Burka ban

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well i have certainly seen it stated that it is culturally appropriate. My response to that is "so what". A woman wearing a burka doesnt affect my life in any way so if they WANT to wear one then i have no issue and the state has no business interfering in that decision. I'm very liberal that way. The other side of it I have already discussed. Solve the problem from the correct end. Banning them does not solve that problem or make women any less oppressed.

That's all very well, but the majority of people in France would appear to disagree with you. Whether or not they're right are wrong in either of our opinions is somewhat moot as the ban is a result of democratic process which we're obliged to acknowledge as part of being members of a democratic society.

Let me be clear that i have advanced no argument in favour of the burka. I have nothing in common with the NRAs stance on pretty much everything. Let us keep the discussion to what WE are discussing.

No, but you've advanced the argument of women being allowed to wear the burka as part of personal freedom of religious expression regardless of how that freedom might impact others. France as you're no doubt aware is deeply secular, where secularism promotes 'Freedom from religion and freedom of religion'. Where one persons freedom of religious expression compromises someone else's freedoms, as is clearly the case with the burka, we have to decide which is more important. France have decided in favour of the latter, for better or worse.

ohnonotgmail

smacl wrote: »

That's all very well, but the majority of people in France would appear to disagree with you. Whether or not they're right are wrong in either of our opinions is somewhat moot as the ban is a result of democratic process which we're obliged to acknowledge as part of being members of a democratic society.



No, but you've advanced the argument of women being allowed to wear the burka as part of personal freedom of religious expression regardless of how that freedom might impact others. France as you're no doubt aware is deeply secular, where secularism promotes 'Freedom from religion and freedom of religion'. Where one persons freedom of religious expression compromises someone else's freedoms, as is clearly the case with the burka, we have to decide which is more important. France have decided in favour of the latter, for better or worse.

How does a woman wearing a burka by choice impact on the freedom of others?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How does a woman wearing a burka by choice impact on the freedom of others?

Because there are also women out there wearing the burka by coercion and we don't have the means to distinguish between the two. By allowing one, you allow both.

ohnonotgmail

smacl wrote: »

Because there are also women out there wearing the burka by coercion and we don't have the means to distinguish between the two. By allowing one, you allow both.

any chance you could answer the question i asked?

mickydcork

I'm religious and support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How does a woman wearing a burka by choice impact on the freedom of others?

Define - 'by choice'

If truly 'by choice' with total personal/social freedom etc., then not at all.

Wearing a burka is not 'by choice' though.

ohnonotgmail

mickydcork wrote: »

Define - 'by choice'

If truly 'by choice' with total personal/social freedom etc., then not at all.

Wearing a burka is not 'by choice' though.

you say that with such certainty. how could you possibly know?

mickydcork

I'm religious and support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you say that with such certainty. how could you possibly know?

How could you possibly not know?

Why are they generally/predominantly worn?

98q76e12hrflnk

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you say that with such certainty. how could you possibly know?

Have you absolutely no knowledge of Islam or Islamic countries?

ohnonotgmail

mickydcork wrote: »

How could you possibly not know?

Why are they generally/predominantly worn?

You are the one making authoritive statements. I am asking how you can state that with such authority?

mickydcork

I'm religious and support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You are the one making authoritive statements. I am asking how you can state that with such authority?

Again you probably will have to define what you mean by 'free' at some stage for me, however in the absence I'll plough on.

I'm pretty confident in stating that no one 'freely chooses' to live their life in a cloth bag. In much the same way as no one 'freely chooses' to hold their hand in a fire.

Do you disagree?

ohnonotgmail

mickydcork wrote: »

Again you probably will have to define what you mean by 'free' at some stage for me, however in the absence I'll plough on.

I'm pretty confident in stating that no one 'freely chooses' to live their life in a cloth bag. In much the same way as no one 'freely chooses' to hold their hand in a fire.

Do you disagree?

I think you need to work on your analogies.

mickydcork

I'm religious and support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think you need to work on your analogies.

I think you need to work on thinking harder.

ohnonotgmail

mickydcork wrote: »

I think you need to work on thinking harder.

think smarter not harder. Much more successful.

mickydcork

I'm religious and support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

think smarter not harder. Much more successful.

Okay whatever works for you! Just start implementing.

ohnonotgmail

Well there was an actual discussion taking place on this thread but that seems to have out the window once the agry people arrived.

mickydcork

I'm religious and support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well there was an actual discussion taking place on this thread but that seems to have out the window once the agry people arrived.

I think post #4092 derailed it.
Nice job.

ohnonotgmail

mickydcork wrote: »

I think post #4092 derailed it.
Nice job.

The actual discussion i referred to did not involve you. You only appeared less than an hour ago. You haven't discussed anything, simply made declarative statements that you cannot back up except by way of crap analogy. I wont be replying to you further.

mickydcork

I'm religious and support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The actual discussion i referred to did not involve you. You only appeared less than an hour ago. You haven't discussed anything, simply made declarative statements that you cannot back up except by way of crap analogy. I wont be replying to you further.

Apologies.

I thought you responded to a post of mine and asked me questions on a public forum. You know, like a discussion.

But now you're pompously attempting to belittle me so if that's the way you treat people.

Goodbye.

98q76e12hrflnk

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

mickydcork wrote: »

Apologies.

I thought you responded to a post of mine and asked me questions on a public forum. You know, like a discussion.

But now you're pompously attempting to belittle me so if that's the way you treat people.

Goodbye.

Ignore him, seen on another thread making some silly statements.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

any chance you could answer the question i asked?

I did, but I'll explain further as you seem to have entirely missed the point. By insisting on wearing a burka as a right of personal freedom or religious expression, women who do so are stating it is entirely reasonable and acceptable in French society. Given that the burka is used as a tool oppression for other women, or to once again quote imam Hassen Chalghoumi "a prison for women, a tool of sexist domination and Islamist indoctrination", they are enabling and condoning this oppression. Some women who wear the burka do so of their own free will, but others do not and I've already linked studies in this thread documenting both cases.

ohnonotgmail

smacl wrote: »

I did, but I'll explain further as you seem to have entirely missed the point. By insisting on wearing a burka as a right of personal freedom or religious expression, women who do so are stating it is entirely reasonable and acceptable in French society. Given that the burka is used as a tool oppression for other women, or to once again quote imam Hassen Chalghoumi "a prison for women, a tool of sexist domination and Islamist indoctrination", they are enabling and condoning this oppression. Some women who wear the burka do so of their own free will, but others do not and I've already linked studies in this thread documenting both cases.

I know that some women are forced to wear it. I have never said otherwise. But the response to one group of women being oppressed is not to oppress a separate group. I have made that point several times and you have simply ignored it. the people enabling the oppression are MEN. The response to oppression should be aimed at them. But seemingly that is too hard so it is easier to have a go at another group of women instread. It is moral cowardice on the part of France.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is moral cowardice on the part of France.

I don't agree. If you have a look at Ni Putes Ni Soumises it is anything but cowardly. The criticism that the feminist movement that pushed for the burka ban has been manipulated by the far right is more reasonable, but even then, what they've striven to achieve in my opinion is commendable.

ohnonotgmail

smacl wrote: »

I don't agree. If you have a look at Ni Putes Ni Soumises it is anything but cowardly. The criticism that the feminist movement that pushed for the burka ban has been manipulated by the far right is more reasonable, but even then, what they've striven to achieve in my opinion is commendable.

France, as in the country. It is the country that is implementing the ban, it is the country that are moral cowards. I'm not sure how you got any other meaning from this.

I find it very ironic that not only did you again ignore a very salient point i made but you also decided to clip it from the post you quoted. I will include it again in case that was accidental

I know that some women are forced to wear it. I have never said otherwise. But the response to one group of women being oppressed is not to oppress a separate group. I have made that point several times and you have simply ignored it. the people enabling the oppression are MEN. The response to oppression should be aimed at them. But seemingly that is too hard so it is easier to have a go at another group of women instread.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

France, as in the country. It is the country that is implementing the ban, it is the country that are moral cowards. I'm not sure how you got any other meaning from this.

Countries cannot be cowards, only people can be cowards. One such group of people were the women from the banlieues who were instrumental in pushing for this ban, and I certainly don't consider them to be cowards. It was enacted through democratic process following this. Who, precisely do you consider to be a coward in this and why?

I find it very ironic that not only did you again ignore a very salient point i made but you also decided to clip it from the post you quoted. I will include it again in case that was accidental

You've made a statement without asking question, why do you think that demands a response?

ohnonotgmail

smacl wrote: »

Countries cannot be cowards, only people can be cowards. One such group of people were the women from the banlieues who were instrumental in pushing for this ban, and I certainly don't consider them to be cowards. It was enacted through democratic process following this. Who, precisely do you consider to be a coward in this and why?



You've made a statement without asking question, why do you think that demands a response?

You seem to have lost the will to have an actual discussion so i'll leave it there.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You seem to have lost the will to have an actual discussion so i'll leave it there.

Sure.

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you say that with such certainty. how could you possibly know?

If it was by choice then why doesn't anyone outside of a small subset of muslims wear it? Why does the not wearing of it carry religious (and criminal, in countries controlled by that subset of Islam) punishments.

It is not just a thing that happens to exist and just happens to be worn by a few women. It is an expression of oppression defined by one particularly extreme interpretation of Islam, used against women always in junction with a load of other religiously and culturally defined forms of oppression (the places that have the burka also have very poor womens rights in general).

ohnonotgmail

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If it was by choice then why doesn't anyone outside of a small subset of muslims wear it? Why does the not wearing of it carry religious (and criminal, in countries controlled by that subset of Islam) punishments.

It is not just a thing that happens to exist and just happens to be worn by a few women. It is an expression of oppression defined by one particularly extreme interpretation of Islam, used against women always in junction with a load of other religiously and culturally defined forms of oppression (the places that have the burka also have very poor womens rights in general).

How is any of that relevant to france?

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How is any of that relevant to france?

You asked how could anyone know with certainty that the burka isn't worn by choice. It's pretty clearly a relevant response to that. Would you like to try again?

ohnonotgmail

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You asked how could anyone know with certainty that the burka isn't worn by choice. It's pretty clearly a relevant response to that. Would you like to try again?

We were also discussing that in the context of the situation in France. I thought that was clear. Nobody is discussing a burka ban in predominantly muslim countries as that would be frankly ridiculous.