Burka ban

Mark Hamill

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

Moomoo1 wrote: »

we gave you lots of examples, you chose to ignore them:

-christian converts to islam
-orthodox jewish women
-muslim women who wear the burka because of their faith

I said without indoctrination. Pointing out that women wear the burka from a variety of different sources doesn't change the fact there is a lack of rational explanations to wear it. It doesn't do what its supposed to do and the problem it tries to solve doesn't exist. If any of these women did actually think rational about why they should wear the burka, then rational explanations should be abundant. have you actually read any of these peoples reasons?
The christian women who convert are looking to be controlled (read this article, these women aren't even wearing the burka and they still talk about their conversion from the point of view of getting away from western "anything goes" culture) or end up controlled in muslim marriages.
The jewish women (quoted a while back) are wearing the burka because they think muslim women are outdoing them in the modesty stakes (and thats despite their own religious leaders pointing out that wearing the burka just makes you stand out more, this negating its supposed effect of making them less obvious.

Mark Hamill

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

Moomoo1 wrote: »

I can. Belief. Same reason that Christian women wear the cross

Your on the wrong forum if you think that you can argue that just because you believe something that its rational.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

Or do you want to forbid Christians from wearing religious symbols too? Wait, you don't? And you say you are not anti-Muslim?

Being irrational is not the only problem with the burka, but its the one that most strongly points to it being indoctrinated behaviour. The problem with the burka is that its sexist and oppressive, most religious symbols aren't. I have no problem with the headscarf, just the burka.

Mark Hamill

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

Moomoo1 wrote: »

What?

Look around you. See what image of a woman Western culture projects. And you are saying that Muslim women in Ireland aren't indoctrinated by that?

Capitalist indoctrination, by companies trying to push their latest clothing range or their latest hit single is much higher than anything religion can put up in this country.That is why 9/10 Muslims get westernised so quickly.

Look up words you clearly dont understand before contradicting me. Indoctrination doesn't just mean influence. There is no threat of violence or eternal damnation from western culture if you dont dress the way it expects.

Mark Hamill

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, but thats because that never happened.

Permabear wrote: »

This "harms society" argument is highly tenuous in relation to the burqa, given the small number of women in most Western nations who wear it. An estimated 2,000 women in France, out of a population of 60 million, wear the full facial veil. Are you actually serious in arguing that society is significantly destabilized because of what one person in 30,000 (the equivalent of one person in Co. Leitrim) decides to put on in the morning?

So, governments shouldn't step in and stop sexist or racist actions as long they only effect a small number of people/ Do you have a percentage for that? How many people need to be effected before the government can say they are a sufficient part of society to stop it?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Like i said, I have explained my reasoning and it makes sense, so its actually a case that i am right because you cant prove me wrong. The constant side stepping from the fact that no-one can show how the burka is both neither irrational nor damaging is getting irritating.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Simply telling me that she chooses to wear it doesn't automatically create a rational explanation to wear it. People have been coerced, indoctrinated and tricked into wanting a great many things, even death. that doesn't make them rational.

Permabear wrote: »

Pardon me for seeing an overlap between your arguments and the internal logic of Catch-22.

If you pardon me for disregarding your emotive nonsense.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"Something wrong with your mental faculties" doesn't necessarily mean insane, it can also mean indoctrinated or coerced.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If these people were wholly rational then they wouldn't be religious.
Now, obviously, thing is that you cant police all forms of irrationality, not by a long shot, so the best you can do is try to bring in education that removes irrationality and instills skepticism and critical thinking (and in a country were primary school teachers spend longer in their training on religion than on both science and maths, we have a huge way to go). Somethings, however, we do have to step in and stop people acting on their irrationality in order to protect them, their loved ones and everyone else. We ban pyramid schemes, we take children from abusive families and fight against sexism or racism. We step in and interfere for peoples goods, not always very well I'll grant you (lack of critical thinking in eduction remember, it effects everyone) but we have no choice.

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your inability to understand is astounding. Its not about it being religious (some say that the burka isn't even religious, its cultural), its about it being damaging to a free and equal society.

Mark I'm beginning to think you live in cloud cuckoo land. You believe an item of clothing is damaging to freedom but banning people from wearing it isn't?? It's a million time more damaging to freedom and equality.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your on the wrong forum if you think that you can argue that just because you believe something that its rational.

A desire to live by ones cultural traditions is a perfectly rational reason to wear a burka. Irrationality is no reason to outlaw something.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is something like 300 women who were the burka in France, so they aren't going to be seen much anyway, so your ill thought reasoning here just betrays your own racial discrimination.

I think most estimates put it at about 2000.

Your attempt at justifying this ban has failed so miserably that you are now suggesting I'm racist in an effort to win your argument! How pathetic!!

AhSureTisGrand

I'm religious and support the ban

In my opinion it's indefensible that any government should ban the burka whilst still allowing people to wear Crocs

yammycat

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

[QUOTE=Mark Hamill;72098951

There is something like 300 women who were the burka in France, so they aren't going to be seen much anyway, so your ill thought reasoning here just betrays your own racial discrimination.[/QUOTE]

The figure of 300 was dreamed up assuming, probably rightly so , that nobody is going to go out and count them. I've seen more than 300 woman in Dublin wearing these and there are 1000's more muslims in France.

The Mad Hatter

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, but thats because that never happened.

Surely that's just pedantry. So they threw bras and other such items of clothing in a trash can rather than burning them. Doesn't alter the point made.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And you're still missing the point that if one is arguing from principle, then yes, they are exactly the same.

FWIW, I'm quite happy to have schools restrict the clothes that the students wear, but I'm not quite sure why people aren't getting upset about this (if they are, as they claim they are, arguing from principle; rather than arguing, as I believe they are, and as I am myself, from the point of practical implications).

Permabear wrote: »

However, proponents of the burqa ban have decided that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions are just not enough for them. They want to see blanket bans that apply to everyone, everywhere, all the time,

A bit less hysteria would help you understand the pro-ban side rather better.

Nobody is advocating for the total banning of the burka, and neither are the French. All that the latter have done is outlaw it when the wearer is on what's generally regarded as "public space". Women can still wear it at home, in private cars, at friend's houses and so on.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I also don't like celery, but I'm not advocating a ban on that. No, on the contrary, I don't like the burka because of the reasons I've laid out in this thread, at length, meticulously, and many times. You are free to read them if you want to. However, your trivialization of my fact-based argument -- in fact, ignoring it entirely -- and instead claiming that I'm producing a simplistic emotional argument is unhelpful.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Who exactly is advocating a ban on the burka "just because they don't like them"?

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

FWIW, I'm quite happy to have schools restrict the clothes that the students wear, but I'm not quite sure why people aren't getting upset about this (if they are, as they claim they are, arguing from principle; rather than arguing, as I believe they are, and as I am myself, from the point of practical implications)

People are not arguing against the school ban because they can see the logic behind it.

Listen, no one is in favour of Islamic women being forced to wear something they don't want to wear. But criminalising the victim and restricting the rights of every citizen is not the solution, in fact as both sides of the ban have agreed... it may even make things worse for these women. I don't know what the best solution is but a ban achieves absolutely nothing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I mentioned in my last post that I've put forward plenty of arguments in this thread. Why don't you spend a few minutes to read them, rather than repeating your claim that they don't exist?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A trifle upside down there. The Enlightenment sought to limit the power and influence of religions -- by decoupling them from the state -- because they were such lethally powerful organizations beholden to nothing but themselves. The whole idea being frequently sold or perceived as the flip-side, which is the excellent notion that the state should not dictate personal religious belief.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are you calling me a right-wing xenophobe?

If you are, then you might wish to read the Forum Charter which takes a dim view of personal insults.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

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

robindch wrote: »

Are you calling me a right-wing xenophobe?

If you are, then you might wish to read the Forum Charter which takes a dim view of personal insults.

I think it's a bit obvious he isn't


edit: oh right yeah, post above me, sorry

Morbert

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This really implies you have not been following the debate at all. We established in the beginning that it was not about religious tolerance or freedom of conscience.

The issue is whether or not the burqa is state-sanctioned oppression of women.

I will say it again to be doubly sure:

The issue is whether or not the burqa is state-sanctioned oppression of women.

Discuss the issue, and don't waste our time with straw-men.

Morbert

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

Morbert wrote: »

This really implies you have not been following the debate at all. We established in the beginning that it was not about religious tolerance or freedom of conscience.

The issue is whether or not the burqa is state-sanctioned oppression of women.

I will say it again to be doubly sure:

The issue is whether or not the burqa is state-sanctioned oppression of women.

Discuss the issue, and don't waste our time with straw-men.

I think the debate WAS about that until robin posted that link...

robindch

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I got it from the bit that says "we have right-wing xenophobes championing the banning of attire [...]". In the context of the rest of your posts -- in which you appear to think that the only reason that people might wish to remove the burka is because they hate islam, or they hate muslims, or they're engaged in "political opportunism", or "just because they don't like them", all the while merrily ignoring the real arguments that have been put forward time and time again -- I'm afraid that you're confused post certainly can be read that way. That's why I asked in order to be sure.

BTW, "infers" should be "implies" above.

Mark Hamill

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

Scotty # wrote: »

Mark I'm beginning to think you live in cloud cuckoo land. You believe an item of clothing is damaging to freedom but banning people from wearing it isn't?? It's a million time more damaging to freedom and equality.

I believe that cults are damaging to freedom and banning them isn't, so I really dont see the issue. You are arguing from a point of emotion, not rational thought and your points clearly show that.

Scotty # wrote: »

A desire to live by ones cultural traditions is a perfectly rational reason to wear a burka. Irrationality is no reason to outlaw something.

Doing something because we always have and no-one has ever considered why is not rational.

Scotty # wrote: »

I think most estimates put it at about 2000.

Apologies, you are right, I came up with the wrong number. Still 2000, in a population of 65 million is hardly noticable.

Scotty # wrote: »

Your attempt at justifying this ban has failed so miserably that you are now suggesting I'm racist in an effort to win your argument! How pathetic!!

Your side has repeatedly tried to put our arguments in terms of us being white or male or non-muslim (or all three), as if we need to be female middle eastern muslims in order to point out that the burka is sexist.

Mark Hamill

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

yammycat wrote: »

The figure of 300 was dreamed up assuming, probably rightly so , that nobody is going to go out and count them. I've seen more than 300 woman in Dublin wearing these and there are 1000's more muslims in France.

Apologies, as Scotty has already corrected me, most estimates put the number at approximately 2000, not 300.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Morbert

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I really don't think you understand what you are saying. You are claiming it has not been established that the pro-ban people on boards.ie are arguing against the burqa on the grounds that it is oppressive.

I am not saying it has been established that we are right. I am saying it has been established that we are not motivated by religious intolerance or oppression of conscience, and that the issue is, instead, women's rights.

This is a really simple point, and I can't understand why you don't accept it. Is it because you find it easier to argue against religious intolerance?

robindch

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

bluewolf wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, I posted the link to find out how the anti-ban would react. I suppose I have the answer by now

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, as I said before, I'm sure your opinion would change if you actually read some of that argumentation.

robindch

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

robindch wrote: »

Yes, I posted the link to find out whether the anti-ban side were arguing more from principle or from consequence. I think I have the answer at this point :)Well, as I said before, I'm sure your opinion would change if you actually read some of that argumentation.

Find us a link that is actually comparable, i.e. not underage schoolchildren having a dress code, and then you might be closer to an answer.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mark Hamill

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Which wouldn't make any sense, the modern bra was invented by a woman Mary Phelps Jacob in the 1910s), who designed it because she wasn't happy with how the courset looked on her. The issue in the 60s with the bra was its then design was uncomfortable, it was more for making the woman look good for men rather than comfort for the women (hence when women trashed the bra on the marches, they also trashed girdles, high heels and hairsprays. Even besides all that, a cultural meme that expects you to dress attractively (but uncomfortably) to please men, while sometimes sexist, is not nearly in the same league as the meme which blames women for mens supposedly uncontrollable lusts and forces, under threat of hell, the woman to cover entirely up.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Women are not indoctrinated into wearing the bra.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As we have explained, and as no-one has yet been able to rationally counter, these women dont make a free choice to wear the burka.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I dont refuse anything, I've asked repeatedly for some evidence that I'm wrong, that someone has made a rational and free decision to wear the burka and that the sexist and oppressive meme that it brings isn't bad for our culture and society. Your inability to raise evidence leaves me with the conclusion that my logic is correct. And its perfectly scientific to, after testing an hypothesis to the best of your ability and finding it sound, to accept it as likely, while being open to more evidence contradicting you.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because we have decided that pilgrimages dont pose a threat to our society, they dont propose a sexist or racist view of the world. Burkas do

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No form of education is perfect, you cant avoid cognitive dissonance as its something that comes with people or is installed in them from not critical authority sources. But with better education you can make people more skeptical and leave them with the ability (maybe not always the motivation) to assess and disregard irrational ideas.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That the government doesn't always act in our favour is not an excuse to force it to never act in our favour.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Raising a child to believe that women are at fault for mens urges, that women belong to their husbands and that no other man should see their face under threat of hell is child abuse.

hatz7

I'll go with brilliant, It gets the message out that the garment is an oppressive tool of domination over women.

This law is sparking debate and the reasons for it are clear, women's rights, equality and muslim socialisation norms that are not compatible with the western world.

The debate by many posters here of 'you can't tell a woman what to wear' actually helps the pro ban cause,

the argument is weak and boring, and a great silent majority of Europe is now coming around to the valid ideas and complexities behind the introduction of the law.

So anti ban posters, keep up the good work, you and yer weak 'singular' argument are making it easier to highlight how the ban is in fact, a good thing

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Apologies, you are right, I came up with the wrong number. Still 2000, in a population of 65 million is hardly noticable.

Unless you are French.

Mark Hamill

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

Scotty # wrote: »

Unless you are French.

Do you actually have any evidence for this claim that the reason why the french want rid of the burka is because seeing it bothers them? Or is is this just supposition to support the idea that the pro ban side are racist?

robindch

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Conclusion? If you read my post, you'll have noted that I was asking you a question. There'll have been a question mark at the end which would have signalled this :rolleyes: BTW, if you wish people to read past the first few words of what you write, then I recommend that you try to be a tad less inflammatory -- it tends to make it difficult to think about the issues in a rational manner, while irritating other posters.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Can you explain why?[/quote]Common mistake; see here for more info.

At this point, I'm bowing out of this angle of the debate as it's going nowhere. Thanks for posting.

.