this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
132 points (97.1% liked)

World News

39165 readers
2238 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The top European Union court ruled on Tuesday that public authorities in member states can prohibit employees from wearing signs of religious belief, such as an Islamic head scarf, in the latest decision on an issue that has divided Europe for years.

The case came to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) after an employee of the eastern Belgian municipality of Ans was told she could not wear an Islamic head scarf at work.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HamSwagwich@showeq.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not going to read all that, as I started and realized you are, once again, either being disingenuous or your zealotry is clouding your argument, either way, it's very clearly invalid from the first paragraph as you set up the strawmen again to bolster your flawed position.

As such, I'll respond up until then point you go off the rails:

I said keep religion/mental illness out of the (governmental) workplace. If you need to express your mental illness to everyone in the work place you aren't fit to work there. You need to seek help. Your display of religious paraphernalia is no different than you viewing porn on your computer/phone where everyone can see it. It's no different than you wearing other objectionable material. You just have this arbitrary line in your mind at "religion" because that's your thing and you can't conceive the fact that it's offensive to other people. It's not offensive to you, so it's ok. But other things are offensive to you, so they aren't ok. That's your bias.

There are things that are offensive to you that are not offensive to me but I'm not the one arguing to allow those things in the (governmental) workplace because I'm not a self centered narcissist who thinks my way is right and any other way is wrong. I want to treat everyone equally, which means no special carve outs for religion. You want to treat religion as a special case.

That is wrong. Plain and simple.

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Welp if you are not bothering to read my replies and pretending you actually understand the meaning of strawman while basing your entire schitck around the least effective ad hominem attacks I've encountered then there's no real reason to continue.

That you won't answer even two direct questions to nail down a basic ethical baseline to expand from tells me that even you can't defend your own position for shit. Not surprising you don't want to look too closely at your own opinions in the mirror.

Anyway, it's been fun.

[–] HamSwagwich@showeq.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Let me sum up your argument:

"My religious views are right. As long as I approve of your religious choices they are ok, but I will arbitrarily draw the line where I see fit and if you disagree with me you are wrong."

That's literally what your argument boils down to.

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not even a little close. Now I just think you're dumb as shit and don't know how to read. Are you a bot? Maybe that explains why you just say the same thing over and over.

[–] HamSwagwich@showeq.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Lol ok... maybe you should go back and read what you've written. You are a religious zealot who can't see the forest for the trees and think that anyone who doesn't believe in your bullshit is wrong and crazy. Whatever dude. If you think I'm saying the same thing over and over it's because you keep spouting all your nonsense and I'm trying to educate the terminally stupid, which is obviously a losing battle.

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Can I unsubscribe or something? I am not interested in your religious tirade.

[–] HamSwagwich@showeq.com 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Then stop making stupid replies that are full of bullshit and thinking everyone would subscribe to your stupid religion.

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, sure. You really aren't coming across as anybody I would count as an authority. More like a screaming middle schooler in full tantrum...but you are progressively are getting more boring. Don't you do anything new?

[–] HamSwagwich@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I know it's hard to swallow when someone doesn't subscribe to your bullshit and just won't give in to your verbal diarrhea just to get you to shut up.... I bet it's frustrating for you, isn't it, not getting your way?

I'm sorry about your sacred cow and the fact that I won't acknowledge your bullshit as being somehow legitimate. Go back to your church and pray or whatever dumb shit you need to do to make yourself feel better

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Huh. Should I construe this as Anti-Hinduist sentiments now? I mean I guess that counts as new but it's not exactly a whole new verse just a slightly different refrain. Still dull. Come on, dig deep show me you are just a little bit interesting.