Quote: chipolata @ May 4 2010, 3:29 PM BSTTechnically a teabagger is a man who dips his testicles into another man's mouth, so unless you know something we don't he could still be a TBer.
So that's what it means.
*innocent Lucas*
Ban the Burka? Page 17
Quote: sootyj @ May 4 2010, 1:58 PM BSTOk then crash helmets, limited access to dnagerous/addictive medications, guardianship for under 16s.
Or do you smile at homeless drug addicts and think "hmm keep going with that free chocie."
Crash helmets I don't care about, except that it's selfish to splatter yourself all over the road and inconvenience others. Laws for children protect those either too young to make informed choices or too easily led by the unscrupulous. There's two very important words at play in a lot of cases - INFORMED CONSENT.
As for drug addicts, society easily has the resources to look after the few f**k-ups like that and supply them with clean drugs if we cared enough instead of vicitmising them for having that condition. It's just that any time somebody suggests a more effective, cheaper way of dealing with drug problems/crime which invoolves caring for people and supplying them with safe drugs, the Daily Mail etc. get all up in arms about it because it dooesn't involve stringing them up.
Quote: sootyj @ May 4 2010, 1:58 PM BSTThe veil it's self is the tip of the iceberg which is Izzit. The concept that a woman is the helpless subject of her families honour. In which her male relatives choose for her, inherit on her behalf, it's insidious and hugely destructive.
It's not even that popular a view point in the Muslim world. And one not shared by many other faiths. To wear the veil is to symbolise so much more than not showing your face.
Not arguing there. Just pointing out that all it does is symbolise it. Removing the veil will do absolutely nothing to change the attitidues behind it. Do you really think that the majority of veil wearers would feel any less oppressed by their husbands/brothers/fathers/uncles just because their face was no longer covered?
Quote: DaButt @ May 4 2010, 2:50 PM BSTImagine that - the (failed) Times Square bomber is a Muslim and not a white "teabagger" as so many had hoped. The South Park connection seems more likely now.
And just imagine how much quicker they'd have caught him if they'd had the sense to ban the veil! 
Quote: Afinkawan @ May 4 2010, 4:05 PM BSTDo you really think that the majority of veil wearers would feel any less oppressed by their husbands/brothers/fathers/uncles just because their face was no longer covered?
Yes I suppose I would. or at least if they had been allowed freedom not to where it upto maybe 16 to have had more of a typical childhood. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes seek to break down the will of the individual and an enforced uniform is a very, very powerful tool. Make some one feel excluded outside their faith group from an early age and you have them for life.
Quote: sootyj @ May 4 2010, 4:17 PM BSTYes I suppose I would. or at least if they had been allowed freedom not to where it upto maybe 16 to have had more of a typical childhood. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes seek to break down the will of the individual and an enforced uniform is a very, very powerful tool. Make some one feel excluded outside their faith group from an early age and you have them for life.
Quote: Afinkawan @ May 4 2010, 4:05 PM BSTCrash helmets I don't care about, except that it's selfish to splatter yourself all over the road and inconvenience others. Laws for children protect those either too young to make informed choices or too easily led by the unscrupulous. There's two very important words at play in a lot of cases - INFORMED CONSENT.
Informed consent is the ideal but it's also finite. Drugs are banned precisley because not everyone can make an informed choice there without succumbing to peer pressure etc.
Maybe I'm just more in tune with friends who got screwed over by religions and indoctrinated. But the first thing any fundamentalist faith will do is cripple your ability to make choices for yourself. Making a choice is not an expression of freedom.
Quote: DaButt @ May 4 2010, 2:50 PM BSTImagine that - the (failed) Times Square bomber is a Muslim and not a white "teabagger"
Surely he could also have been a non-white non-Muslim? Or a white Muslim?
Richard Reed was mixed race Caribean
and in the 70s Japanese Red Army, PLO, Baader Meinhoff etc would carry out operations for each other to confuse the security services.
Richard Reed was mixed race Caribean
and in the 70s Japanese Red Army, PLO, Baader Meinhoff etc would carry out operations for each other to confuse the security services.
The most pointless activity whilst wearing Burkhas?
Family photographs.
They can still see which is which from the height.
"if you are not gonna smile we are just gonna go home!"
Quote: zooo @ May 4 2010, 4:44 PM BSTThey can still see which is which from the height.
That was definitely the best of a bad bunch... I even scrolled through loads.
Someone is missing a comedy trick here.
It does sound odd that anyone should find his pants to be 'threatening'.
Quote: Nogget @ May 4 2010, 5:12 PM BSTIt does sound odd that anyone should find his pants to be 'threatening'.
"Threatening to fall down any second now."
Quote: Nogget @ May 4 2010, 5:12 PM BSTIt does sound odd that anyone should find his pants to be 'threatening'.
I find them very, very stupid though. Why, on earth, do people wear them like that?! I can only conclude that they are a bit stupid.
Quote: zooo @ May 4 2010, 4:44 PM BSTThey can still see which is which from the height.
What if one's stnading on a box?