Burkas are not evil! They're quite soft and fuzzy, actually.:P Why ban attire? It is a free country, no? What if we banned bikinis? Or fuzzy sweaters? Isn't it taking the individual's right to choose their own attire away??

when was the last time you saw a bank raid by burly men wearing bikinis :laugh3:

Before you started picking apart my every word in an attempt to cloud the issue, my point was that you focus on 'name calling' in a desperate attempt to avoid the actual debate.

 

In your overly pedantic Rules of Debating, we're both guilty of getting 'personal', to re-iterate, the point of the debate is more important. I rarely bring up when you get personal, but towards the end of any debate we ever have, you always bring out that card when you've got nothing left to say.

 

I could just as easily argue that you "get personal" when you've got nothing left to say, or nothing to say in the first place.

And if you don't want "debates" to be clouded by discussions about personal remarks, then I suggest you desist from making them.

when was the last time you saw a bank raid by burly men wearing bikinis :laugh3:

 

Well of course, bikinis are banned in countries like Saudi Arabia, so it's pretty much a certainty it wouldn't happen there.:rolleyes:

I could just as easily argue that you "get personal" when you've got nothing left to say, or nothing to say in the first place.

 

Now this is making no sense whatsoever, I quoted my first post which wasn't abusive, or even personal (Because it was written at the article and not you)- but because it was 'facetious' it should somehow be disregarded?

 

And if you don't want "debates" to be clouded by discussions about personal remarks, then I suggest you desist from making them.

 

I think you are over-sensitive and pedantic when it comes to what is 'personal'. Technically, that last sentence is personal, and so is this, there's no need to allow it to run the entire debate.

 

It's your opinion that my original post was 'facetious', which means you are giving yourself a licence to disregard my points. I don't need to resort to that.

Now this is making no sense whatsoever, I quoted my first post which wasn't abusive, or even personal (Because it was written at the article and not you)- but because it was 'facetious' it should somehow be disregarded?

 

I am of the opinion you are being overly-pedantic here. I believe that being deliberately facetious devalues a comment in the same way being personal or abusive does.

 

I think you are over-sensitive and pedantic when it comes to what is 'personal'. Technically, that last sentence is personal, and so is this, there's no need to allow it to run the entire debate.

 

That's your opinion, but I've made my position clear regarding this, so whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you.

 

It's your opinion that my original post was 'facetious', which means you are giving yourself a licence to disregard my points. I don't need to resort to that.

 

And neither do I see any need in replying to such "facetiousness", as it's only likely to result in some kind of "slanging match" which achieves nothing whatsoever.

Hahah, obviously this piece of news is just propaganda to get the more uncritical of readers to be more paranoid of people wearing burkhas.

 

 

 

 

 

(So sue me for stating the obvious, but some people here still don't get it.)

Yes, Pai, that's a part of it. Not only is it an excuse for racists to rid of immigrant influence, but they can also spread their views to everyone else in an attempt to make society more paranoid of people wearing burkas.

 

I am of the opinion you are being overly-pedantic here. I believe that being deliberately facetious devalues a comment in the same way being personal or abusive does.

 

And neither do I see any need in replying to such "facetiousness", as it's only likely to result in some kind of "slanging match" which achieves nothing whatsoever.

 

What exactly was wrong with how I posted this:

 

This robbery clearly had nothing to do with the use of a burqa, it was in the suburbs, it took 10 minutes to carry out, it would have made no difference if they were wearing burqa's or bunny suits. As far as the burqa being less suspicious, it's irrelevant, they walked in the shop and pulled out pistols, being caught off guard makes no difference.

 

This robbery only proves Sarkozy's point in an incredibly vague and tedious way, yes it is indeed true that burqa's are perfect cover for a robbery or a terrorist attack, just like many other disguises that creative robbers will use.

 

And when did Sarkozy predict this major burqa crime-wave? I just looked it up, 22nd of June! 7 and a half months later we've had one burqa related robbery in which a massive 4 grand was stolen.

 

Unfortunately you're not in the House of Commons, and opinions written with a small bit of irony or sarcasm are expected on a messageboard. Because you take offence at the slightest sign of facetiousness doesn't devalue the point that has been made, it still stands strong:

 

My point, as made clear in the quote, that this incident happened in France, 7 and a half months after Sarkozy declared it a threat, which is in no doubt considered an extremely rare occurence. For this to be nationwide news and a possible nationwide ban, I completely disagree with.

 

Regardless of how it's written, that is a strong point, one which you couldn't possibly think of a reply to, so instead you ran everything off topic to the point where you now have to squabble over every 2nd word I write and leave out the actual valuable parts in my argument.

 

If I'm being 'personally offensive' to you, it doesn't matter, it may devalue my opinion to you but the opinion is still there. Personally, I couldn't care less if someone gets personal in an argument, I wouldn't care if after every one of your inane points of view, you'd finished the sentence with "-you hear that you fucking asshole?" because I'm smart enough to read past that and actually counter the point made.

 

Now that I've started to behave when making my opinions clear, it's not as easy for you to just say "Reilly's swearing therefore he's irrelevant" so now have to resort to focussing on "facetiousness"?!

 

Getting personal does nothing to contribute to a debate, but what you don't understand is that it also doesn't negate the legitimacy of clear opinions. Pointless? Yes. Does it devalue the points and opinions made? No. So stop hiding behind that excuse.

 

My point, as made clear in the quote, that this incident happened in France, 7 and a half months after Sarkozy declared it a threat, which is in no doubt considered an extremely rare occurence. For this to be nationwide news and a possible nationwide ban, I completely disagree with.

 

 

You may well do, but you are going to have to accept it is nationwide news, and a ban might ensue, whether you like it or not.

I meant "react" in terms of raising the alarm (e.g. panic button). Those few seconds could make all the difference.

 

And you think someone who was calculated enough or desperate enough to do an armed robbery wouldn't consider shooting the person who pressed the button.

You may well do, but you are going to have to accept it is nationwide news, and a ban might ensue, whether you like it or not.

 

This is what's frustrating about having a debate, you push what I say into extremities. There's a difference between acceptance and agreement, you push the two into one. In the same way when I say that something 'shouldn't' happen, you think, because I'm saying it, that I'm trying to decide what happens, I am simply disagreeing.

 

That was an absolutely pointless post, all you have done here is removed your own opinion and once again, hidden behind the attitude of others. The naivety you show in your faith and belief that because a small number of right wing lobbyists in France make an issue that is taken up by a right wing corrupt paper in Britain, it's suddenly justified despite the numbers not adding up.

 

The point of whether or not it's nationwide news, or whether or not it is indeed enforced doesn't matter, you backed it, you agreed with it, and I'm disagreeing with your opinions.

And you think someone who was calculated enough or desperate enough to do an armed robbery wouldn't consider shooting the person who pressed the button.

 

They may not know which employee has actually pressed the button, and even then, they might be more interested in getting away before the armed police arrive rather than shooting people just for the sake of it, which would only make matters worse for them anyway.;)

Mark you fail completely to account for adrenaline in that statement. Obviously if you have a gun in your hand and need to get away, and the whole fight or flight thing, quick decisions to be made... one can be shot!

Mark you fail completely to account for adrenaline in that statement. Obviously if you have a gun in your hand and need to get away, and the whole fight or flight thing, quick decisions to be made... one can be shot!

 

It's always possible to be shot, but most robbers would still be far more focused on self-preservation than shooting people unnecessarily. Of course, if someone was foolish enough to actually "tackle" them, it might be a different story.

They may not know which employee has actually pressed the button, and even then, they might be more interested in getting away before the armed police arrive rather than shooting people just for the sake of it, which would only make matters worse for them anyway.;)

 

They should roll Heat style:cool:

 

There's an idea maybe they should remake Heat and Rober De Nero and Val Kilmer can go into the bank wearing Burkas!

Good idea! Maybe Quentin Tarantino's already working on it.

Working title "The Burkha Job".

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

However, they could use anyone for the robbery scene, as you wouldn't be able to see their faces anyway!:P

 

They should roll Heat style:cool:

 

THere's an idea maybe they should remake Heat and Rober De Nerdo and Val Kilmer can go into the bank wearing Burkas!

Good idea! Maybe Quentin Tarantino's already working on it.

Working title "The Burkha Job".

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

However, they could use anyone for the robbery scene, as you wouldn't be able to see their faces anyway!:P

 

Er Heat was Micheal Mann not Tarantino:P

Er Heat was Micheal Mann not Tarantino:P

 

I knew Tarantino hadn't directed it, but I thought this movie should be more of a "spoof".:lol: