LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksStubborn.Originally Posted by nichomach
Stubborn.
Indeed. Also very quick to accuse people of attacks, whilst making them himself. Still, nobodies perfect.
I should ask I suppose Nich, after a quick read through of the thread, it seems Caged, Shogun, Myself, Devilbod, Pete, RVF500, ab1385, Atomic, TeePee, GreenPiggy, SwafeMan, amoungst others were in favour of the Courts ruling.
Can I just ask, have any of them gave, in your opinion, a valid reason for supporting the ruling, or are you alone in this thread, as being the only person who 'answers everything with a clear and consise argument'? (Talk about blowing your own trumpet)
You seem convinced that I haven't (although I counted many, many examples of me doing just this, to be honest)so what about the rest of us?
Cheers.
Last edited by Stewart; 24-06-2004 at 11:43 PM.
As of this moment, I am about 300% too angry to argue about this thread. I hereby reserve a place for my rebuttal.
Rich :¬)
That is correct. I am in favour of the court's ruling. Whereas I haven't gone into it as deeply as some have in this thread my reasons are fairly simple. The girl made a stand against the school and put her case. The school put it's case. After taking it to a very high level it was found that the school had a valid case. Given the sensitivity of the subject I am sure that the basis for bringing the original case was studied very carefully by the high court and had a considerable bearing on their thinking. Yet after all they found in the school's favour. This girl has the same rights as any other individual in that she can appeal. If, after appeal, the case stands then the argument is closed.
Why she or any other individual should be given preferential treatment over another individual on religious grounds is beyond me. For if one's human rights is put ahead of anothers is that in itself not an infingement of the others human rights? If giving preferential treatment is offensive to another group does this not give cause for conflict? Who would bear the brunt of any animosity? Certainly not the legal people who managed to get that. Much more likely the individual who was seen to benefit. Not all people are as enlightened as some of the contributors of this thread and think at a much more base level. Ever think that the ruling may also have been as much for the girls protection as for the schools right to enforce uniform laws?
The argument that the girl has a choice of schools that would allow such wear. But she wants to go to a school that doeasn't allow that mode of dress. Then she has a choice. Modify her dress or modify her choice of school. It is the same choice open to all therefore I cannot see an infringement of her rights. If a similar argument was brought against an Islamic school by a christian pupil, well, call me cynical but I don't think it would have got out of the school office let alone to the high court. I strongly feel the pupil would have been invited to leave on a permanent basis and go to a school more suitable. Nor do I think there would have been much outcry in such a case either.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
Oh yes....my politics......errm....slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun.....but only when I'm feeling magnanimus. Otherwise I regard Ghengis Khan as a weak kneed liberal.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
And I can count many examples of where I have engaged you upon the issues; but to answer your question.
Devilbod raised a very good point concerning the pressure that might be placed upon other pupils by their own families; it's a point with which I disagree for the reasons I've given previously (namely that it effectively makes this girl suffer for the misdeeds of people with whom she is not associated and over whom she has no control), but it's still a good argument.
Caged's contribution was the "the rules are the rules" argument, which is a point I've debated with you, after you effectively adopted the same argument (answering the same point twice would be redundant so I answered you), citing examples of where a law may be the law but still be morally wrong. ab1385 at least paid respect to the girl for standing up for her beliefs (something that no-one else on your list appeared to wish to do), prior to giving the "opening the floodgates" argument. To be fair, I didn't answer that at the time. I understand the point, but would query what lay behind the floodgates that would be so terrible.
No, I don't claim to be "the only one" presenting a clear and rational argument - that would be you putting words into my mouth again. My point would be that you, Vaul, don't appear to be doing so.
Indeed - in fact I understand that he left three villages unburnt on his last excursion, the old softieOh yes....my politics......errm....slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun.....but only when I'm feeling magnanimus. Otherwise I regard Ghengis Khan as a weak kneed liberal.
Wuss
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
Of course sir. Place reserved.
Nich - I ask again; do you claim not to have made any attacks, snide remarks, or otherwise, in this thread? If you agree that you have, would you agree that you then accusing me of attacks, whilst making them yourself, is pretty much the exact definition of hypocrisy?
Ah. If you say thats the case, then it must be so.
It would be very easy for me to say that you are also doing little more than rolling out the same tired old arguments, and claming arrogantly that my arguments have been clear. To be honest, I've said what I've said, and reading it back, I stand by my points as I made them. Your 'efforts' had done nothing to sway me at all.
Although feel free to claim that what I've said is nonsense, and what you've said is clear and consise. I'm sure it helps you.
Last edited by Stewart; 25-06-2004 at 12:17 AM.
No, I don't claim that; you opened up the batting on that score, so why shouldn't I be allowed to defend myself? So yes, where I've had snide remarks directed at me, where you have adopted a patronising and insulting tone with me ("young warrior")?, I have responded in kind. If you wish to withdraw from that style of argument, I'd be happy to oblige you on that score as well.And what I've accused you of is choosing to rely upon such tactics to the exclusion of other approaches, such as actually dealing with the issues.
Well, fine by me. As I said, start out with your mind made up, and guess where you end up?
Likwise feel free to go on believing that "rules is rules" is a reasoned argument...
Me, Ghengis or both of us?
Looks like we've come full circle then Nich.
Look, can we declare a truce? We disagree; and it's possible that I misinterpreted some of your posts as insulting when they may have been merely jocular. If you want to carry on debating this, we both refrain from being snide with each other?
Of course. Rave and I were invovled in a 'debate' of equal proportions, and we agreed to disagree and all was well at the end.
And (as people viewing this thread wont know) I did contact you at about the time you posted this via MSN, to say pretty much the same thing. Seems we both decided to give a little ground at the same time; or at least make more of an effort to remain civil.
Hatchet buried.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote