Australian Politics Forum - The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 99060	Re: The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy Reply #90 - Aug 31^st, 2018 at 2:37pm We always ask FD about his position. For some reason, he won't say.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51509
At my desk.

Re: The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy
Reply #91 - Sep 1^st, 2018 at 1:02am

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31^st, 2018 at 1:04pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2018 at 12:44pm:

If you are going to rant about my inability to justify my position, don't you think you ought to ask me to justify my position first?

No. The coherency and legitimacy of your own arguments are entirely dependent on whether or not you can offer an adequate rationale and justification for them - not on whether or not I ask you to justify them.

Yes, but don't you think you should hear them first before ranting about how inadequate they are?

Quote:

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2018 at 12:44pm:

Because it might intimidate witnesses to have masked people in the gallery.

a completely irrational and baseless proposition. You may as well say the same for people who turn up with red ties or sunglasses. No wonder you felt the need to draw a moral equivalency with the KKK and run with some ridiculous political activism angle before.

Isn't it the same justification used by a judge in Australia recently?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 53247
Gender: male

Re: The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy
Reply #92 - Sep 1^st, 2018 at 9:22am

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31^st, 2018 at 11:12am:

freediver wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 5:58pm:

Quote:

You support banning the burqa. That doesn't mean a nationwide ban, I never said it did.

Would you agree that it is misleading to accuse someone of supporting a ban on something when it only applies in the context of a courtroom?

The question is, why would it only apply to a courtroom? There is no reason why the incoherent flailings that passes for your justifications wouldn't equally apply to any number of other settings. Its not like you have said anything that is unique to a courtroom - only have the right to sit down and shut up, it could be mistaken for political activism and whatever other incoherent thought bubbles you come up with - not only do they not justify a ban in a courtroom (a burqa clad woman can sit down and shut up with a burqa, can be non-political-activist while wearing a burqa), these anti-freedom principles you allude to are in no way restricted to a courtroom setting. I've asked you many times what other settings you would support dictating to women what they can and can't wear. You never responded. Presumably if you can support this ban with such a vague and incoherent justification - you would support others. It seems to me the justification is secondary to the principle of banning for the sake of banning.

Either way, lets settle with you support banning the burqa - without any reasonable justification.

This not about 'dictating to women wht to wear', bozo.
It's about not hiding their faces.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy
Reply #93 - Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 9:12am

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2018 at 1:02am:

Yes, but don't you think you should hear them first before ranting about how inadequate they are?

I have heard them FD - the irrational and baseless notion that somehow a veiled woman "might intimidate witnesses". Thats the latest shortened version. The longer version is that a woman sitting in the gallery to support her husband in the dress she wears wherever she goes - is literally equivalent (or worse) to a KKK thug appearing in his hood at the back of a courtroom specifically in order to intimidate witnesses.

Either way its not merely an "inadequate" line of reasoning - its also utterly ridiculous - and really can only be explained by one thing - deep seated misogyny and, dare I say it, racism.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2018 at 1:02am:

Isn't it the same justification used by a judge in Australia recently?

Obviously I disagree with the judge too - but I'm not debating with her. Yet somehow I have serious doubts she would justify it by launching this outrageous misogynystic attack, depicting women as these sinister political activists that might intimidate witnesses - no different to a racist klansman turning up to the gallery in their hood.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51509 At my desk.	Re: The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy Reply #94 - Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 7:32pm Quote: Obviously I disagree with the judge too - but I'm not debating with her. Would you argue that the judge's argument was "a completely irrational and baseless proposition"?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy Reply #95 - Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 8:15pm I haven't heard her argument FD - have you? If it was anything like yours - which I'm pretty confident it isn't - then of course it would be completely irrational and baseless.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 53247
Gender: male

Re: The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy
Reply #96 - Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 10:17pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 9:12am:

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2018 at 1:02am:

Yes, but don't you think you should hear them first before ranting about how inadequate they are?

I have heard them FD - the irrational and baseless notion that somehow a veiled woman "might intimidate witnesses". Thats the latest shortened version. The longer version is that a woman sitting in the gallery to support her husband in the dress she wears wherever she goes - is literally equivalent (or worse) to a KKK thug appearing in his hood at the back of a courtroom specifically in order to intimidate witnesses.

Either way its not merely an "inadequate" line of reasoning - its also utterly ridiculous - and really can only be explained by one thing - deep seated misogyny and, dare I say it, racism.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2018 at 1:02am:

Isn't it the same justification used by a judge in Australia recently?

Obviously I disagree with the judge too - but I'm not debating with her. Yet somehow I have serious doubts she would justify it by launching this outrageous misogynystic attack, depicting women as these sinister political activists that might intimidate witnesses - no different to a racist klansman turning up to the gallery in their hood.

You are not in the blighted Middle East, bozo. Your Muslim norms are not universal and they certainly do not apply here.

This is a society that has set its face (!) against everything your oppressive, backward religion has stood for for 1400 years. Don't try to universalise your primitive superstitions, pal. And certainly do not try to make it out that the West OWES you respect or recognition for your backwardness and primitivism.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 99060

Re: The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy
Reply #97 - Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 10:26pm

Frank wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 10:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 9:12am:

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2018 at 1:02am:

Yes, but don't you think you should hear them first before ranting about how inadequate they are?

I have heard them FD - the irrational and baseless notion that somehow a veiled woman "might intimidate witnesses". Thats the latest shortened version. The longer version is that a woman sitting in the gallery to support her husband in the dress she wears wherever she goes - is literally equivalent (or worse) to a KKK thug appearing in his hood at the back of a courtroom specifically in order to intimidate witnesses.

Either way its not merely an "inadequate" line of reasoning - its also utterly ridiculous - and really can only be explained by one thing - deep seated misogyny and, dare I say it, racism.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2018 at 1:02am:

Isn't it the same justification used by a judge in Australia recently?

Obviously I disagree with the judge too - but I'm not debating with her. Yet somehow I have serious doubts she would justify it by launching this outrageous misogynystic attack, depicting women as these sinister political activists that might intimidate witnesses - no different to a racist klansman turning up to the gallery in their hood.

You are not in the blighted Middle East, bozo. Your Muslim norms are not universal and they certainly do not apply here.

This is a society that has set its face (!) against everything your oppressive, backward religion has stood for for 1400 years. Don't try to universalise your primitive superstitions, pal. And certainly do not try to make it out that the West OWES you respect or recognition for your backwardness and primitivism.

And yet, the old boy won't even support a burqa ban, he simply won't hear of it.

Yes, the old boy may not agree with what you have to say, G, but he'll fight to the death for your right to say it.

What a great guy. He even disagrees with himself.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51509 At my desk.	Re: The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy Reply #98 - Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 10:28pm polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 8:15pm: I haven't heard her argument FD - have you? If it was anything like yours - which I'm pretty confident it isn't - then of course it would be completely irrational and baseless. From memory, it was the risk of intimidating witnesses.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 53247
Gender: male

Re: The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy
Reply #99 - Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 11:57pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 10:26pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 10:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 9:12am:

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2018 at 1:02am:

Yes, but don't you think you should hear them first before ranting about how inadequate they are?

I have heard them FD - the irrational and baseless notion that somehow a veiled woman "might intimidate witnesses". Thats the latest shortened version. The longer version is that a woman sitting in the gallery to support her husband in the dress she wears wherever she goes - is literally equivalent (or worse) to a KKK thug appearing in his hood at the back of a courtroom specifically in order to intimidate witnesses.

Either way its not merely an "inadequate" line of reasoning - its also utterly ridiculous - and really can only be explained by one thing - deep seated misogyny and, dare I say it, racism.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2018 at 1:02am:

Isn't it the same justification used by a judge in Australia recently?

Obviously I disagree with the judge too - but I'm not debating with her. Yet somehow I have serious doubts she would justify it by launching this outrageous misogynystic attack, depicting women as these sinister political activists that might intimidate witnesses - no different to a racist klansman turning up to the gallery in their hood.

You are not in the blighted Middle East, bozo. Your Muslim norms are not universal and they certainly do not apply here.

This is a society that has set its face (!) against everything your oppressive, backward religion has stood for for 1400 years. Don't try to universalise your primitive superstitions, pal. And certainly do not try to make it out that the West OWES you respect or recognition for your backwardness and primitivism.

And yet, the old boy won't even support a burqa ban, he simply won't hear of it.

Yes, the old boy may not agree with what you have to say, G, but he'll fight to the death for your right to say it.

What a great guy. He even disagrees with himself.

You eat too much shite, paki. Rots your mind.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 99060

Re: The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy
Reply #100 - Sep 4^th, 2018 at 8:31am

Frank wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 11:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 10:26pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 10:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 9:12am:

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2018 at 1:02am:

Yes, but don't you think you should hear them first before ranting about how inadequate they are?

I have heard them FD - the irrational and baseless notion that somehow a veiled woman "might intimidate witnesses". Thats the latest shortened version. The longer version is that a woman sitting in the gallery to support her husband in the dress she wears wherever she goes - is literally equivalent (or worse) to a KKK thug appearing in his hood at the back of a courtroom specifically in order to intimidate witnesses.

Either way its not merely an "inadequate" line of reasoning - its also utterly ridiculous - and really can only be explained by one thing - deep seated misogyny and, dare I say it, racism.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2018 at 1:02am:

Isn't it the same justification used by a judge in Australia recently?

Obviously I disagree with the judge too - but I'm not debating with her. Yet somehow I have serious doubts she would justify it by launching this outrageous misogynystic attack, depicting women as these sinister political activists that might intimidate witnesses - no different to a racist klansman turning up to the gallery in their hood.

You are not in the blighted Middle East, bozo. Your Muslim norms are not universal and they certainly do not apply here.

This is a society that has set its face (!) against everything your oppressive, backward religion has stood for for 1400 years. Don't try to universalise your primitive superstitions, pal. And certainly do not try to make it out that the West OWES you respect or recognition for your backwardness and primitivism.

And yet, the old boy won't even support a burqa ban, he simply won't hear of it.

Yes, the old boy may not agree with what you have to say, G, but he'll fight to the death for your right to say it.

What a great guy. He even disagrees with himself.

You eat too much shite, paki. Rots your mind.

It's the polite thing to do, dear.

You keep offering.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy
Reply #101 - Sep 4^th, 2018 at 11:08am

freediver wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 10:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 8:15pm:

I haven't heard her argument FD - have you?

If it was anything like yours - which I'm pretty confident it isn't - then of course it would be completely irrational and baseless.

From memory, it was the risk of intimidating witnesses.

Incorrect.

He doesn't mention witnesses and only gives some vague waffle that could mean anything and nothing:

Quote:

Justice Christopher Beale ruled Supreme Court spectators must have their faces uncovered in order to prevent misbehaviour in the courtroom that could lead to the discharging of a jury.

Quote:

“Requiring spectators’ faces to be uncovered is, in my view, the least restrictive means of upholding court security,” Justice Beale said.

He seems to be under the impression that the risk of a courtroom riot is somehow reduced if he can see everyone's face.

But gee what a surprise that its yet again a man - dictating what women can and can't wear.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 53247
Gender: male

Re: The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy
Reply #102 - Sep 4^th, 2018 at 11:38am

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4^th, 2018 at 11:08am:

freediver wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 10:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 8:15pm:

I haven't heard her argument FD - have you?

If it was anything like yours - which I'm pretty confident it isn't - then of course it would be completely irrational and baseless.

From memory, it was the risk of intimidating witnesses.

Incorrect.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 99060	Re: The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy Reply #103 - Sep 4^th, 2018 at 11:43am polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4^th, 2018 at 11:08am: But gee what a surprise that its yet again a man - dictating what women can and can't wear. Yes, but FD stands up for tinted women's rights, G. This woman has the right to have her clothes chosen for her. Superior culture, innit.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51509
At my desk.

Re: The biggest threat to Freedom and democracy
Reply #104 - Sep 4^th, 2018 at 6:34pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4^th, 2018 at 11:08am:

freediver wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 10:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 8:15pm:

I haven't heard her argument FD - have you?

If it was anything like yours - which I'm pretty confident it isn't - then of course it would be completely irrational and baseless.

From memory, it was the risk of intimidating witnesses.

Incorrect.

He doesn't mention witnesses and only gives some vague waffle that could mean anything and nothing:

Quote:

Justice Christopher Beale ruled Supreme Court spectators must have their faces uncovered in order to prevent misbehaviour in the courtroom that could lead to the discharging of a jury.

Quote:

“Requiring spectators’ faces to be uncovered is, in my view, the least restrictive means of upholding court security,” Justice Beale said.

He seems to be under the impression that the risk of a courtroom riot is somehow reduced if he can see everyone's face.

But gee what a surprise that its yet again a man - dictating what women can and can't wear.

Are you suggesting the judge would allow men to wear masks in the court gallery?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged