Burqa Controversy brews up in Australia.

[mazHur]

Your English is nonsensical and incoherent. Please do yourself, and everyone else, a favor and actually pay attention to the things that you type if you want to be taken seriously.

I am looking for a lady grammarian to edit my mails....so that .......can understand me more clearly!

 

[mazHur]

Actually, I've been told that I am very articulate and artful in how I choose to word my statements. That doesn't always shine through around here because I'm often in a hurry to say what I need to say. But if you were to take a poll from everyone here, I'm sure that the overwhelming majority would agree with my claim that your English skills leave a lot to be desired.

you seem to be from the Victorian age...full of grammar shit and syntax poop....

am glad my English is giving you nightmares!!

 

[retro]

I am looking for a lady grammarian to edit my mails....so that .......can understand me more clearly!

The defense rests your honor

 

[mazHur]

Well I'm glad that I'm keeping you in shape... now keep dancing for me puppet.

I actually have danced with a girl before, how about you? I'm not entirely certain what that question has to do with anything, but hey. Oh, and why is it okay for you to ask personal questions of me, but you were offended when I supposedly asked them of you? Seems awfully hypocritical to me....

what a puerile response from a braggart!!

 

[mazHur]

The defense rests your honor

and Offense yours!

 

[retro]

you seem to be from the Victorian age...full of grammar shit and syntax poop....

am glad my English is giving you nightmares!!

Syntax poop? Wow, that's... a very special comparison. By special I mean, well I'm sure you can figure out what I mean. Also, the more prevalent issues with Victorian era English had to do with punctuation. Though the syntaxes and grammar of the day left something to be desired as well.

You flatter yourself... your English doesn't give me nightmares, in fact I don't think about you unless I happen to be reading another one of your nonsensical posts.

I also love the fact that I have completely distracted you from the purpose of your thread. Then again, I already got you to admit that governments should have the right to enact laws that "discriminate" against certain religions.

 

[retro]

what a puerile response from a braggart!!

Oh no, you're pulling out the obscure words now, whatever will I do. I find it very amusing how you refuse to respond to the fact that I pointed out yet another one of you hypocrisies.

 

[retro]

and Offense yours!

:clap

That may have been one of the most ridiculous statements you've made thus far.

 

[mazHur]

Syntax poop? Wow, that's... a very special comparison. By special I mean, well I'm sure you can figure out what I mean. Also, the more prevalent issues with Victorian era English had to do with punctuation. Though the syntaxes and grammar of the day left something to be desired as well.

You flatter yourself... your English doesn't give me nightmares, in fact I don't think about you unless I happen to be reading another one of your nonsensical posts.

I also love the fact that I have completely distracted you from the purpose of your thread.

if you spent your energies in your studies you could become yet another think tank .... like the captain of
the Titanic!





Then again, I already got you to admit that governments should have the right to enact laws that "discriminate" against certain religions.

that was just an opinion....but it is true that many govts cannot go beyond their Constitutions.

.........

 

[mazHur]

Oh no, you're pulling out the obscure words now, whatever will I do. I find it very amusing how you refuse to respond to the fact that I pointed out yet another one of you hypocrisies.

I am amused..

 

[retro]

if you spent your energies in your studies you could become yet another think tank .... like the captain of the Titanic!

.........

Yes, because that makes perfect sense.I had no idea that the Captain of the Titanic was an organization or individual that conducts research and engages in advocacy in areas such as social policy, political strategy, economy, science or technology issues, industrial or business policies, or military advice.

Geez dude, if you're going to insult me, at least try and use something that makes even an modicum of sense.

Also, please learn to use quotes properly.

 

[retro]

I am amused..

I'm glad that your hypocrisy amuses you.

So back to the whole point of this thread. Is it acceptable for governments to enact laws that "discriminate" against certain religions? Such as the burqa controversy in Australia. Does Australia have the right to ban the burqa from being worn in public? Remember now, you've already claimed that Egypt has the right to discriminate against Christians. So choose your response carefully.

 

[mazHur]

you do seem to have nightmares!

 

[retro]

you do seem to have nightmares!

Are you going to answer my question? You were so keen on getting back to the original purpose of this thread, but not you're not willing to? Come on. Is it because you can't respond now that you've agreed that Australia has the right to ban the burqa? Or are you going to claim that it's okay for Muslim countries to discriminate but not for "western" countries?

 

[mazHur]

Are you going to answer my question? You were so keen on getting back to the original purpose of this thread, but not you're not willing to? Come on. Is it because you can't respond now that you've agreed that Australia has the right to ban the burqa? Or are you going to claim that it's okay for Muslim countries to discriminate but not for "western" countries?

I did not mean to say that.
Do you agree or don't with the fact that NO govt can go beyond its constitution??
Examine the Burqa or any other situation in that context and stop making silly and
circuitous deductions to win over.

 

[sexysadie]

:clap

That may have been one of the most ridiculous statements you've made thus far.

I think that your rudeness is uncalled for doll, just because he doesn't speak english as well as you do from what I can tell doesn't make him even half as ignorant.

 

[retro]

I did not mean to say that.
Do you agree or don't with the fact that NO govt can go beyond its constitution??
Examine the Burqa or any other situation in that context and stop making silly and
circuitous deductions to win over.

No government should be allowed to enact laws that are in violation of their own Constitution or other governing documents. However, as far as I am aware, banning the burqa in no way violates the Australian Constitution. The closest would be Section 116 of Chapter V, which forbids the Commonwealth from making any law for the establishment of a religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the exercise of a religion, or religious discrimination for public office.

However, the burqa isn't a religious device per se; it just happens to be worn most prominently by female members of the Muslim faith. There are female Muslims all over the world that do not wear a burqa, so you can't claim that it is a religious device.

So, does Australia have the right to ban the burqa? We've already established that it isn't a situation of religious freedom, so shouldn't it be permissible? You can call it discrimination, but ultimately, all it's doing is banning an outfit that could be construed as a potential security threat, because you cannot identify the person that is wearing it.

In addition, I love how you're just going back and claiming that you didn't mean what you said earlier. So then it isn't okay for Muslim countries to discriminate against Christians?

 

[retro]

I think that your rudeness is uncalled for doll, just because he doesn't speak english as well as you do from what I can tell doesn't make him even half as ignorant.

So you're calling me ignorant because I refuse to let him get away with the nonsensical things that he says? Or perhaps I simply misread what you meant and you didn't actually call me ignorant.

I'm a very blunt person, and anyone that has seen me post around here would know that. I call things the way that they are. I gave him the option of admitting that English wasn't his first language, and now he's claiming that his ability to textually express in the language is superior to anyone else's. There may be a fine line between rudeness and bluntness, with a large portion of overlap. But in this context, I've merely decided to respond in the same manner that I've been treated. Call it childish, call it whatever you want, but I don't put up with wannabe internet bullies that think they're better than anyone else. I cut them down to size.

Call me what you will, but I'm about the furthest thing there is on this planet from ignorant. If anything, I'm arrogant because I'm fairly widely versed in a number of different subjects, and if I'm not, I take the time to research and find out more about the subject.

It isn't my fault that he has chosen to express himself in meaningless fashion. He has chosen to use idioms that don't make any sense in the context. He has chosen to act as though he and his opinions are more important than anyone else's. So I called him on it. Nothing wrong with that, simply making him dance.

 

[sexysadie]

So you're calling me ignorant because I refuse to let him get away with the nonsensical things that he says? Or perhaps I simply misread what you meant and you didn't actually call me ignorant.

I'm a very blunt person, and anyone that has seen me post around here would know that. I call things the way that they are. I gave him the option of admitting that English wasn't his first language, and now he's claiming that his ability to textually express in the language is superior to anyone else's. There may be a fine line between rudeness and bluntness, with a large portion of overlap. But in this context, I've merely decided to respond in the same manner that I've been treated. Call it childish, call it whatever you want, but I don't put up with wannabe internet bullies that think they're better than anyone else. I cut them down to size.

Call me what you will, but I'm about the furthest thing there is on this planet from ignorant. If anything, I'm arrogant because I'm fairly widely versed in a number of different subjects, and if I'm not, I take the time to research and find out more about the subject.

It isn't my fault that he has chosen to express himself in meaningless fashion. He has chosen to use idioms that don't make any sense in the context. He has chosen to act as though he and his opinions are more important than anyone else's. So I called him on it. Nothing wrong with that, simply making him dance.

I have no idea really about how you rate in the ignorance department but you sure are angry? Question is, who are you angry with......??? I wouldn't normally say anything here, but lately, I'm seeing so much of this bullshit going on that it's beginning to make me literally sick. I think you should re-read your posts and then look up the word bully in the dictionary. While I appreciate anybody with the ability and the balls to speak up I'd appreciate it even more if you wouldn't get it confused with verbal abiuse.

 

[retro]

I have no idea really about how you rate in the ignorance department but you sure are angry? Question is, who are you angry with......??? I wouldn't normally say anything here, but lately, I'm seeing so much of this bullshit going on that it's beginning to make me literally sick. I think you should re-read your posts and then look up the word bully in the dictionary. While I appreciate anybody with the ability and the balls to speak up I'd appreciate it even more if you wouldn't get it confused with verbal abiuse.

I'm actually about the furthest thing from angry there is. I'm very calm when I have these types of discussions, anger doesn't get you anywhere.

Call me a bully if you feel like it, it quite frankly doesn't really matter to me. I don't sit back and let people take shots at me. If they can dish it out, then they'd better be able to take it. I call things the way that they are... which hardly equates out to verbal abuse. I'm very calm and calculating in what I say and how I say it in order to get my point across. I call people what they are. mazHur decided to lie in this thread. I called him on it. He also decided to say one thing in this thread when he said something entirely different in another... as such I called him a hypocrite. I don't say things that aren't true given the circumstance. Like I said, I'm very blunt and to the point. I don't pull punches, and I don't worry about hurting people's feelings in a debate, which is what this is. It's very simple, if you (collective you) don't want to have your lies and hypocrisies pointed out, then don't say them in the first place.

I took shots at his English typing abilities because quite frankly, they leave a whole lot to be desired. He uses idioms that don't make sense given the context, he has very poor grammar, and has a very strong tendency to post very incoherent statements. The problem I have with that is the fact that he chose to act as though his pathetic grammar was "only readable by a Ph.D", and superior to everyone else's.

The only things that I have said about mazHur as near as I can tell are the following:

1) I called him a liar, because he lied in this thread
2) I called him a hypocrite, because he said one thing here and something else entirely in another thread
3) I said he was acting like a petulant child, because he was.

When presented by an argument that he cannot refute, he resorts to ad hominem attacks, which are logical fallacies. He can't refute what I'm saying, so he attacks me as a person. If you go back and look at this thread, you will see numerous instances of this. However, you will not see me backing down from his arguments anywhere to act in the same manner as far as I am aware. If there are instances of this, I'll own up to them, but I don't believe that there are.

But that all being said, there's not really any point in discussing this any further at this juncture.