Two worthwhile articles on Islam in Australia

[silentC]

Why not? Well I'm sure plenty of people do judge others by their attire but it seems a narrow-minded point of view to me.

[Big Shed]

Why not? Well I'm sure plenty of people do judge others by their attire but it seems a narrow-minded point of view to me.

Yes, but that is "You shouldn't", doesn't mean that "You can't".

Yes, people judge other people on their attire all the time, not only when they wear white footwear, but also when they wear lycra for instance.

[silentC]

No what it means is that it is not possible to judge a person by their attire. You might think you can but you are quite wrong if you do. I suppose it depends on whether you expect your judgement to be accurate or just bigoted.

Likewise you would be very unwise to draw conclusions about a person wearing cycling clothing, as some local drivers will discover soon after recently trying to intimidate a member of the highway patrol who happens to also be a cyclist.

What are you wearing today Big Shed?

[BobL]

Why not?

I agree, we already judge them by any manner of apparel and tools, and woe betide those with the wrong brands. First up against the wall for that lot.

[silentC]

So you are saying that any person who wears runners can't be a real Muslim? Or is it just a particular brand now you are saying? Can we have a list? I didn't realise there was a hidden code of religious footwear. I must get out more...

[silentC]

Here you go, these are mine. What religion am I?

asics-mens-gel-pulse-2.jpg

[FenceFurniture]

Here you go, these are mine. What religion am I?

asics-mens-gel-pulse-2.jpg

Dunno, but....

I must get out more...

is obviously quite true - they still look brand new.

[BobL]

So you are saying that any person who wears runners can't be a real Muslim? Or is it just a particular brand now you are saying? Can we have a list? I didn't realise there was a hidden code of religious footwear. I must get out more...

Now you are expecting a rational discussion and that's not consistent with stereotyping which I thought was the gist of this thread?

Talking about lists, I was thinking the other day of offensive apparel and here's a few I came up with in no particular order

Baseball caps on backwards
Hoodies that cover the face
Bum crack/shorts and pants
Pants with crotches around the knees
Tanks tops that are too small - actually unless you're in some sort of sport I think most tank tops are ridiculous
Pants or trousers that are too long so the back/bottoms of the pants drag in the dirt.
Longs socks with sandals.
Low rider pants that deliberately show undies
Loose shorts with no undies.

[Big Shed]

No what it means is that it is not possible to judge a person by their attire. You might think you can but you are quite wrong if you do. I suppose it depends on whether you expect your judgement to be accurate or just bigoted.

Likewise you would be very unwise to draw conclusions about a person wearing cycling clothing, as some local drivers will discover soon after recently trying to intimidate a member of the highway patrol who happens to also be a cyclist.

What are you wearing today Big Shed?

Yeah, been reading that thread, I think the wearing of lycra inhibits one's sense of humour, must be all that tightness in the crotch area, proven again here.

I am wearing my tracky dacks today, what religion does that make me (other than a bogan)?

So, if I see a person attired in a police uniform would I be wrong to "judge" that to be a member of the police force?

Isn't the wearing of a certain attire used to indicate quite frequently what that person is, or stands for? If I see a person wearing a purple skull cap and a purple dress, would I be wrong to assume that it is a Cardinal?

Would love to "debate" this further with you but I know that this could turn it in the longest thread for a while.

[FenceFurniture]

Bum crack/shorts and pants

At least these can be vaguely amusing.

Low rider pants that deliberately show undies

What about the lowriders where a pair of undies is the top of them (like, they're sewn together as one garment)?

[silentC]

Now you are expecting a rational discussion

On here? You must be joking!

[FenceFurniture]

If I see person wearing a purple skull cap and a purple dress, would I be wrong to assume that it is a Cardinal?

No need to be PC here BS - "person" - you can straight up and down say a man. Think it will be some time before bumps on the front of a cardinal are anything but man cans. (The Vicar of Dibley, when observed that she was a woman quipped "oh these are such a giveaway" )

[Big Shed]

No need to be PC here BS - "person" - you can straight up and down say a man. Think it will be some time before bumps on the front of a cardinal are anything but man cans. (The Vicar of Dibley, when observed that she was a woman quipped "oh these are such a giveaway" )

Not being PC FF, hedging my bets, with that mode of dress one can never be sure

[silentC]

I think the wearing of lycra inhibits one's sense of humour

You seem to be a bit hung up on lycra Big Shed. You've mentioned it a couple of times now. Is it some fetish you have?

[FenceFurniture]

On here? You must be joking!

Silent, just because the two discussions debates....arguments on cyclists verses motorists were rather, shall we say, cyclic and neither side could be seen to give an inch, it doesn't mean to say that rational discussions don't appear on here.

One only had to be part of the thread on Gun Control after the Sandy Hook massacre to see that, and GC would seem to be just about the most emotive issue of them all. It was an excellent discussion with many people quite clearly on one side or the other, but with a great exchange of points of view.