Originally posted by Robtard
News to me. Hilarious though.Anyone,
Speaking of, is there a way to find out who has 'you' on ignore?
Nope, don't think so. I know noone has me on ignore, because I'm a mod, and I don't think you can ignore a mod. Try and let me know.
Originally posted by WhoopeeDee
ONLY if YOU take me.Oh, heck! Why don't you just come down here to SD?
(Okay, seriously I made this waaaay off topic. I'm cutting back)
lots of luvs. 😉
Originally posted by MildPossession
I made a diving board comment and it is not ridiculous at all, it's common sense and it's looked at in rules and regulations. You will find in most places, loose clothing is not to be worn when on diving boards. A burkini is loose.It was another example of why not to wear loose material in a swimming pool.
You will find a lot of indoor water areas around the world will not allow loose material.
I've worked at several and that has not been the case...
I'm sure laws may be different, but I'd question the claim that it is unsafe
Originally posted by inimalist
jesus ****ing christ, this issue isn't that some afghani woman wanted to see less **** at the poolthe issue is that a French citizen wanted to wear what, and yes the hygiene argument is preposterous, was a perfectly acceptable swimsuit, and was not allowed for some reason.
[b]READ THE ****ING ARTICLE PLEASE
[/B]
I know, It just annoys me that its always some religious folk who have to moan about something, whether its a heads carve being banned in schools or this swimsuit. If an owner of a shop or a pool doesn´t want someone doing or wearing certain things on their property for whatever reason then that´s up to them, and if someone aint happy they should go somewhere else.
The whole thing is daft, but caused initially by someone because of their religion wanting to be different.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
I know, It just annoys me that its always some religious folk who have to moan about something, whether its a heads carve being banned in schools or this swimsuit. If an owner of a shop or a pool doesn´t want someone doing or wearing certain things on their property for whatever reason then that´s up to them, and if someone aint happy they should go somewhere else.
when the owner of that shop is the state, we have seen where that line of thinking goes.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
The whole thing is daft, but caused initially by someone because of their religion wanting to be different.
which should totally be within their rights
That is evidently NOT so from a readng of the thread. The clear implication is that she is being unreasonably denied because of her religious dress.
Whereas the fact is she was very reasonaby denied by people following the law which they are required to do so. To be honest, that should be the end of the story, and all this talk about rights and relgious beliefs is entirely irrelevant.
So it is not even vaguely tautological, clumsy use of the word as that was from you. And your grounds for criticising the law are not impressive. You don't think it is a hygeine issue. I see no reason to believe that you are right and they are wrong.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
So it is not even vaguely tautological, clumsy use of te word as that was from you.
ummm, wut?
you are using the existence of the law to justify the behaviour caused by the law. It is an appropriate use of the word.
otherwise, ok, cool, go do what you are told and don't challenge things that flagrantly violate people's human rights. The law is good, and must never change.
/sigh
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You don't think it is a hygeine issue. I see no reason to believe that you are right and they are wrong.
describe the hygiene issue for me please
That's not even a vaguely appropriate use of the word, nor is it relevant to what I said. I rather worry about your abiltiy tro comprehend here.
It is not violating her rights any more than any dress code anywhere does. Does it violate a nudist's rights that you cannot go naked in public?
The only salient point is this- she was not denied ANYTHING simply because she was a Muslim. A non-Muslim in the same dress would have been equally denied. The entire furore is over her being a Muslim, and as that is irrelevant then the debate is irrelevant.
If you think the law needs changing, fine. But that has absolutely nothing to do with any issue of religious expression or freedom. None at all. It is down to nothing more than the French attitude to hygiene in public baths. If you want to make a thread 'The French hygiene laws are silly' then fine. That is not THIS thread. This thread has a clearly religious connotation, originating from an article where the woman concerned has claimed religious discrimination, which is the onyl reason this has become a noticable issue yet is clear nonsense.
Your final sentence about always following laws is simply a tiresome attack on me of no value.
A description of the hygiene laws is entirely irrelevant. The only relevant thing is that the French laws on what you can wear in public baths thetre are very specific, and the claimed reason for that is hygiene. It might be a good law or the basis might be nonsense- it is apparently a rather old law. You sikply saying it is nonsese does not makie it so. But it's still the law an until it is changed she has to follow it like everyone else does.
Regardless... the religious dimension is entirely irrelevant.
Honestly, you claiming that a law restricting what people can wear in a swimming pool is some kind of major attack on people's freedom of expression is rather ridiculous, doubly so when the honest justifcation for the law is a health and safety one., even if you think it is mistaken in so doing.
As I say, you wouldn't allow people to go nude. There's always restriction, and that is NOT an attack on freedom of expression. Or if you claim that it is literally so, then literal freedom of expression is not a desierable thing.
Finally, your claim that it is specifcally an attack on people's religious freedom of expression is particularly disturbing for two reasons. First, you are simply saying that to make the issue emotive, despite the fact that the law concerned has nothing to do with religion at all. Second, you are implying that because the desire is a religious one, it warrants more concern than any other desire. That is very wrong.