2009-12-06, 15:12 | Link #4941 | |
Rawrrr!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CH aka Chocaholic Heaven
Age: 40
|
Quote:
Yet I don't remember anybody complaining about it. So if people were fine with abiding with the laws regulating noise, why can't they abide with the ones regulating construction? BTW, as I explained above, our building regulations are extremely strict, and our people are very attached to the uniqueness of our land. For example, the King of Thailand gift to the city of Lausanne had to go trough a long debate and procedure before being finally built, and that wasn't even in a residential area but in a park. And if some would feel that allowing other religions to build domes would be unfair, the thing is that golden foiled domes and bulbs have been part of our landscape for centuries already. I'm pretty sure that if they were willing to mark their community centers with domes, there would be far less opposition, their significance and impact being resented differently.
__________________
|
|
2009-12-06, 15:48 | Link #4942 |
✖ ǝʇ ɯıqnɾl ☆
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mortuary : D
|
Who would have ever though in there wildest dreams Tupac Makes Vatican MySpace Playlist
__________________
|
2009-12-06, 16:01 | Link #4943 | |
Speaker
Join Date: Sep 2009
|
Quote:
I can understand the desire to want to maintain aesthetics of an area. I can also sympathize with those who would support such a ban for trying to maintain a cultural identity. However, the issue is certainly about more than simple construction regulation. There are growing numbers of Muslim immigrants in Europe. Minarets are a religious symbol, but they are also seen by some as seen a sign of political power and "spreading of Islamic fundamentalism," and certainly this is a large portion of the support for a minaret ban. Church steeples are similar in shape and meaning. There's nothing in the Bible requiring them for worship, just as there is nothing requiring minarets in the Qur'an. I imagine that there are some steeples in Switzerland (my google of Swiss churches seems to confirm that ). Yet the ban does not include them. I think the reason people are upset is not that they don't think Switzerland has a right to protect its architectural aesthetics, but rather that a structure of the Muslim religion is being specifically targeted, and would seem to infringe on religious freedom.
__________________
|
|
2009-12-06, 16:19 | Link #4944 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
FOCUS: Okada's visit irks Okinawans as fate of U.S. base remains uncertain
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
2009-12-06, 16:32 | Link #4945 | |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
If they had acted sooner, yes, WWII would have looked very different, France likely wouldn't have fallen for one. However, it still would have been bloody. Also, you have to remember, we know what happened. They didn't. It's easy to look back and say it should be obvious that Hitler wasn't going to stop. However, the leaders in Britain and France didn't have the benefit of hindsight. What they did have was memory of the deadliest war in European history just 20 years earlier. Further, both Britain and France used the appeasement period to build up and modernize their forces. It's not like they were delusional about it. Here's a link about the British build up in the mid 30s. Note the massive jump in military spending in 1937, 1938, and then when war finally breaks out in 1939. Haven't found as much for France though.
__________________
|
|
2009-12-06, 16:42 | Link #4946 |
Emotionless White Face
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
I searched a bit in online download for the documentary I talked about, but only found another one that aired last year (and so that i watched already last year), that goes less in details about the accords of Munich, czechoslovakia, and what the French and English could do.
So, I did my part, I spread the infos, and I'll be sure to share said socumentary (the one i talked about yesterday) once it airs again. Feel free to not trust what I posted in the meantime. About the French thought, when Daladier got back to Paris after the accords of Munich, people around him were actually disappointed by the decision took by him and Chamberlain to not strike germany. Daladier then said "don't worry..., the war will start soon enough". They alreday knew that the war would happen and were kind of prepared to strike before it if they had made that choice, which they didn't. Their main error was to be scared by Hitler's presence, and being hypocritical about saving the peace since as said above, daladier and surely chamberlain too knew that Hitler will start a WWII sooner or later. But instead of striking germany now, they let Hitler the time to prepare his army to the fullest, and were outnumbered when the WWII began for real. They've mistaken the real ressources of the german army. As it was said in the documentary (sorry to prefer to trust it rather than you), at that precise time, they had the time and the means to strike germany with success since the german army was not as prepared as chamberlain thought it was, but they didn't do it. edit: gonna check the other documentary that i watched in 2008 anyway (Le Dessous des Accords de Munich). Last edited by Narona; 2009-12-06 at 17:12. |
2009-12-06, 21:13 | Link #4947 | |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Also, you say you trust that documentary more then me? Fine fair enough, I'm just a random person posting on the internet. However, does the documentary say how France would get the troops to the Rhineland in time? Does it say where they were deployed and what transportation they have at their disposal in order to get to the Rhineland? Or does it simply say France has x number of troops who were better equipped then German forces that they could have used while glossing over the logistics required to actually get them there? Yes, France could have won eventually, but it would have taken time to mobilize their forces, time which the Germans would use to dig in and prepare. Once that happened, it would not be a quick and easy war to force them out if Hitler decides to fight.
__________________
|
|
2009-12-07, 00:54 | Link #4948 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Quote:
that's on one of my 2pac's top list along with "(gotta) Keep Ya Head Up" and "Dear Mama". (PS they should hear 2pac's rendition of "Hail Mary") |
|
2009-12-07, 06:14 | Link #4949 | |
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
|
|
2009-12-07, 14:21 | Link #4950 | ||
Rawrrr!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CH aka Chocaholic Heaven
Age: 40
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2009-12-08, 15:07 | Link #4951 | |
Takao Tsundere Cruiser
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Classified
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-12-08, 18:06 | Link #4952 |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Mean perhaps, but I'm not sure about wrong. If they had said she couldn't stay if she wore the hijab, I'd say it was wrong, but they didn't. They allowed her to stay. People do not have a right to not be offended though. The hotel owners had every right to say those things about mohammad and wearing hijabs. Though if they did get into a shouting match over it, that might change things depending on who started it. Not really enough information there for me to really make a judgement.
__________________
|
2009-12-08, 18:49 | Link #4954 | |
Speaker
Join Date: Sep 2009
|
Quote:
They didn't see her hibab and allow her to stay. Rather, they didn't know about until she was leaving. Certainly they have a right to free speech, but from the article it looks more like they freaked out and assaulted her rather than simply voicing their opinions.
__________________
|
|
2009-12-09, 03:46 | Link #4955 |
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
I think they will not make the same mistake and pursue a legal fight that ends up in a disastrous referendum. Besides it doesn't make much sense to do something that is against the will of the neighbourhood when you want to recruit members for your faith.
__________________
|
2009-12-09, 04:41 | Link #4956 | |
Emotionless White Face
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
The INED did a national study about it. Among the couples of people aged 20 to 80 years old, the women are at 80% the ones who do the ironing. They are 70% to do the cooking, and when the men help them a bit, they are still 50% to do the vaccum-cleaning and the shopping (for food). As it is said in the article, the women are still the ones who can do what most men are unable to do (because they don't try that hard ), to work at their job, and to do the housework, in 24 hours. The INED also mentions that when a baby is born, it creates even more unevenness. You can listen to one of the person who participated to this study there (it aired on the radio) (it's in French) : http://www.france-info.com/france-so...391-9-12.html# Now, one advice to all the men, the study also reported that the more you don't participate, the less your GF/Wife is satisfied of the couple (the study was apparently mainly talking about the allocation of the houseworks though). Think about it, and don't complain if you get dumped for being lazy So, most French men fail and despite all the talks about equality, the allocation of the housework in couples is still widely unbalanced here in France. |
|
2009-12-09, 04:51 | Link #4957 | |
Disabled By Request
|
Quote:
One can see how men can be blamed for this if they ask their gf/wife to get a job in order to have more money, but you could say women are also partly to blame. Considering the values of modern society and the importance it places on work and making money, and how in the olden days such a task was placed on men because it was regarded as "difficult" compared to housework, a false belief at that, there are some women who want to prove they're capable of doing what men do, and want to crush the belief that women are weaker than men by doing what they do. There was also an article on a newspaper around here as well that I caught a glimpse of about how women have also ended up becoming wage-slaves like men because of this determination to prove themselves to be equal with men. In addition to having a job, they also have to take care of the house and they end up having no time to themselves (while guys can go chill with their buds at a pub at night after work ), and on top of that they end up having little money for anything in the first place and have to work all the time to get what they really want. |
|
2009-12-09, 04:56 | Link #4958 | |
Emotionless White Face
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
|
|
2009-12-09, 05:01 | Link #4959 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Well maybe the French ladies love the attention their husbands gave them when they do the housework, i.e constantly being looked at. Maybe ogling would be a better term.
__________________
|
|
2009-12-09, 05:03 | Link #4960 | |
Disabled By Request
|
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|