt any Western government will ban it."

Is true. Your awkward attempt at manipulation is poor and wrong.

- - -

"Buy you comments I can see you do not understand how laws work, as a law has specific boundaries in a Western Society. Of course you can wear Police Like uniforms where there is no intention to deceive."

This is all a pretence and back-tracking. Your previous comments were "unqualified" - when I've find clear exceptions - to what you presented as absolutes - now you are back-tracking.

And then trying to make out - I don't understand how law works is just covering up.

- - -

"However, by way of am example, it is an offense in New South Wales Australia to any person to have in their possession a New South Wales Police Uniform, unless they are members of the NSW Police force and the Uniform has been issued to them."

I am sure it is. But this is a redundant.

- - -

"Again I was using this as an example where laws are enacted in relation to clothing. I understand this must be confusing for you but i am trying to educate you."

These are mere insults - and nothing more. People like you put in such superfluous comments for their ego.

- - -

"I think it is pretty clear your argument is idiotic, as there are Laws about how you drive, there are laws as to how you use knives and there are laws about guns, they all do kill and they all have laws. On NSW it is against the law to drive drunk, There are laws prohibiting the carrying of knives with very specific exceptions, and there are laws limiting gun ownership and usage."

Again back-tracking. Also you conveniently managed to side step that you have no stats . . for a bogus claim.

To cover this up - you resort to insult me . . . poor.

- - -

"What is your argument again?"

Knives, Guns, etc. are dangerous - but not banned. Pointing out that

Your argument was:

"Therefore, it is the right of a society to enact laws to protect the public, and the debate really how offensive, and how much does the burka contribute to crime verses the rights of a woman to wear it in public."

is silly - as you have no stats - and are calling for a possible ban on Burqa - out of hatred and nothing more. All you could was a feeble pointing out that there are laws about cars, guns and etc.

However - as dangerous as guns are - and their ONLY purpose is harm - yet are not outlawed in a country like USA. Whereas Burqa - is a piece of clothing.

As I pointed out in the last comment - all you had going was projection personal offence. Hence, why you repeated the word so often.

- - -

You forgot about the formula . . . might I suggest - if you have nothing really to say then avoid posting mere insults. Your choice . . .

---

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".