Precisely. Did you even READ my post? I provided my NON-biased opinion first. It really gets on my nerves when somebody responds to something without actually taking the time to read it (a hobby of yours Belamy?).
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
To No A Veil
- Thread starter greaves
- Start date
Precisely. Did you even READ my post? I provided my NON-biased opinion first. It really gets on my nerves when somebody responds to something without actually taking the time to read it (a hobby of yours Belamy?).
You just provided there an example of all I said: first, you began a post by trying to appear reasonable and then you finish by throwing the effort away with the right to expose a "biased opinion", that is, going back to the opinion you´ve always had; and, secondly, that last post showed how wrapped you are in your own "opinions" to think that going through all the lines means having actually read and understood, with the careful reading that a view different from your assumptions demand.
Your "Holy... freaking... crap" post replying to slobone had grabbed my attention, so I had read your previous posts before I made the conclusion I exposed. What gets on my nerves is that people supposedly rational and willing to reason and accept any conclusion that may come along prefer in fact to use two sets of ready-made arguments: one to make them look reasonable and understanding with what they may not agree at first, and the other one to go right back to their prejudices before they get challenged or merely exhausted by the effort of the thinking they are not used to make.
The reason why people find it hard to follow my attempts to reasoning is that I don´t play with ready-made arguments, but with ready-made questions to develop. But that, of course, would demand that they forget about the safe positions and prejudices of "biased opinions".
Haha, TRYING to APPEAR reasonable? If you don't agree that NVC is an important part of learning a language then you are an IDIOT. There is NO debate at all for that. And yes, I gave my biased opinion as well. And you ARE an idiot since you say that's the opinion I've always had? They ARE the SAME opinion, just with different justifications (some hwich are fact and some which are biased, labeled properly), so YES, it IS the opinion I've always had. So please, next time, READ it and UNDERSTAND it first.
Very reasonable and humble of you.
Anyone else sees what I mean?
So, according to you, the speech and communication abilities of a blind person are defective. Or the Tuaregs, for that matter, those poor ignorants of the NVC natural fact.
I DON'T need to be humble when it's a FACT that NVC is an important part of speech.
You aknowledge then that your post was a plain attempt to sophistry.
Fool. No I don't. If you had any common sense or the ability to read into anything at all you would have already realized that I admitted MANY times now to having used TWO sets of justifications, the RATIONAL ones (which you seem to have missed altogether in your stupidity) and my BIASED set (which you only seemed to pick up on enough to find but not even to analyze correctly).
Were you educated by Jesuits?
So you aknowledge that whenever you reason you first use rational, then irrational justifications to build up a rational argument, and you insist there is nothing wrong in finding all that "reasonable".
No, but that was a nice attempt at trying to cover for your idiocy with a joke that sucked.
Again failing to find the meat in the basket.
Rali_hates_Mondays
Sex God
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Posts
- 651
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Nametaken definitely has a few points about the veil being repressive of women. I mean I see women covering up their faces but there are hardly any reports of men covering themselves up in a similar fashion. The Koran does say that you should dress modestly though I heard in the news that many Muslim scholars argue over the extent of this modest fashion dress as the Koran does not say, specifically, how much of the body should be covered.
Even Salman Rushdie, a Muslim himself, said that the veil "sucks" in a Sunday newspaper.
Even Salman Rushdie, a Muslim himself, said that the veil "sucks" in a Sunday newspaper.
I think that woman was getting along fine with her set of NVC, and she was doing fine communicating in english without showing any (or minimal) facial expression. but you're right. people DON'T understand her. but you're wrong. they do understand her english; what they don't understand is her set of beliefs.
i'm gonna say that i'm siding with her on this issue. i'm am ABSOLUTELY sure that muslims know that they will be facing a "cultural rift" in the uk, and i dont think they expected it to be easy. however this is their faith and if it takes a million years to get accepted into the mainstream uk culture, so be it. they are not shallow enough to give into another society's pressures just to be accepted. and if it means they'll be outsiders forever, then the rest of the uk is gonna deal with that too. the problem is, if you have something that's gonna stick around indefinitely, are you gonna ignore it or are you going to accept it? think about her stance, and then think about you being gay in america.
i'm gonna say that i'm siding with her on this issue. i'm am ABSOLUTELY sure that muslims know that they will be facing a "cultural rift" in the uk, and i dont think they expected it to be easy. however this is their faith and if it takes a million years to get accepted into the mainstream uk culture, so be it. they are not shallow enough to give into another society's pressures just to be accepted. and if it means they'll be outsiders forever, then the rest of the uk is gonna deal with that too. the problem is, if you have something that's gonna stick around indefinitely, are you gonna ignore it or are you going to accept it? think about her stance, and then think about you being gay in america.
Nametaken definitely has a few points about the veil being repressive of women. I mean I see women covering up their faces but there are hardly any reports of men covering themselves up in a similar fashion.
That is just the Islamic expression of worldwide male chauvinism and repression of women.
The Koran does say that you should dress modestly though I heard in the news that many Muslim scholars argue over the extent of this modest fashion dress as the Koran does not say, specifically, how much of the body should be covered.
Right, but, like I said in my longer post yesterday, people live according to beliefs received, not reasoned and debatable, and Islamic people live according a rule of submission to God which, like I´ve just said, is always harder for women because this is a straight male´s world.
Imagine any Islamic guy trying to lecture any baptist, catholic or mormon or televangelist about the meaning of the Bible.
Again, this is not about philology and philosohy, this is about beliefs, and beliefs, for people who forswear reasoning (and by that I don´t mean the Western concepts of Reason and Science replacing God) in behalf of them, feel that those beliefs are unshakable, unquestionable, undebatable, they are "facts".
That is just the Islamic expression of worldwide male chauvinism and repression of women.
The Koran does say that you should dress modestly though I heard in the news that many Muslim scholars argue over the extent of this modest fashion dress as the Koran does not say, specifically, how much of the body should be covered.
Right, but, like I said in my longer post yesterday, people live according to beliefs received, not reasoned and debatable, and Islamic people live according a rule of submission to God which, like I´ve just said, is always harder for women because this is a straight male´s world.
Imagine any Islamic guy trying to lecture any baptist, catholic or mormon or televangelist about the meaning of the Bible.
Again, this is not about philology and philosohy, this is about beliefs, and beliefs, for people who forswear reasoning (and by that I don´t mean the Western concepts of Reason and Science replacing God) in behalf of them, feel that those beliefs are unshakable, unquestionable, undebatable, they are "facts".
And that is what communication is about, not a fucking NVC and "proper" grammar and spelling, which I guess is what for a NameTaken replaces NVC whenever he is trying to read.
UGH, NVC is PART of communication. Go take high school/ A levels again and maybe you'll have some common sense.
Rali_hates_Mondays
Sex God
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Posts
- 651
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
So which is the right belief? Some muslim women believing that they should wear the veil but without covering their face or the ones, who staunchly believe in covering their faces completely?
Here is a reference to NVC for those of you, who don't know about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonverbal_communication
Here is a reference to NVC for those of you, who don't know about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonverbal_communication
The "right" belief is the belief one believes, because people usually don´t have anything else. A belief implies rightness. Beliefs are not arguments, they are tautologies, beliefs are their own logic, "self-evident truths" and all that, that is, something you can´t explain because you don´t know how to explain, because a belief is the suspension of the course of thinking, because that´s what a belief is for, to avoid explanations by being presented as a reason in itself, and that whether you call it "religion", "faith", "ethics", "common sense", "natural facts" or whatever you may please.
"Rightness", "logical" rightness is achieved aside (not "independently" from, like I pointed fleetingly too in my longer post yesterday) from beliefs. Beliefs are made by a few people who have the time to dedicate to that, and then the authority to make them be accepted and followed by the rest. It´s like taking the wild course of human thinking and freezing and cutting it at a point to "programme" the lives of other people.
Well, NameTaken, if not a Jesuit one, what school would you suggest I take my new degree on "common sense" and "facts"?
Sorry, I don't have the common sense to say that this muslim woman was being misunderstood because she was less expressive in terms of NVC. I guess for a couple millenia, the words coming out of the mouths of muslim women must have sounded like gibberish, since some people decide to hear with their eyes, not with their ears.
You are a fool as well. NVC is part of communication. These foreign students are learning the LANGUAGE of English. Have you NOT (and god help you if you haven't) noticed that facial expressions, paralanguage, etc. ARE VERY importnant? (sarcasm for example) If they don't learn to grasp those concepts as well it will be harder for them to learn to communicate with native English speakers than if they DID grasp those concepts. Go back to high school and then come back. kthxbye
The most important part of Non-verbal communication is what has not yet been coded by words or gestures, and which is what allows any forward thinking and dialogue between two minds at all: and that is what we call simply "thinking", ignoring all that may derive from it , and which comes more evident only when a NameTaken and a fool belamy clash on a message board.