Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Burka ban
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
Yep, it has been said a few timesThis is a massive thread so what I say may have already been mentioned.
You're missing the point that an extremist islamic culture is already doing that. And while, under normal conditions, the state should have no control over what people wear -- though it does have "no-nudity" laws which people seem generally happy with -- in this case, the state is overturning an insanely restrictive islam-inspired laws on clothing, but banning the clothing used to implement the restriction. In numbers, it's restricting one item, and granting permission to far, far more, so the comparison is invidious to start with.But the idea that someone walking down the street could be told to take off clothing or go home reminds me of what religious police is doing in extremist Islamic regimes.
There's no evidence I'm aware of to support that point of view -- do you have any?Secondly, most of these woman are in relationships in which the man won't let them out of the house if they aren't wearing the Burka. So you won't be liberating any woman.0 -
-
-
-
I'm non-religious and do not support the banThe most? Like top 5? Top 10?
You're not defining it enough.
If you're just going on harm you ought favour banning alcohol, driving, smoking and a litany of other things which do far more damage than the burqa.
Drugs, cigarettes and to a lesser extent alcohol all have more clearly defined chemical effects on the brain that affect your decision making.
In terms of compromised reasoning, you could make a far stronger case for any of the activities mentioned above.
The extent of the damage of these other activities is not in the same league as the burka. These other activities don't aim to have one part of the population subjugated under the rest, simply because of their sex. There are dangers associated with smoking, drinking etc, but there are postives too, and its possible to indulge without effecting others (and if you do effect others, you are likely to get in trouble for it).I don't think that people should be protected from themselves. They are the ones who are going to lose out. The responsibility should lay with them. Caveat emptor.
Libertarianism, great. Well, when you find a society made entirely of completely self sufficient individuals, then you could argue that the people there shouldn't be protected from themselves because it effects no-one else. In our society, we depend on people socially, economically and politically, so what other people do to themselves will effect each other.But you have no definition for brainwashing that can determine whether someone is or not. You're just deciding arbitrarily.
This is getting tiring. Its not arbitrariness to point out that no argument put forward for the burka has a grain of logic or reasons to it. To point out that the burka is completely contradictory in purpose and function. Either these women are complete idiots, or they are brainwashed. Can you think of a single rational reason to wear the burka that these people put forward?No, that is not the same at all and a total logical fallacy.
Irrationally blaming women for something isn't the same as granting them the default level of rights until such a time as you can prove they don't deserve them.
It's perfectly reasonable, so long as you can come up with a sound argument why they should have diminished responsibility. You have not.
You are the one who has said these women need to take responsibility for their oppression, blaming them for their life long subjugation and putting qualifiers on their right not to be abused.Incidentally, I see no reason why, if you've decided that they are too brainwashed to choose what to wear, you would allow them other more important rights, like voting.
They can choose what to wear, they just can't wear the burka.Our constitution makes provisions for a blasphemy law. It clearly isn't perfect.
So? It's still our constitution. Guilt by association :rolleyes:Before I have to justify how they can, you have to justify why it's relevant without damning all brainwashed religious people to a situation where they aren't deemed capable of making decisions.
How is that not relevant?
They have been raised to believe in a lie in order to make them compliant to ideal, to the extent that they are forced under threat of eternal torture to ostracise themselves from normal society.
Pieces of cheese might make me go on a murderous rampage. Subjective effects on people are diverse and you can't account for even a tiny number of them.
The burka isn't subjective. The people who call for it all support it because they believe it's women's fault and responsibility to not tempt men with any and all hints of femininity. They believe this of all women, which is why all women are forced to adhere to it in countries they control.Rather than banning each one in turn, undermining the irrational beliefs held that give power to burqa's, racial slurs, crucifixes or anything else are more important.
Banning them does undermine the belief.You do that by just telling them it as well. Tell them that nobody has the right to tell them what to wear, what to believe etc.
We already do, don't we? How's that working?I don't care. Again, children are their own individuals and have their own rights.
I believe that an adult should no more be able to prevent them from being educated than they should be able to prevent them from eating. We already have limits on what parents can do to their children. I believe that education should be a similarly inalienable right.
The parents don't care (not just the muslim burka-wanting parents, but a lot of parents of other religions too), and the constitution of this country doesn't care. You will be accused of infringing of peoples rights, the same way you are accusing me.What if you ban burqa's and the men simply don't allow the women they are oppressing to leave the house at all? Can you legislate for that? I don't see how. Even worse, what if the women who did want to wear the burqa stop themselves from leaving the house?
Sooner or later the logic of forcing them what to do collapses.
Exactly how long do you think the families will function if the women can't/wont go out? Do you think the men will do everything, bring the kids to school, go shopping, go to work, all by themselves? Sooner rather than later, they will have to go out and they will see that they can function without the burka, in a society that functions without the burka.What you can do is gradually erode the belief behind the oppression and stop it from sprouting any more shoots.
And screw the generations of kids raised in those ideals who have to suffer because of it, right?No, of course not, I just see no clearly definable way that some people wearing burqa's affects anyone's rights unless they are being held down and are forcibly clothed in them and a lock is attached to prevent them removing it.
I knock someone down with my car -> I take someones right to life.
A women chooses to wear the burqa -> She takes away... err...???
Put aside the burka for a moment, I'm talking in general. If we agree that some act is sufficiently bad for society, we can stop people from doing it if, no matter how many really really want to do it, right?The owness isn't on me to show that burqa's don't harm society, it's for you to show where, how much, and why it deserves being banned more than other things, like smoking, drinking and driving (drunk or sober).
I've explained, many times in fact. Do you think subjugation of women isn't bad for society?I think the problem is even you don't really believe that harm is enough to warrant it being illegal. When you take that notion to it's logical conclusion you end up with the government having far too much power over what you do.
I think the problem is that you don't or wont read what it's actually in front of you. I have always talked in terms of "sufficient harm" or the "extent of the harm". Yes, many things can harm people and society at large, but the extent of this harm may not great, and it may be possible to reduce the amount of social harm by limiting the particular act. Alcohol can be damaging to society, but its possible to regulate it and limit its damage without completely banning it.The important part of your argument, whether you refer to it as secondary or not, is whether or not these people are capable of making the decision for themselves. If you nailed that argument, you'd have me, but there is no way that has been presented here for "brainwashing" to justify the removal of rights.
You have repeatedly ignored my justifications for calling brainwashing, so thats not a shocker :rolleyes:. You have even ignored me telling you that the brainwashing aspect is nearly irrelevant to me, that the damage it does is the problem (you know how like it doesn't matter how many people want to drink drive, that doesn't make it less harmful).0 -
-
-
I'm non-religious and do not support the banDo you? It's a shame you don't incorporate the knowledge that the people you refer to have an internal series of thoughts and emotions into your overall argument then.
Here, have some ketchup and eat that chip on your shoulder.Wheres your proof of 100% coercion? I've asked before and I've yet to see it.
I've told you before to read the thread, its incredibly irritating to be told you haven't done something you already have. I've explained how they are coerced, I have explained the problems with the general reasoning with the burka and counter specific examples of women wanting to wear it that people have referenced. I'm still waiting for a logical and rational reason for it.Let the slow process of integration work away. It can be banned where it physically intereferes with procedures or as a direct danger, but other than that tolerate the thing. As subsequent generations note that lack of a burka doesn't automatically result in rape/sexual assault or denote a lack of character in the wearer, it'll eventually be dropped.
Because thats worked so well in the last hundred years. And screw the generations of kids who are coerced in the mean time.Symbols have a life of their own. One ruler can be seen as a successor to another in literal and metaphoric terms whether they are or are not in objective fact.
Wait, so the burka is a symbol now? More than just a piece of clothing?Google broke?
You made the claim.That would explain why I've yet to see any evidence for 100% coercion coming from you.
My mistake, I was supposed to say "Btw, do you have any other source, besides that poorly written article, for the claim that attitudes on the ban of coverings were fundamental in the Iranian revolution?", seeing as that was your initial claim. Thanks, though, for these links which show that the burka is most definitely not just a cloth, and can be an icon against the very process of integration that you propose.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm religious and support the banMark Hamill wrote: »The extent of the damage of these other activities is not in the same league as the burka. These other activities don't aim to have one part of the population subjugated under the rest, simply because of their sex. There are dangers associated with smoking, drinking etc, but there are postives too, and its possible to indulge without effecting others (and if you do effect others, you are likely to get in trouble for it).
Ah jesus that's mental. People are actually killed by smoking, drinking and driving.
These activities aim to create a dependency on them (not so much for driving) at the expense of health for the sake of profit. How on earth is that not in the same league as the Burka?
Are there positives? Which ones? The part that makes you vomit on your friends? The part that makes you permanently stink of smoke?
Some good things happen when people go to smoke or drink - they chat with their friends and so forth, but there's no intrinsic link to drinking or smoking in that.
This is a weakness in your argument. You want to ban things that you perceive as bad for society but only if you don't happen to like them.
You need both a metric for harm and a metric for judging if someone's decision-making skills are compromised by brainwashing or anything else.Mark Hamill wrote: »This is getting tiring. Its not arbitrariness to point out that no argument put forward for the burka has a grain of logic or reasons to it. To point out that the burka is completely contradictory in purpose and function. Either these women are complete idiots, or they are brainwashed. Can you think of a single rational reason to wear the burka that these people put forward?
Burqa's are stupid, ergo people who wear them are brainwashed.
Smoking is stupid, ergo people who do it are brainwashed chemically dependent.
If you want to be consistent and push for a society where the state completely controls what you do then fine, we can argue about that. But you've put forward no sound logical basis for banning burqas but not banning other things, like smoking or drinking. Arbitrariness, in other words.
The single reason put forward is their wish to wear it. Wearing something because you decided rationally to do so it not a requirement I look for in clothing.Mark Hamill wrote: »You are the one who has said these women need to take responsibility for their oppression, blaming them for their life long subjugation and putting qualifiers on their right not to be abused.
You're using distraction tactics and putting words in my mouth. I never said they were to blame for anything. I said that they have their rights and it's up to them to avail of them.
If my friend digs me the in the head it's my choice whether I want to bring them to court for assault or not. That doesn't mean that it's my fault he punched me.Mark Hamill wrote: »They can choose what to wear, they just can't wear the burka.
So they can't choose what to wear. You forget what you wrote mid-sentence?Mark Hamill wrote: »How is that not relevant? They have been raised to believe in a lie in order to make them compliant to ideal, to the extent that they are forced under threat of eternal torture to ostracise themselves from normal society.
It's not relevant unless you're happy to take all rights away from people who've been brainwashed. If you've decided they're not capable of choosing what to wear, unless you're conveniently arguing that religious brainwashing only affects your ability to choose clothing, the logical result of that line of argument is that brainwashed religious people are incapable of making the choices we normally allow adults to.
It would also have to apply to any person with compromised decision making of any other nature.Mark Hamill wrote: »The burka isn't subjective. The people who call for it all support it because they believe it's women's fault and responsibility to not tempt men with any and all hints of femininity. They believe this of all women, which is why all women are forced to adhere to it in countries they control.
You might want to double check what the meaning of subjective is. It doesn't need to mean different things to every single person for it to be subjective.
There is no objective problem with the burqa. A non-muslim could wear it and not be oppressed.Mark Hamill wrote: »Banning them does undermine the belief.
No it doesn't. It removes one manifestation of it. It does nothing to change the beliefs of those who favour it.Mark Hamill wrote: »We already do, don't we? How's that working?
People can ultimately believe what they want.
If after giving a child the tools to think critically and they still believe in this medieval notion, then fine.
I don't want to ban any religious belief. I want them to be exposed to rational inquiry and as a result be defeated in the minds of nearly everyone. I don't need it to be perfect to consider it a success.
Everyone deserves a chance. What they do with it afterwards should be up to them.Mark Hamill wrote: »The parents don't care (not just the muslim burka-wanting parents, but a lot of parents of other religions too), and the constitution of this country doesn't care. You will be accused of infringing of peoples rights, the same way you are accusing me.
You're trying to equate the two again when I've already explained why they're different.Mark Hamill wrote: »Exactly how long do you think the families will function if the women can't/wont go out? Do you think the men will do everything, bring the kids to school, go shopping, go to work, all by themselves? Sooner rather than later, they will have to go out and they will see that they can function without the burka, in a society that functions without the burka.
Ok, then if you prefer, rather than being completely shut in, their movement is restricted. You dodged the question. What do you do if the oppression manifests itself in another way? What happens when they are still being oppressed and you can't legislate your way out of it?
What has banning the burka actually achieved?Mark Hamill wrote: »And screw the generations of kids raised in those ideals who have to suffer because of it, right?
They're not kids anymore but if you want to treat them kids you have to have a reason to do so.
I'm proposing an improvement. Some people are so ****ed up from brainwashing that there's not much you can do about it - take the Phelps family in the US - the "God hates fags" bunch.
You've presented a reason - brainwashing - but there's no logical reason for it to only apply to what clothes they wear, which opens a massive can of worms that leaves very few people left to be allowed to decide things.Mark Hamill wrote: »Put aside the burka for a moment, I'm talking in general. If we agree that some act is sufficiently bad for society, we can stop people from doing it if, no matter how many really really want to do it, right?
No. "Bad for society" is too loosely defined a term.
To a certain extent, I don't give a **** about society. I think of the individuals in it first and foremost. Protect their freedoms and then work within that framework.
I think it's a fallacy to just assume "the greater good" is relevant here.Mark Hamill wrote: »I've explained, many times in fact. Do you think subjugation of women isn't bad for society?
Yes. But I don't care for the purposes of this argument.Mark Hamill wrote: »I think the problem is that you don't or wont read what it's actually in front of you. I have always talked in terms of "sufficient harm" or the "extent of the harm". Yes, many things can harm people and society at large, but the extent of this harm may not great, and it may be possible to reduce the amount of social harm by limiting the particular act. Alcohol can be damaging to society, but its possible to regulate it and limit its damage without completely banning it.
"Sufficient" isn't a number. You may as well say, "some harm".
By your logic there is no reason to ban the burqa over alcohol. I can't see how you could possibly argue that alcohol does less damage to society. Death, disease, damaging families, causing civil disorder and that's with it "regulated".Mark Hamill wrote: »You have repeatedly ignored my justifications for calling brainwashing, so thats not a shocker :rolleyes:. You have even ignored me telling you that the brainwashing aspect is nearly irrelevant to me, that the damage it does is the problem (you know how like it doesn't matter how many people want to drink drive, that doesn't make it less harmful).
No, I agree that they are brainwashed. The problem is that I don't agree it's a reason to remove someone's rights because brainwashing affects people judgement in general and you're not being logically consistent with how you apply the removal of rights based on brainwashing.
Also, if you're arguing that under certain conditions where a person's decision making skills are compromised, they have restrictions placed on their rights, then that has to apply to chemical dependencies like smoking or alcohol as well.0 -
-
I'm non-religious and do not support the banAh jesus that's mental. People are actually killed by smoking, drinking and driving.
These activities aim to create a dependency on them (not so much for driving) at the expense of health for the sake of profit. How on earth is that not in the same league as the Burka?
Are there positives? Which ones? The part that makes you vomit on your friends? The part that makes you permanently stink of smoke?
Some good things happen when people go to smoke or drink - they chat with their friends and so forth, but there's no intrinsic link to drinking or smoking in that.
This is a weakness in your argument. You want to ban things that you perceive as bad for society but only if you don't happen to like them.
You need both a metric for harm and a metric for judging if someone's decision-making skills are compromised by brainwashing or anything else.
Nothing in smoking or drinking inherently leads you puking on your friends or being permanently stinking of smoke. More importantly, nothing in smoking or drinking leads to you to try and enforce smoking or drinking on the rest of society.
I hate smoking and drinking, I find them both repulsive, but until alcohol and cigarettes start making people force other people to drink and smoke, the laws we have now limit them enough.The single reason put forward is their wish to wear it. Wearing something because you decided rationally to do so it not a requirement I look for in clothing.
You really need to actually read some of the reasons why muslims wear the burka. There isn't one single reason, "because I want to wear it", put forward. Its intrinsically tied into the religious and cultural view of women in society held by a small subset of islam, hence the only people who want the burka are from that subset.You're using distraction tactics and putting words in my mouth. I never said they were to blame for anything. I said that they have their rights and it's up to them to avail of them.
If my friend digs me the in the head it's my choice whether I want to bring them to court for assault or not. That doesn't mean that it's my fault he punched me.
I took your argument are applied to your own posts. If someone sees your friend going to hit you, should they not interfere?So they can't choose what to wear. You forget what you wrote mid-sentence? They don't go naked under the burka, they have a million other items of clothing they can choose to wear. Are you really that ignorant of how the burka works?
It's not relevant unless you're happy to take all rights away from people who've been brainwashed. If you've decided they're not capable of choosing what to wear, unless you're conveniently arguing that religious brainwashing only affects your ability to choose clothing, the logical result of that line of argument is that brainwashed religious people are incapable of making the choices we normally allow adults to.
Who said anything about all rights? Only situations were these people would actively try to encourage a negative social change would be effected.You might want to double check what the meaning of subjective is. It doesn't need to mean different things to every single person for it to be subjective.
There is no objective problem with the burqa. A non-muslim could wear it and not be oppressed.
You need to double check what the burka is for. Why do you think non-musims dont wear the burka? Its because it has a cultural/religious significance to muslims, that ties into the physical effect of wearing it. The simple act of wearing it obscures your presence in society, thats what it's for.No it doesn't. It removes one manifestation of it. It does nothing to change the beliefs of those who favour it.
The belief is tied into the burka itself. The burka is both symbolic manifestation and physical enacting of the belief. Remove the burka and you undermine what it tries to do.People can ultimately believe what they want.
If after giving a child the tools to think critically and they still believe in this medieval notion, then fine.
I don't want to ban any religious belief. I want them to be exposed to rational inquiry and as a result be defeated in the minds of nearly everyone. I don't need it to be perfect to consider it a success.
Everyone deserves a chance. What they do with it afterwards should be up to them.
The people wearing and requiring the burka now don't have a chance, most are too far in to break the brainwashing without a more strenuous shock to the system. Leaving them in their current situation will not help their kids, even if you do get the kids in a better education system, as the kids will still be indoctrinated after class with the same brain rot as they currently get in religiously controlled schools.You're trying to equate the two again when I've already explained why they're different.
You say they're different, but the constitution says they are not. In order to change that, you would need to change the constitution, which would mean a referendum, how well do you think that would go?
I agree that parents should not the right to decide their childs education, that it should be a single unified secular curriculum with all the kids mixed in schools. I'm just pointing out the problems you will have, the arguments put forward by any religious person if you even suggest secularising the irish education system.Ok, then if you prefer, rather than being completely shut in, their movement is restricted. You dodged the question. What do you do if the oppression manifests itself in another way? What happens when they are still being oppressed and you can't legislate your way out of it?
What has banning the burka actually achieved?
Its gotten rid of one form of oppression. Another may rise, but we can deal with that when it happens. We shouldn't fail to act because we are afraid of some undefined resistance in the future. What do you propose doing if, assuming your unified secular school system was brought in place, if people just had their kids sent to after school religious classes, where the kids are thought that the secular schools system is all lies, and that the religious school is the truth?They're not kids anymore but if you want to treat them kids you have to have a reason to do so.
I'm talking about the future generations, because thats how long what you are proposing will take.No. "Bad for society" is too loosely defined a term.
Bad for society means it negatively effects innocent people.To a certain extent, I don't give a **** about society. I think of the individuals in it first and foremost. Protect their freedoms and then work within that framework.
I think it's a fallacy to just assume "the greater good" is relevant here.
Thats what "good/bad for society" refers to. Maximising the freedom of individuals in a group in such a way that group harmony is also maximised. You can't ignore the greater good if you want to help all the individuals in a group simultaneously, you need to take account of how each of the freedoms effects each others freedoms.Yes. But I don't care for the purposes of this argument.
This argument concerns a device for the subjugation of women, its fundamental to what we are talking about."Sufficient" isn't a number. You may as well say, "some harm".
By your logic there is no reason to ban the burqa over alcohol. I can't see how you could possibly argue that alcohol does less damage to society. Death, disease, damaging families, causing civil disorder and that's with it "regulated".
Is there anything we consume that isn't in some way connected to death, disease, civil disorder etc.? Everything from sugar to football can all be linked to these. The thing is, all of these have to be linked via the actions of the people eating the sugar, or playing football (ie eating sugary food wont give you diseases, if you limit what you eat, and watching football wont lead to civil disobedience, unless you are a cretin). The burka, however, does inherently lead to damage, as the burka does not exist independent of its cultural/religious obligation and that obligation is subjugation of women, which you admitted is bad for society.No, I agree that they are brainwashed. The problem is that I don't agree it's a reason to remove someone's rights because brainwashing affects people judgement in general and you're not being logically consistent with how you apply the removal of rights based on brainwashing.
I am, and I would have assumed someone claiming to be so interested in peoples freedoms could see where I putting the line. Then again, you seem doggedly resistant to actually reading up on the burka, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised. I am only interested in limiting brainwashed people from effecting the rest of society (although I would also like to help their kids).Also, if you're arguing that under certain conditions where a person's decision making skills are compromised, they have restrictions placed on their rights, then that has to apply to chemical dependencies like smoking or alcohol as well.
Of course. Last I checked, people can't drink drive, can they? If someones decision making skills are sufficiently compromised (ie slowed or conflicted, if a chemical change results in clarity, then it doesn't matter) then they should be restricted from certain activities.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement