81 replies to this topic

[katana.]

The definition of both suits are indeed way different, but if someone can wear a burka, why not a nazi suit?
There are people who don't have any problems with someone being in a nazi suit, the same with burkas.
And also otherwise, people will get mad if they see people with nazi suits and also burkas.

@ Katana,

It is a big thing because if you could wear what you want, the WW III will probably start soon.
If it would be legal to walk with a 'I hate black persons' shirt in a district full of black persons, imagine what will happen lol.

It comes down to people not having faith in mankind when it comes to burkas, and imo it borderlines racism. Just because you cant see a persons face in a supermarket doesnt make that person a threat, in fact, you should be relieved cause you know what it represents. But somehow people see it as a threat just because your afraid some lunatic is hiding bombs on his face. And again you compare burka's with something that spreads hate, i thought you'd get it by now but i guess i was wrong lol..

[KaSS]

But walking in the local supermarket would be fine?
Just checking the opinion of you guys.

Btw they are allowed to show there face in a bank but not in public? (by there religion)
getting confused lol.

It would be fine by me. it doesnt disturb me as i said


i donno what the religion says. But if theres a need to identify one(either been asked for an ID in banks/airports/even supermarkets/clubs/bars) i think one should uncover her/his face and the pictures on IDs/passports should be obviously taken with their faces uncovered otherwise it doesnt make sense. (i donno how it works or what the law says about it )

[Foxdie]

religions fucking retarded

[doctorfunk]

It comes down to people not having faith in mankind when it comes to burkas, and imo it borderlines racism.

*xenophobia

Btw i don't see why they should be privileged group in our society; if you let them wear burkas you should also let people wear clothes covering the face like ski masks or darth vader helmets - then it would be fair and np for me.

[KaSS]

The definition of both suits are indeed way different, but if someone can wear a burka, why not a nazi suit?
There are people who don't have any problems with someone being in a nazi suit, the same with burkas.
And also otherwise, people will get mad if they see people with nazi suits and also burkas.

@ Katana,

It is a big thing because if you could wear what you want, the WW III will probably start soon.
If it would be legal to walk with a 'I hate black persons' shirt in a district full of black persons, imagine what will happen lol.

i doubt its forbidden by the law but i guess u wouldnt have the balls to do it unless u got tons of kevlar under the shirt and a shotgun in ur hand. Well at least i wouldnt do that

[doctorfunk]

i doubt its forbidden by the law but i guess u wouldnt have the balls to do it unless u got tons of kevlar under the shirt and a shotgun in ur hand. Well at least i wouldnt do that

this kind of stuff is often banned in many countries like
nazi symbols are often banned- like nazi swastika in Germany, Poland and others

so wearing a t-shirt with swastika or some racist words could be illegal in many countries

[luminoKo]

i doubt its forbidden by the law but i guess u wouldnt have the balls to do it unless u got tons of kevlar under the shirt and a shotgun in ur hand. Well at least i wouldnt do that

Here it is, discrimination and disturbing the public

[KaSS]

*xenophobia

Btw i don't see why they should be privileged group in our society; if you let them wear burkas you should also let people wear clothes covering the face like ski masks or darth vader helmets - then it would be fair and np for me.

also nudity nazisigns and KKK should be allowed thebn to make it fair.

[KaSS]

lol really ? so i cant wear a blackperson t-shirt in leidseplein or west amsterdam for example ? lol its ridicilous

btw im giving my best to make it look dumb. i obviously understand and know what ya mean but still its ridicilous

Edited by KaSS, 10 February 2012 - 12:03 PM.

[Juul]

i doubt its forbidden by the law but i guess u wouldnt have the balls to do it unless u got tons of kevlar under the shirt and a shotgun in ur hand. Well at least i wouldnt do that

it is, racism is illegal. But what if a black guy walks in my street with ''i hate white people''. funny thought, cause i think he could walk a few blocks without getting hurt. Other way... we would die within 2 steps. Says allot about the nature of black people and white people.

[doctorfunk]

nazisigns and KKK should be allowed thebn to make it fair.

it is not the same thing;
because nazi/kkk symbols stand for philosophy that assumes jews/blacks/asians/ and many others are not valuable human beings.

also nudity

tbh i would mind both nudity and burkas in public; both for other reasons I think i'd rather allow nudity* if they weren't allowed to sit down in public places(other than beach) unless they had their sitting towels

it is, racism is illegal. But what if a black guy walks in my street with ''i hate white people''. funny thought, cause i think he could walk a few blocks without getting hurt. Other way... we would die within 2 steps. Says allot about the nature of black people and white people.

disagree, blacks were historically victims of racism in western world, so being racist towards white people is not socially delicate subject because it didn't happen on such as scale and with such social implications as the other way around.

[KaSS]

thats also true wojtek ;o

Edited by KaSS, 10 February 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[Juul]

disagree, blacks were historically victims of racism in western world, so being racist towards white people is not socially delicate subject because it didn't happen on such as scale and with such social implications as the other way around.

that is true



but these are illegal while i just want to protect my head ;s

[doctorfunk]

are they really illegal ;o ? Thought I seen a helmet like that in some photos of bikers convention or smth like that

[~ACER*]

disagree, blacks were historically victims of racism in western world, so being racist towards white people is not socially delicate subject because it didn't happen on such as scale and with such social implications as the other way around.

What juul said, does not happen by the old ppl but by the new ppl. They have nothing to do with what happend back then.

[doctorfunk]

What juul said, does not happen by the old ppl but by the new ppl. They have nothing to do with what happend back then.

I fail to see a point here Acer, you have to explain me in more detail what are you trying to say

[~ACER*]

disagree, blacks were historically victims of racism in western world, so being racist towards white people is not socially delicate subject because it didn't happen on such as scale and with such social implications as the other way around.





Doens't matter. The poeple that cry about it atm are not part of that history, that are just black (young) people ^^ (childern of the people that where discriminated etc).

Edited by ~ACER*, 10 February 2012 - 12:28 PM.

[doctorfunk]

@ACER

acer;
Rexel said;

But what if a black guy walks in my street with ''i hate white people''. funny thought, cause i think he could walk a few blocks without getting hurt. Other way... we would die within 2 steps. Says allot about the nature of black people and white people.

His words suggest that black people are more racist than white people by their nature (or at least that how i understand it or perhaps he wasn't very precise)

I said;

disagree, blacks were historically victims of racism in western world, so being racist towards white people is not socially delicate subject because it didn't happen on such as scale and with such social implications as the other way around.

what I meant by that is that blacks are more sensitive to racism because of social/historical reasons and not nature(which is my opinion)


now with each part exactly do you disagree?

[shift]

[Juul]

@ACER

acer;
Rexel said;


His words suggest that black people are more racist than white people by their nature (or at least that how i understand it or perhaps he wasn't very precise)

I said;

what I meant by that is that blacks are more sensitive to racism because of social/historical reasons and not nature(which is my opinion)


now with each part exactly do you disagree?

i can respond to this as i only see it now. You stated something what is true, but you didnt diasgreed with me while you said you do. We perhaps ''created'' them this way, that they are more sensitive towards racism. But that doesn't make it less true that they are more aggressive by nature now? Because what happened in the past.

same with pittbuls, i'm sure they were normal dogs once. but now they are considered sincerely dangerous! why? cause we created and breaded them this way.


hahahhahahhahaha shifty LOL

Edited by Juul, 10 February 2012 - 12:44 PM.