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
-
-
I'm non-religious and do not support the banSuit yourself.
First you say we are talking about the Westt, and then when I point out that you brought up muslim countries first, its "suit yourself"? Make up your mind.
The brainwashing ? Thats the sophistry I referred to a few posts back. There's little point in going into it.
There's every point in going into it, our disagreement hinges on it. Also, its a bit rich to accuse me of sophistry when you are the one who continuously avoids my points.0 -
-
I'm non-religious and do not support the bansponsoredwalk wrote: »The only way I can interpret this sentence is in a way that shows the point being made to be extremely, extremely, ridiculous with the grain of truth I think you're trying to exploit having already been answered in my first post - could you please clarify & expand upon what you actually mean by this - preferably with a few links here & there since every claim you're making would be entirely justifiable by evidence (whether you're aware of it or not).
You need to stop trying to "interpret" sentences and just read them as they are. My point is fairly clear, I would have thought. The interpretations of Hijab which lead to the burka do not offer it as a suggestion, they offer it as a necessity. Societies ruled by those who believe the burka is the best interpretation of Hijab don't just offer it to their women, they require them to wear it by law.
Ever notice how these countries are also some of the worst in terms of equal rights for women?
The burka, as an interpretation of Hijab, does not exist independent of other misogynistic beliefs about women.0 -
I just wanted to be clear this was the argument being put forth.
Notice that when you say:Mark Hamill wrote: »Societies ruled by those who believe the burka is the best interpretation of Hijab don't just offer it to
their women, they require them to wear it by law.
it implies how clairvoyant I can be sometimes:sponsoredwalk wrote: »Possibly one of the vague images you're arguing from is the idea of state coercion to wear the burqa in Saudi Arabia etc... (this is the only thing I can think of to try to make sense of your motivation with regard to actual reality & not illusions & misinformation) but that is an entirely separate discussion about state coercion & not the burqa.
The fact that you put forward this argument just shows how utterly incoherent your argument is. You're using an argument about what goes on in countries like Saudi Arabia to justify banning items of clothing in countries like France because in Saudi Arabia etc... they "require them to wear it by law". This argument is so bad that, if we attempt to take it seriously, it requires the banning of atheism around the world because in Stalinist Russia "social success largely required individuals to profess atheism, stay away from churches and even vandalize them". The fundamental, fundamental, flaw with this argument, with respect to the conversation, lies in the fact that it's got absolutely nothing to do with why people wear the burqa at all - it's entirely based on the policies of states completely ignoring the freedom of choice of the individual. The policies of states like Saudi Arabia do not force women in France to wear burqa's, their interpretation of scripture "forces" them to wear burqa's & furthermore any argument about coercion on this level (something I assumed you were arguing for, I wasn't sure you were making the incoherent argument I now see this is - which is why I only said it was "possible" you were arguing for this irrelevant nonsense) can only be made on the basis of Islam forcing women to wear burqa's - which even you admit isn't true by virtue of the fact that alternative interpretations exist where it's not mandatory. The only forcing here is by themselves, if they think "but it clearly says I must wear it" then they wear it. Sadly however I think your argument would easily extend to saying that scientists are 'forced' to read science books & so I await the similarly adamant calls to ban science...
Also, your argument:Mark Hamill wrote: »but it does not show that there is any freedom in the interpretations of Hijab which do promote the burka.
Is like calling yourself a painter despite never having touched a paintbrush in your life... If you say you believe X & then refute the practices that come along with X then you don't really believe X at all, do you? If you say you believe "interpretation Y based on your reading of scriptures & your conclusion about what modesty constitutes" & then refute the practices that come along with "interpretation Y based on your reading of scriptures & your conclusion about what modesty constitutes" then you don't really believe "interpretation Y based on your reading of scriptures & your conclusion about what modesty constitutes" at all, do you? Notice how everything on this fundamental level is entirely up to the person & solely depends on their freedom of interpretation of scripture - something that varies within the ideology as you've admitted. Further notice how all of this refutes your brainwashing nonsense by offering offers a completely rational explanation of how someone could come to conclude that the burqa should be worn - the rationale being it's up to them to choose what they think is the right way to live according to their interpretation of scripture (scripture which necessitates they live according to it's dictates [because they believe the ideology of Islam] - you may as well ban most religions because people can't believe in, & be a member of, religion Z while living 100% differently from everything it claims, that's how unbelievably childish your argument is. You may as well say creationists are scientists based on the logic of your argument - after all we should allow for freedom of interpretation of what constitutes a scientist lest we ban ourselves for not allowing freedom of interpretation :rolleyes:)... Anything that comes after this, such as what authoritarian states require, is a fundamentally different question about state authoritarianism - hilariously the kind of state authoritarianism you're simultaneously calling for while arguing against it, the irony :rolleyes:Mark Hamill wrote: »Ever notice how these countries are also some of the worst in terms of equal rights for women?
What has this got to do with banning the burqa? All this argument does is illustrate further how your argument is nothing but a mish-mash of incoherence, using logically distinct arguments to justify your fascistic measures. If you respond to the quote of me saying "What has this got to do with banning the burqa?" & completely ignore my entire argument about the logical distinction between your arguments about totalitarianism in "these countries" & the burqa then I call foul...Mark Hamill wrote: »The burka, as an interpretation of Hijab, does not exist independent of other misogynistic beliefs
about women.
Misogynistic beliefs about women do not exist independently of sex, should we ban sex? Misogynistic beliefs about women do not exist independently of women's periods, should we ban their periods? Misogynistic beliefs about women do not exist independently of the air we breathe, should we ban air? Such childish arguments being used to justify such fascistic measures.... You might as well call for women to stop dressing skimpily in order to stop misogynistic men from calling women sluts, such clothes do not exist independently of such misogynism
But to address the element of truth you're trying to hint at (based off my interpretation, which I know I shouldn't be employing because [in an anti-authoritarian fashion, naturally] you've told me not to :rolleyes:) your argument about misogynism is probably the most misogynistic thing I've read in this thread. You've freely admitted that women can choose whether or not to wear the burqa based on their interpretation of what scripture says. Therefore if they choose the wrong () interpretation, the one you say is misogynistic, you want to prevent them, by law, from following up on the path they've freely chosen to follow. In other words these women made the stupid choice so you want to, by law, ensure they make the smart decision they weren't smart enough to make in the first place :rolleyes: This reeks of the logic of radical Christians in the US & their passion for controlling women's uteri...
To sum up:- banning the burqa based on state authoritarianism is nothing but the state authoritarianism you're trying to refute in banning the burqa;
- banning the burqa based on state authoritarianism says nothing about the fundamental justifications for the burqa in the first place & why women wear it;
- banning the burqa due to the fact that there's no freedom within the interpretation that believes in wearing the burqa to not wear the burqa is akin to calling atheism a religion & in general there's so much wrong with this that it's hard not to make a lot more fun of it, I'm surprised all the atheists that bash cultural "Christians" haven't seen the similarities & been making as much fun of you as they make of cultural "Christians" :rolleyes: [quotation marks usually their's, not mine];
- banning the burqa due to claims of Islamic misogynism is just misogynism coupled with disregard for the freedom of choice you've acknowledged exists, a misogynism that tells women they should be banned, by law, for making the wrong choice freely...
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm religious and support the banMark Hamill wrote: » First you say we are talking about the Westt, and then when I point out that you brought up muslim countries first, its "suit yourself"? Make up your mind.
There's every point in going into it, our disagreement hinges on it. Also, its a bit rich to accuse me of sophistry when you are the one who continuously avoids my points.
Sponsoredwalk clearly has the patience I lack...
Any real world examples I put forth you dismiss as examples of "brainwashing". You, however, present no third party evidence and take your own reasoning as the Word Of God on the matter. That renders effort on my part wasted before its begun. You're as fundamentalist as they come.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement