Often when you reply I get the impression that you haven't read at all closely the posts to which your post purports to be a response to. Or, that you are engaging in the tactic of ignoratio elenchi. Oh heck, I know it's the second...unless you no longer know the difference.
Maybe you could reread our exchange from the beginning (it's not a long one) and get back to me with responses to the matters at actual issue. When you've done that, I'll reply to the new ones you've raised, like the notion that your post disturbed rather than amused me; the question of MW's offendedness or lack thereof; the issue of why you claim to think that I expressed the opinion that human rights, as opposed to your rhetoric about it, are downright comical; why you think the subject was remotely whether chador was likely to become commonly warn or not... etc etc etc etc etc.
Knowing the routineness of your practice of introducing new issues as a pretense of responding to the one on the table, I anticipate another misdirecting, obfuscating reply.
But this is easy: Re the chador hypothetical I raised. Discuss, just this once, the subject,instead of introducing a new one (your speculations about probable future commonness).
Note that the word "if" signals an impending hypothetical.
If the chador, which covers its wearer from head to toe and most of the face, or the burka, were to spread as street-garb in this country, justified as religious expression, would you agree with me that the practice, if widespread, could offer a threat to public safety, and that therefore regulation would be appropriate? |
