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

1…1516182021…138

Comments

  • #512
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    There are always issues more important than any particular one being discussed, but we manage nevertheless. If you think another issue warrants a new thread, go for it.


  • #513
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No one is saying that people cannot think that the burka is a good idea. We are saying, though, that they are wrong, we have shown why, and support the legislation against them for for their (and our) own safety.
    The burqa is a thread to our safety!! Are you having a laugh? This is drama queen stuff. Please elaborate.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And we do it all the time. Drugs are agianst the law. Suicide is against the law. We dont teach creationism in school. People cannot be trusted to always make up their mind in ways that will not be damaging, and sometimes interventions are needed before things go crazy.
    Wow, this place is sounding more and more like a dictatorship all the time.


  • #514
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    I'm religious and support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »


    Wow, this place is sounding more and more like a dictatorship all the time.

    Could you direct your accusations to the people who's posts you are quoting man? There are 79 people in "this place" that voted in the poll that they didn't agree with the ban. You are also throwing around the "why don't you go and live in Saudi Arabia" "you would only be happy if everyone did what you told them to" crap fairly loosely. It's utter bullsh1t.


  • #515
    MikeC101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    I'm religious and support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »
    Wow, this place is sounding more and more like a dictatorship all the time.

    You need to stop with the generalisations - if people were making the same claims about Muslims and dictatorships you'd be kicking and screaming about the zionist controlled media trying to make Muslims look bad.

    Of the people who voted in the poll here, just under 60% of those identifying as non religious supported a ban.

    From a recent poll:
    70 per cent of respondents in France supported a burqa ban.
    65 per cent of respondents in Spain supported a burqa ban.
    63 per cent of respondents in Italy supported a burqa ban.

    So the nasty militant atheists aren't as bad as those countries....

    For what it's worth, I see the wearing of the burqa as a ridiculous idea, stemming from a patriarchial religion and culture that a good number of adherents are happy to use as a tool to oppress women whilst making claims of enforcing "modesty" and "morals".

    I still would not be in favour of a burqa ban.


  • #516
    mikhail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭mikhail


    I'm religious and support the ban
    I've been performing a thought experiment: I've been reading this thread while mentally replacing "burka ban" with "public nudity ban". It's ****ing hilarious. No, really, try it. It has me questioning a lot of my assumptions.


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,105 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Are you claiming that this photo shows women who are fully free and able to express their individual identities, each one as they see fit?

    burka-Islam-women-Muslim.jpg
    i don't see what the chinese terracotta army have to do with this debate.


  • #518
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    sink wrote: »
    It's pretty fundamental for liberalised societies to allow people to make up their own minds.
    And balancing the right of people to make up their own minds is a reciprocal responsibility for the decision-maker to be sufficiently well-informed and sufficiently uninfluenced by other members of society that the choice they make is truly unencumbered. And in an unusual confluence of opposites, this reciprocal responsibility is ignored not only by the kind of unenlightened people who demean women by forcing them to wear bags over their heads, but also by their colleagues at what one would have hoped was the opposite end of the political spectrum, who give every appearance of believing that a single choice constitutes something called "freedom".

    In my experience, at least here in the West, it's only the most strident of libertarians who appear to believe -- in the face of practically every piece of relevant research in the psychological literature to the contrary -- that all decision-makers are equally capable of making what they claim they aspire to, namely a free decision.

    That isn't just hopelessly naive, it's evidentially false too.


  • #519
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    we do it all the time. Drugs are agianst the law. Suicide is against the law. We dont teach creationism in school. People cannot be trusted to always make up their mind in ways that will not be damaging, and sometimes interventions are needed before things go crazy.
    But you're presenting those points as if those interventions reflected some consensus. There is most certainly questioning over why some drugs are against the law and not others. There is most certainly questioning over why perfectly sane people cannot choose suicide if they've judged their quality of life to be inadequate. And I'm not particularly aware of any prohibition on creationism. I know we've had no legal cases of the kind they've had in the US. But I thought everyone accepted that creationism could be taught, just so long as its not part of the State science curriculum.

    I think the point is that people cannot be trusted to always make up their mind in ways that will not be damaging, but so long as they are not forcing that damage on others its not really our business.
    Dades wrote: »
    There are always issues more important than any particular one being discussed, but we manage nevertheless. If you think another issue warrants a new thread, go for it.
    I'm not making the point well. What was more on my mind (which I think the comparison to circumcision highlights) is the absence of any harm if an Irish resident chooses to go about in a burka. If she changes her mind tomorrow, she can just take the thing off. There is actually nothing in this agenda that demands State intervention.


  • #520
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    In my experience, at least here in the West, it's only the most strident of libertarians who appear to believe -- in the face of practically every piece of relevant research in the psychological literature to the contrary -- that all decision-makers are equally capable of making what they claim they aspire to, namely a free decision.

    That isn't just hopelessly naive, it's evidentially false too.
    You are, of course, absolutely right. Many people can't be let out. That's why we've reportedly 350,000 households in negative equity.

    The point is what do you do about it. Do we conclude that people cannot be allowed to decide when to buy a house? The evidence would actually suggest this is the case. But who do you trust to make those decisions on behalf of the public?

    You are probably right that some women lack the mental capacity to decide whether or not wearing a burka is in their interest. But means they probably also lack the mental capacity to decide what career to pursue, whether to have children, and so forth. I'm only repeating what I've already said, but I really wonder at what level of micro management of people's lives you expect the State to extend, or even the mechanism through which you see the State performing that micro management.

    People will most certainly make stupid choices. But that doesn't mean external interference will make for better outcomes.


  • #521
    MrVestek
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,288 ✭✭✭MrVestek


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The bigger point should be that they are no longer in their culture, and that when they come to our culture, we should be allowed to tell what parts of their culture are offensive/oppresive/barbarian.

    So we need to re-educate burka wearing muslims to be pompus racist xenophobic narrow minded idiots then to integrate them into our general culture do we?


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    strobe wrote: »
    Could you direct your accusations to the people who's posts you are quoting man? There are 79 people in "this place" that voted in the poll that they didn't agree with the ban.
    MikeC101 wrote: »
    You need to stop with the generalisations.

    Ok, point taken, sorry about that. My comment was directed at those who support the burqa ban, not all posters in the thread.


  • #523
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nemi wrote: »
    You are, of course, absolutely right. Many people can't be let out. That's why we've reportedly 350,000 households in negative equity. Do we conclude that people cannot be allowed to decide when to buy a house? The evidence would actually suggest this is the case.
    In the Irish property bubble, risk assessment failed in the banks, the financial regulator failed to regulate and the legislature failed to remove development incentives and to deal with the bubble at the macroeconomic level. If any or all of these failures hadn't happened, then it's unlikely that the country would be in the economic mess it's in now. But these failures did happen, people were unable to control themselves and so we find ourselves where we are.
    Nemi wrote: »
    But who do you trust to make those decisions on behalf of the public?
    We have no choice but to trust the rolling results of the legislative, executive, judicial, media, research and other information, direction and enforcement systems that we have -- hopefully to protect people from their own or others' excesses, whether it's somebody's contrived desire to place a black bag over their head before they go out, or their deluded willingness to blow half a million euro on a hovel in Ringsend.


  • #524
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,826 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    sink wrote: »
    And what a success that has been. No one takes drugs anymore and our streets have never been safer.

    A measure of a law is not in wether or not people break it.
    sink wrote: »
    It would be a good policy to fine people who attempt suicide and throw them in jail.

    No, they are in a slightly different situation, so a different intervention is needed.
    sink wrote: »
    We don't teach children to wear the burka in school either.

    Way to miss the point. What do creationists say when calling for it to be taught in school? Let the controversy be taught, they say. Let people make up their own mind. Its a stupid statement to make, because people are notoriously bad at making up their own mind, particularly in situations which make questioning harder, like when being taught by religious leaders.
    sink wrote: »
    So we should fine them and throw them in prison before they harm themselves?

    We should make it harder for them to hurt themsleves. Sometimes that is a fine and jail time (speeding, drink driving, drug taking), sometimes its psychiatric intervention (suicide). We do not just throw them to the wind.


  • #525
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,826 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »
    The burqa is a thread to our safety!! Are you having a laugh? This is drama queen stuff. Please elaborate.

    I already did elaborate, in a response to you no less. Were you not paying attention?
    irishconvert wrote: »
    Wow, this place is sounding more and more like a dictatorship all the time.

    Why? That is the way its always been. We make laws, we regulate business interactions and we enforce safety in industry because time and time again, we find that when we dont, people take their freedom and hurt themselves and everyone else. This is not new.


  • #526
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I already did elaborate, in a response to you no less. Were you not paying attention?


    Why? That is the way its always been. We make laws, we regulate business interactions and we enforce safety in industry because time and time again, we find that when we dont, people take their freedom and hurt themselves and everyone else. This is not new.

    Yes, that burqa is really dangerous, be careful, it might take your eye out :rolleyes:


  • #527
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,826 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Achilles wrote: »
    So we need to re-educate burka wearing muslims to be pompus racist xenophobic narrow minded idiots then to integrate them into our general culture do we?

    Its now pompous, racist, xenophobic, narrow minded and idiotic to point out that an aspect of their culture is offensive, barabaric and retarding to society?
    What you are doing is empty name calling, hiding behind claims of racism in order to try to hamper a discussion that you cant see yourself winning, its pathetic.


  • #528
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,826 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nemi wrote: »
    But you're presenting those points as if those interventions reflected some consensus. There is most certainly questioning over why some drugs are against the law and not others. There is most certainly questioning over why perfectly sane people cannot choose suicide if they've judged their quality of life to be inadequate.

    The efficacy of current drug laws is not the point. I dont agree with how the drug las work at the moment, i recognise that outright banning does bugger all, but I (and many people I've spoke too who are also against the current drug laws) are not for completely opening the flood gates. You cant just let people do anything they want whenever they want. People are too greedy and stupid to be allowed without leashes.
    Nemi wrote: »
    And I'm not particularly aware of any prohibition on creationism. I know we've had no legal cases of the kind they've had in the US. But I thought everyone accepted that creationism could be taught, just so long as its not part of the State science curriculum.

    Some people dont mind creationism being taught in religion class, but most dont agree with the "teach the controversy and let people make up their minds", which is my point.
    Nemi wrote: »
    I think the point is that people cannot be trusted to always make up their mind in ways that will not be damaging, but so long as they are not forcing that damage on others its not really our business.I'm not making the point well. What was more on my mind (which I think the comparison to circumcision highlights) is the absence of any harm if an Irish resident chooses to go about in a burka. If she changes her mind tomorrow, she can just take the thing off. There is actually nothing in this agenda that demands State intervention.

    The problem is that that is not the case. Muslim women do not make this decision lightly. They do it under duress, either immediate physical duress from relatives, or spiritual duress, from the belief that they will go to hell if they dont (which to many , would be an immediate physical duress).

    If they did it in isolation it wouldn't matter, but religion doesn't work like that. Its like when people say "i'm an atheist, but I dont care about what theists do as long as they dont do it to me". But it always effects you. Theism effects everyone wether we want it to or not, schooling, politics, even scientific research gets bogged down in religious bs and it causes myriads of problems in society.

    It satrts with the burka, then its women cannot be out without a guardian, then its women cannot be seen to talk to a member of the opposite sex. And any woman who deems herself responsible enough to not need the burka is attacked or abused for doing so. Its happening right at this moment in many countries in the middle east, where things like the burka are law.


  • #529
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,826 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »
    Yes, that burqa is really dangerous, be careful, it might take your eye out :rolleyes:

    If you aren't willing to repsond to my points then why even bother posting? You are just taking up space on the page that someone with an actual point could use.


  • #530
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    And balancing the right of people to make up their own minds is a reciprocal responsibility for the decision-maker to be sufficiently well-informed and sufficiently uninfluenced by other members of society that the choice they make is truly unencumbered. And in an unusual confluence of opposites, this reciprocal responsibility is ignored not only by the kind of unenlightened people who demean women by forcing them to wear bags over their heads, but also by their colleagues at what one would have hoped was the opposite end of the political spectrum, who give every appearance of believing that a single choice constitutes something called "freedom".

    In my experience, at least here in the West, it's only the most strident of libertarians who appear to believe -- in the face of practically every piece of relevant research in the psychological literature to the contrary -- that all decision-makers are equally capable of making what they claim they aspire to, namely a free decision.

    That isn't just hopelessly naive, it's evidentially false too.

    I'm not a libertarian btw, I'm a liberal. I believe in market regulation, social services, welfare, public healthcare etc, but above all I believe in personal freedom. People have to be free to make their own mistakes, it's how we learn.

    There is always someone who thinks they know better and if they were in charge everything would be perfect. They can be motivated by the best intentions in the world, as I'm sure you are, but there are always going to be people who disagree vehemently. Who be the judge of who is right and wrong?

    Take for instance the conservative wing of the Catholic church. When they were in charge of the country they were sure they knew what was best for everyone and made sure everyone did the right thing, with only the best intentions in their heart. They banned contraception, they separated bastard children from their mothers and put them both in special institutions, they outlawed divorce and under no circumstance would they allow abortions, even if the mothers health was at risk. If you disagreed with them you were seen as lacking good sense and incapable of making the right decision, so in order to protect you they took your freedom to choose away and enforced the right decision upon you.

    A few other examples would be communism, fascism and virtually all religions. So many people KNOW what is best for us and if they could just make us do the right thing the world would be a better place.

    If you think you know best and you feel you have the right and the obligation to force others to follow your way of thinking; what's stopping someone else who knows better than you, forcing you to do what they see to be best against your will?

    Think about it!


  • #531
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,308 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Wicknight wrote: »
    And if someone wears a burka? Who does that harm?
    No-one. Wearing a balaclava also harms no-on, and thus it's legal to buy and wear a balaclava in the Republic of Ireland. In saying that, it's not allowed to cover your face when going into a bank, by balaclava or motorcycle helmet, as this blocks your face from been seen, and can cause fear in the bank staff. Not wearing a balaclava in a bank, thus, is common sense. Why should someone be able to cover their face in a bank, then, with a Burka?

    I really don't give a damn what they wear walking down the street. Heck, I myself wear a black trenchcoat, black balaclava, black gloves, black jeans when it's cold. If I were to walk into a bank wearing this, I have no doubt that a silent alarm would be pressed, and i have no problem with that. It's not about lack of freedom to walk into a bank being covered head to toe, it's about allowing the bank staff feel safe in their workplace.

    If women want to wear the Burka, that's fine. However it's not fine to wear it in banks, or anywhere that facial identification is needed (such as airports). I'm unsure if their religon allows the women to drink alcohol, but I'd say they'd be refused if they tried to buy some when wearing the burka. This cartoon comes to mind when thinking about the topic.

    =-=

    A MP in England had a nice take on it:
    Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury, warned this case was a highly unusual use of Muslim dress. He added: "If this is true then it is the first case of its kind in Britain and an isolated incident.


    "We must not get hysterical. There have been many hundreds of cases where robberies have been committed by men wearing women's stockings on their heads - but no one is talking about banning stockings. The important thing is police and the security service should feel comfortable and confident about stopping anyone they have suspicions about, whatever they are wearing."

    Thus, freedom, bleh. No head coverings in banks, but other than that, meh.

    Oh, and people could legitly stop burka wearing women from:
    Going to over 15/18 rated cinema
    Getting alcohol/tobacco
    and maybe one or two other things.

    =-=

    The only time I would say that they should be banned, is when driving, as the burka restricts their view, and thus makes burka wearing people a danger to others.


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If you aren't willing to repsond to my points then why even bother posting? You are just taking up space on the page that someone with an actual point could use.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You dont think the burka will just lead to major societal problems?
    Major societal problems :eek: Not at all. What major problems do you foresee?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The burka promotes the very thing it tries to protect against. That women are different to men, and need to be treated differently.
    I have said time and time again I don't like the burqa, I don't agree with it, I don't think it is necessary to wear one as a Muslim so we both agree here I think. What I do care about is the woman's freedom to choose what she wants to wear.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Read Robindchs post again, the one that describes his interactions with burka clad women in middle eastern countries.Read again about the dangers of these burka clad women, living in countries that entirely support the burka (in law and in the general population), of talking to any man they are not married to (which is bizarre, as that is what it is suposed to facilitate), the dangers of any woman not wearing the burka in being attacked for not doing so.
    There are great dangers in the burka, because of the lifestyle it represents.
    I already said that IMO Robindch's post is not relevant to this discussion as we are talking about wearing the Burqa in European non-Muslim countries. Robindch is referring to Muslim countries, some of them dictatorships where the women don't have a choice.


  • #533
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    A measure of a law is not in wether or not people break it.

    The measure of a law is in how successful it is at achieving it's aims with the minimum of negative effects. The prohibition on drugs was designed to 'protect' people from the dangers of drugs. Does it? Are people still not regularly taking illegal drugs? Are the drugs that they're still taking more dangerous than what could be provided if they were legalised and regulated like any other consumer product? Does the prohibition not create a black market which fuels criminal gangs and all the related violence?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No, they are in a slightly different situation, so a different intervention is needed.

    Obviously fining them and locking them up isn't going to help them change their mind about killing themselves. Why would that strategy work any better for someone who thinks wearing a burka is a good idea?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Way to miss the point. What do creationists say when calling for it to be taught in school? Let the controversy be taught, they say. Let people make up their own mind. Its a stupid statement to make, because people are notoriously bad at making up their own mind, particularly in situations which make questioning harder, like when being taught by religious leaders.

    So we should also ban creationism. Ban all creationist literature and make it a crime to espouse a belief in creationism. Obviously these people can't be trusted to make the right decision so we should force them to.

    You are falling into the exact same logical fallacy many religious would fall into, that of a false dichotomy. You are presenting two extremes as the only viable approaches, either total ban, or teaching it in schools with nothing in between. We don't ban creationism but nor do we teach it in schools, we shouldn't ban the burka, but nor should we teach it in schools.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    We should make it harder for them to hurt themsleves. Sometimes that is a fine and jail time (speeding, drink driving, drug taking), sometimes its psychiatric intervention (suicide). We do not just throw them to the wind.

    Once again with the false dichotomy's, are the only option to fine and throw them in jail, or else do nothing? Would a third option be completely out of the question?


  • #534
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    sink wrote: »
    People have to be free to make their own mistakes, it's how we learn.
    Yes, but the women in the burqa debate are very often not "free" in this context -- either having had their ability to think independently undermined by the religion, or by being coerced one way or another. Not to mention that having made the decision to wear it, that the woman can face consequences for choosing to stop wearing it later on. That really doesn't make the decision "free" in any liberal sense of the word.
    sink wrote: »
    Who be the judge of who is right and wrong?
    As I said in a later post, we have no choice but to trust the rolling results of the legislative, executive, judicial, media, research and other information, direction and enforcement systems that we have -- hopefully to protect people from their own or others' excesses.

    No, it's certainly not perfect and it's certainly open to corruption, but by constructing the different branches of a society so that their self-interest lies in watching the others and criticising them upon a strictly evidential basis, one can usually come to a reasonable consensus about what constitutes "good" and "bad". And if it's based upon evidence, and open to consensual change, then that's a lot better than the kind of difficult-to-change or irreversible decisions that religious people tend to make, based upon made-up evidence gathered from preachers or holybooks.

    What is certainly wrong though is what you correctly point out is wrong -- that certain segments of society believe that they are in possession of absolute truth. And there's an arguable case that suggests that the state should be doing more than it is to discourage this narcissistic and unhealthy human tendency which has given us such dreadful institutions as the catholic church at one end of the spectrum and the burqa most of the way towards the other.


  • #535
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,826 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »
    Major societal problems :eek: Not at all. What major problems do you foresee?

    Are you taking the piss now? I have already laid them out. Twice. Both times to you.Read it here, again.
    irishconvert wrote: »
    I have said time and time again I don't like the burqa, I don't agree with it, I don't think it is necessary to wear one as a Muslim so we both agree here I think. What I do care about is the woman's freedom to choose what she wants to wear.

    Bu the woman is not free to choose what to wear. You recognise that the burka is not necessary for islam, do you also recognise that the people teaching these women that it is are abusing islam in order to control these women? These women believe, under threat of torture in hell (or even her on earth) that they have to wear the burka. Its coercion, and I'm surprised that you, as a muslim, are so happy for people to bastardise your beliefs to do it.
    irishconvert wrote: »
    I already said that IMO Robindch's post is not relevant to this discussion as we are talking about wearing the Burqa in European non-Muslim countries. Robindch is referring to Muslim countries, some of them dictatorships where the women don't have a choice.

    You are asking what societal problems will happenas a result of the burka. These societies that Robindch describe are societies control by the people who are the source of the idea that the burka is a required for women. These societies are what happens when things like the burka are allowed to go unchecked.


  • #536
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,826 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    sink wrote: »
    The measure of a law is in how successful it is at achieving it's aims with the minimum of negative effects. The prohibition on drugs was designed to 'protect' people from the dangers of drugs. Does it? Are people still not regularly taking illegal drugs? Are the drugs that they're still taking more dangerous than what could be provided if they were legalised and regulated like any other consumer product? Does the prohibition not create a black market which fuels criminal gangs and all the related violence?

    So a law is bad if it leads to people breaking it? Do you think that people who break drug prohibition laws are somehow unable not to? Besides, its irrelevent to my point wether the laws work, my point is that intervention is needed to stop people abusing their freedom. The current intervention in drugs may not be effective, but no intervention at all would be far worse.
    sink wrote: »
    Obviously fining them and locking them up isn't going to help them change their mind about killing themselves. Why would that strategy work any better for someone who thinks wearing a burka is a good idea?

    Why does it work for people who drink drive? Because of the similiarities and differences between the cases. All these situations require intervention. The nature of that intervention is depended on the individual case. Locking up suicidal people is ineffective. Locking up drink drivers is not.
    sink wrote: »
    So we should also ban creationism. Ban all creationist literature and make it a crime to espouse a belief in creationism. Obviously these people can't be trusted to make the right decision so we should force them to.

    I'm saying that people need to be thought how to make decisions for themselves, as objectively as possible. Kids in school cant do this, as they havent learned how, so we dont teach them creationism in the unquestioning manner advocated by creationists. People who advocate burkas cant do this, because they have been convinced by a tyrannical dictatorship, which squashes questioning of it, that they will go to hell for not wearing burkas.
    sink wrote: »
    You are falling into the exact same logical fallacy many religious would fall into, that of a false dichotomy. You are presenting two extremes as the only viable approaches, either total ban, or teaching it in schools with nothing in between. We don't ban creationism but nor do we teach it in schools, we shouldn't ban the burka, but nor should we teach it in schools.

    I'm not falling into a false dichotomy, I've just yet to hear any semblance of an alternative that takes account of the brainwashing these people have, as opposed to ignoring it.
    sink wrote: »
    Once again with the false dichotomy's, are the only option to fine and throw them in jail, or else do nothing? Would a third option be completely out of the question?

    Like what? You have another idea, then dont hold back.


  • #537
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Are you taking the piss now? I have already laid them out. Twice. Both times to you.Read it here, again.
    I think you are taking the piss if you fear Ireland, or France will turn into some kind of Sharia law run country by allowing women to wear burqa.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Bu the woman is not free to choose what to wear. You recognise that the burka is not necessary for islam, do you also recognise that the people teaching these women that it is are abusing islam in order to control these women? These women believe, under threat of torture in hell (or even her on earth) that they have to wear the burka. Its coercion, and I'm surprised that you, as a muslim, are so happy for people to bastardise your beliefs to do it.
    They ARE FREE TO CHOOSE. If my wife comes home tomorrow and tells me that she wants to wear burqa from now on, is that not her choice?

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You are asking what societal problems will happenas a result of the burka. These societies that Robindch describe are societies control by the people who are the source of the idea that the burka is a required for women. These societies are what happens when things like the burka are allowed to go unchecked.
    As I said, there is no chance of a European country turning into a Sharia law state by allowing women to wear burqa. That is just scaremongering.

    Ok, we are going around in circles here now. Bottom line is we both don't like burqa. Difference in our views is you want to force women not to wear it because you believe they either 1) Are forced to wear it by their men, 2) have been brainwashed into wearing it. I on the otherhand give women more credit than you do and believe that they are intelligent and capable enough to make up their own minds. If they choose to wear the burqa then let them be. To force them to take it off is too close to tyrany and opression for my liking.


  • #538
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    irishconvert wrote: »
    They ARE FREE TO CHOOSE.

    What about the women in say, a country like France, "femmes des quartiers" who are still under the rule of their families and live in fear?


  • #539
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,826 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »
    I think you are taking the piss if you fear Ireland, or France will turn into some kind of Sharia law run country by allowing women to wear burqa.

    So you think that those who support the burka, dont think that all women should wear one also? You dont think that that those who support sharia law dont want all of ireland ruled by it too? This is not unique to islam and sharia, everyone with beliefs wants their beliefs to take precedence in the place they live. The difference is we can see what will happen if sharia law gets in power, by looking at the horrible places where it already is.
    irishconvert wrote: »
    They ARE FREE TO CHOOSE. If my wife comes home tomorrow and tells me that she wants to wear burqa from now on, is that not her choice?

    THEY ARE NOT FREE TO CHOOSE. They have been told by authority figures, who they have brought up not question, that they will suffer indescribable pain fo rnot wearing the burka. Thats not freedom.
    irishconvert wrote: »
    As I said, there is no chance of a European country turning into a Sharia law state by allowing women to wear burqa. That is just scaremongering.

    Its not just because of the burka, the burka is just part of it. Its a part That reinforces the followers unquestioning loyalty to a far away unelected religious leader over their own countries leaders (not to mention simple ration thought and logic).
    irishconvert wrote: »
    Ok, we are going around in circles here now. Bottom line is we both don't like burqa. Difference in our views is you want to force women not to wear it because you believe they either 1) Are forced to wear it by their men, 2) have been brainwashed into wearing it. I on the otherhand give women more credit than you do and believe that they are intelligent and capable enough to make up their own minds. If they choose to wear the burqa then let them be. To force them to take it off is too close to tyrany and opression for my liking.

    Surprise, surprise, the real issue is that you give Islam and its leaders more creidt then they deserve. The burka is a thing taught by islamic leaders, not as aid for women who feel over sexualised or disrespected in society, but as a way to avoid hell. Its a coercive technique for islamic leaders to express their dominance over others.


  • #540
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,826 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    sink wrote: »
    Who be the judge of who is right and wrong?

    Eh, society? Like it has been for years, what with laws and regulations and judges. The difference between western society and islam, is that our leaders are elected and if we disagree, we can vote them out. Islamic leaders are not elected by the population, and can do what they well please.

    This "who can say what is right and wrong" is very much like an impersonal version of the classical theist bs "who are you to question god". Its crap when theists say it and its crap when you say it.


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »
    As I said, there is no chance of a European country turning into a Sharia law state by allowing women to wear burqa. That is just scaremongering.
    It's not scaremongering at all the UK appears to have its own semi-underground network of Sharia courts operating since 2007 in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and Nuneaton (see here).

    A similar move to introduce sharia law to Canada was rejected (see here).


Advertisement