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…3031333536…138

Comments

  • #962
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Sometimes the state really does need to stop the worst excesses of corporations and individuals.
    Fine. Can you appreciate why some of us feel that burka wearing in Ireland doesn't pass the threshold of 'worst excesses'. In Saudi, it might be a worst excess. In Dublin, where that woman can pull off her veil any time she wants, its just an eccentricity.


  • #963
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So you rright to hide your face doesn't exist? Its a defacto right, a privilege if you will.

    Finally you got the point.
    Note: I always put the word "right" in inverted commas for this very reason.
    You have no such Privilege to see my face. (in the context of this discussion)
    Its naive to assume banning something about a religion will always make it stronger, especially when we have so much evidence (like our banning of female genital mutilation, honour killings and the like) to the contrary.

    I did not once in this thread claim "banning something about a religion will always make it stronger"
    If you are going to respond to my posts please respond to what I have written and do not put "words in my mouth" !!
    But by your argument, banning something makes people want to do it more, does this only apply to religion then?
    By my argument banning something can (ie; might, may, could, has the possibility to) increase resolve to do something and entrench ideas, which can by the way have unforseen consequences. ie the prohibition of alcohol in early 20th century America or as I stated earlier the penal laws here, or the banning of doctors from prescribing heroin to addicts in britian during the mid 20th century which resulted in a massive increase in usage.
    Throughout history many governments and religious organisations have banned many many things, some succsessfully some not so.
    To only concentrate on things that support your argument and ignore things that don't is a type of confirmation bias and makes a discussion very tedious.


  • #964
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    People here claim that these women are wearing the burka based on their own free will choice, not because they were brain washed. I'm not saying its conclusive, but the lack of anything aproaching a logical reason points toward a complete lack of autonomous thought on behalf of those wearing the burka.
    Well, we could probably fill several threads on the topic of free will and what it means. All I can say is I don't see a connection between 'logical reason' and 'autonomous thought'. If these are linked in your mind, fair enough.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I dont get this. We must be chickensh*t and vulnerable to want to protect ourselves from a domineering foreign culture? Do you not recognise how islam is treated totally different in the media in the west? How you can say pretty much what you like about any religion bar islam? At what stage should we stand up to them?
    Simply by treating them like anyone else. If they're full of it, our free debate should expose that pretty quickly, shouldn't it?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It was a start, first its voluntary, then its compulsive for muslims, then its compulsive for anyone dealing with muslims, then its complusive for all.
    Assuming they manage to convert a majority of Irish people. If they do, then maybe they're right.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The problem with sharia is that considers itself infallible from god. Anything like that, anything that considers itself infallible and above change is incredible dangerous and should not be enshrined in our law.
    You need to read what I said again.


  • #965
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    See, you just digging yourself into a hole. To people who believe in god, giving him your childs foreskin is a health benefit. Sure they are wrong, but no more wrong than those who think autism is caused by MMR. From the point of view of the parent who believes, these two situations are exactly the same.
    How do I put this?

    Erm, no. Just no.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Dont play innocent. You tried some emotive bs debating, but it doesnt hold up to scrutiny, let it go.
    I'd respond, only Sharon is shouting "Leave him, he's not worth it".


  • #966
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    See, you just digging yourself into a hole. To people who believe in god, giving him your childs foreskin is a health benefit. Sure they are wrong, but no more wrong than those who think autism is caused by MMR..

    Really?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6176209.stm
    Male circumcision 'cuts' HIV risk
    Circumcision can cut the rate of HIV infection in heterosexual men by 50%, results from two African trials show.

    The findings are so striking, the US National Institutes of Health decided it would be unethical to continue and stopped the trials early.

    It supports a previous South African study which reported similar results.

    Experts said it was a significant breakthrough but could not replace standard methods of preventing infection such as condoms.

    “ These findings are of great interest to public health policy makers who are developing and implementing comprehensive HIV prevention programmes ”
    Dr Elias Zerhouni
    US National Institutes of Health

    The two trials of around 8,000 men took place in Uganda and Kenya were due to finish in July and September 2007 respectively.

    But after an interim review of the data by the NIH Data and Safety Monitoring Board, it was decided to halt the trials as it was unethical not to offer circumcision in the men who were acting as controls.

    Bleeding less likely

    The trial in Kenya found a 53% reduction in new HIV infections in heterosexual men who were circumcised while the Ugandan study reported a drop of 48%.

    “ Men must not consider themselves protected ”
    Dr Kevin De Cock
    World Health Organization

    Results last year from a study in 3,280 heterosexual men in South Africa, which was also stopped early, showed a 60% drop in the incidence of new infections in men who had been circumcised.

    There are several reasons why circumcision may protect against HIV infection.

    Specific cells in the foreskin may be potential targets for HIV infection and also the skin under the foreskin becomes less sensitive and is less likely to bleed reducing risk of infection following circumcision.

    When Aids first began to emerge in Africa, researchers noted that men who were circumcised seemed to be less at risk of infection but it was unclear whether this was due to differences in sexual behaviour.

    A modelling study done by international Aids experts earlier this year showed that male circumcision could avert about six million HIV infections and three million deaths in sub-Saharan Africa.

    A further trial in Uganda to assess the risk of HIV transmission to female partners is due to report in 2008 but the effect among men who have sex with men has not yet been studied.

    Implementation

    Dr Kevin De Cock, director of the HIV/Aids department of the World Health Organization told the BBC the results were a "significant scientific advance" but were not a magic bullet and would never replace existing prevention strategies.

    "We will have to convene a meeting which we hope will happen quite soon to review the data in more detail and have discussions about the implications.

    "This is an intervention that must be embedded with all the other interventions and precautions we have. Men must not consider themselves protected. It's a very important intervention to add to our prevention armamentarium."

    Dr De Cock said that countries in Africa who wanted to use this approach would still have to decide what age groups to target and there would have to be training and hygienic practices in place.

    "This is about as good epidemiological data as we can request. There will be many other research questions about implementation but this is very persuasive."

    NIH director Dr Elias Zerhouni said: "Male circumcision performed safely in a medical environment complements other HIV prevention strategies and could lessen the burden of HIV/Aids, especially in countries in sub-Saharan Africa where, according to the 2006 estimates from UNAids, 2.8 million new infections occurred in a single year."

    Dr Jeckoniah Ndinya-Achola, co-principal investigator at the University of Nairobi, Kenya said: "The Ministry of Health of the Kenyan government is already holding discussions about how this can be made available. It will need a certain amount of improvement to existing facilities."

    But Tom Elkins, Senior Policy Officer at the National AIDS Trust warned: "There is a real danger in sending out a message that circumcision can protect against HIV. This is not the case and could lead to an increase in unprotected sex.

    "There is still a long way to go in providing comprehensive prevention programmes in many countries, and resources should go into normalising the use of condoms, which are the most effective method currently available for preventing HIV."


  • Advertisement
  • #967
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


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

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6176209.stm
    Just to keep the contention clear, are you suggesting that Islam demands male circumcision so that people can avoid infection? Or is the justification simply that God demands it, for reasons we do not understand?


  • #968
    g5fd6ow0hseima
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,787 ✭✭✭g5fd6ow0hseima


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »
    Really?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6176209.stm

    And I suppose Allah foresaw all this?


  • #969
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mabel Clever Brush wrote: »
    And I suppose Allah foresaw all this?

    Allah/God forsees all and knows all (apparently). ;)


  • #970
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Founder failed to foresee futility of foreskin?


  • #971
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    irishconvert wrote: »
    Really?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6176209.stm

    Ah come on, this has got be a joke.

    Kevin De Cock writing about circumcision? Like really?


    Edit: My bad. I just googled Dr De Cock and he is real. Truth really is stranger than fiction! :o


  • Advertisement
  • #972
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Also I'd imagine the risk of infection gets lower, the more you lop off. A few inches would save a lot of lives.


  • #973
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »
    Really?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6176209.stm
    Interesting. So does that mean the foreskin is a design flaw and god hand to kind of issue a recall, I can imagine the letter:

    "In a small number it has been found that an excess of skin around the end of the penis can increase the likelihood of infection. This is a small risk which we would not expect to cause widespread problems.

    Engineering have been looking at this issue and have come up with a fix, the excess skin is quickly, and relatively painlessly removed. This is a permanent fix and your penis should not require any further work. There is no need to return your penis. We will not entertain any requests for a new penis as we feel this is a small issue and the provided fix is more than adequate. Your local dealers have received full instructions on the procedure and will be able to carry out the fix.

    Unfortunately, due to the manner in which creation works the fix will not only have to be applied retrospectively to any penises you may already own, but will also have to be applied to all future penises. We have carried out a cost / benefit analysis and decided that it makes more sense to ask you to continue to apply that fix rather than redesign the penis.

    We thank you for you support and unthinking worship.

    Best Regards,

    Your God.”


  • #974
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    The alternative is to follow Apple Corps example, and offer a free rubber bumper to fix a hardware design flaw.


  • #975
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Dades wrote: »
    The alternative is to follow Apple Corps example, and offer a free rubber bumper to fix a hardware design flaw.

    The popes banned those rubber bumpers.


  • #976
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Interesting. So does that mean the foreskin is a design flaw and god hand to kind of issue a recall, I can imagine the letter:

    "In a small number it has been found that an excess of skin around the end of the penis can increase the likelihood of infection. This is a small risk which we would not expect to cause widespread problems.

    Engineering have been looking at this issue and have come up with a fix, the excess skin is quickly, and relatively painlessly removed. This is a permanent fix and your penis should not require any further work. There is no need to return your penis. We will not entertain any requests for a new penis as we feel this is a small issue and the provided fix is more than adequate. Your local dealers have received full instructions on the procedure and will be able to carry out the fix.

    Unfortunately, due to the manner in which creation works the fix will not only have to be applied retrospectively to any penises you may already own, but will also have to be applied to all future penises. We have carried out a cost / benefit analysis and decided that it makes more sense to ask you to continue to apply that fix rather than redesign the penis.

    We thank you for you support and unthinking worship.

    Best Regards,

    Your God.”

    I was merly correcting Mark Hamill who said there was no health benefit to circumcision. I am not interested in debating the religious merits to it.


  • #977
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Finally you got the point.
    Note: I always put the word "right" in inverted commas for this very reason.
    You have no such Privilege to see my face. (in the context of this discussion)

    Who are you to tell me my priviledges?
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    I did not once in this thread claim "banning something about a religion will always make it stronger"
    If you are going to respond to my posts please respond to what I have written and do not put "words in my mouth" !!

    You made very general statements about banning religions or aspecst thereof making those religions stronger. If thats not what you meant to say, then please think before you speak.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    By my argument banning something can (ie; might, may, could, has the possibility to) increase resolve to do something and entrench ideas, which can by the way have unforseen consequences. ie the prohibition of alcohol in early 20th century America or as I stated earlier the penal laws here, or the banning of doctors from prescribing heroin to addicts in britian during the mid 20th century which resulted in a massive increase in usage.

    Oh, so it may increase the resolve to do dsomething, I see. But, so what? Why should that stop us banning something?
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Throughout history many governments and religious organisations have banned many many things, some succsessfully some not so.
    To only concentrate on things that support your argument and ignore things that don't is a type of confirmation bias and makes a discussion very tedious.

    You are the one who pointed to Russias failed attempt to ban christainity as evidence for why we shouldn't ban the burka. Its you who allowed confirmational bias to make a baseless claim, I just laid out your contradiction without using the phrase "confirmationsal bias".


  • #978
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nemi wrote: »
    Well, we could probably fill several threads on the topic of free will and what it means. All I can say is I don't see a connection between 'logical reason' and 'autonomous thought'. If these are linked in your mind, fair enough.

    The only valuable autonomous thought, is that based on logical reason.
    Nemi wrote: »
    Simply by treating them like anyone else. If they're full of it, our free debate should expose that pretty quickly, shouldn't it?

    But we can see the problems with already. Firstly, in some respects we cant treat them like anyone else (see south park, that english hotelier who was taken to court for calling Mohommad a warlord). Secondly, exposing it as full of it is of use when the people who follow it are conditioned not to heed (or outright condem) those who question the religion. This si an issue with all religions, from islam (you can executed for blasphemy in some places for questioning islam), to scientology (where you can get sued).
    Nemi wrote: »
    Assuming they manage to convert a majority of Irish people. If they do, then maybe they're right.

    I dont care how many believe that a law was given down by an omnipotent omnipowerful god, they are wrong. Reality isn't decided by democratic vote.
    Nemi wrote: »
    You need to read what I said again.

    ? You pointed out that aspect of sharia could have mitigated our property bubble. I pointed out that no country should have a law that believes itself infallible, unquestionable orders from God. What else do i need to read?


  • #979
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »
    Really?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6176209.stm
    irishconvert wrote: »
    I was merly correcting Mark Hamill who said there was no health benefit to circumcision. I am not interested in debating the religious merits to it.

    I know some studies have said there are benefits, but there are some which claim otherwise. I'm not majorly leaning either way (its a non issue for me, personally), I only advocated one conclusion to show Nemi that the choice to circumcise and to vaccinate a kid are the same type of choice-parents deciding wether or not to do something based on the percieved benefits.
    If people can be wrong about circumcision (regardless of which way you lean) then they can be wrong about vaccination, and interference in one choice is only ok if its ok in the other.


  • #980
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Who are you to tell me my priviledges?

    Just pointing out the facts. If you don't like them, Not my problem.
    You made very general statements about banning religions or aspecst thereof making those religions stronger. If thats not what you meant to say, then please think before you speak.

    My issue was with you claiming I stated bans ALWAYS make things stronger.
    I did not say ALWAYS I said CAN.
    Oh, so it may increase the resolve to do dsomething, I see.

    If you just noticed this may I recomend here.
    Why should that stop us banning something?

    Because the negative results could very well out do the positive ones. (I thought that would be quite obvious).

    You are the one who pointed to Russias failed attempt to ban christainity as evidence for why we shouldn't ban the burka. Its you who allowed confirmational bias to make a baseless claim, I just laid out your contradiction without using the phrase "confirmationsal bias".

    I did not mention Russia at all in this thread. I have already asked you to stop "putting words in my mouth" and respond to what I actually write.


  • #981
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »
    I was merly correcting Mark Hamill who said there was no health benefit to circumcision. I am not interested in debating the religious merits to it.
    Of course you aren't, you have made that abundantly clear in the past.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #982
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Just pointing out the facts. If you don't like them, Not my problem.

    Not an answer, please try again. Who are you to say these are facts?
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Because the negative results could very well out do the positive ones. (I thought that would be quite obvious).

    "Could"? You need to prove it (to some extent), else why should we take heed of you?
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    I did not mention Russia at all in this thread. I have already asked you to stop "putting words in my mouth" and respond to what I actually write.

    Apologies, it was Moomoo1 who mentioned it. You all have the same nonsense arguments, so you are all so interchangeable.


  • #983
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Apologies, it was Moomoo1 who mentioned it. You all have the same nonsense arguments, so you are all so interchangeable.
    That was unnecessary. Behave.


  • #984
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The only valuable autonomous thought, is that based on logical reason.
    If that's the only thought you value, fair enough. I'm partial to a bit of Hank Williams, myself.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But we can see the problems with already. Firstly, in some respects we cant treat them like anyone else (see south park, that english hotelier who was taken to court for calling Mohommad a warlord). Secondly, exposing it as full of it is of use when the people who follow it are conditioned not to heed (or outright condem) those who question the religion. This si an issue with all religions, from islam (you can executed for blasphemy in some places for questioning islam), to scientology (where you can get sued).
    I hear bullets won't stop them either.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLdkIXik4Aw
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I dont care how many believe that a law was given down by an omnipotent omnipowerful god, they are wrong. Reality isn't decided by democratic vote.
    Well, we contend that they are wrong. There is a remote chance that they are right.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    ? You pointed out that aspect of sharia could have mitigated our property bubble. I pointed out that no country should have a law that believes itself infallible, unquestionable orders from God. What else do i need to read?
    Sorry, as I should have been less oblique. What I actually meant was that someone could decide to live by the Sharia anyway, to the extent that it is permitted by the UK law of contract. This is what I understand them to mean. Its not that you lose your right to be heard in a real court. But if you contract with someone to accept, on a voluntary basis, arbitration by a Sharia court, then I'm not sure that anyone can stop you.

    I mean, the Catholic Church here has some kind of ecclesiastical court. In years past, when divorce was illegal, it used to dish out annulments of marriages that had no civil validity at all. (Bad example, as what I really mean is cases where there is no legal ban. But its just to make the point that religions might already have their own internal arbitrators. I'm sure GAA have too, for all it matters.)

    All I really meant was there's no block on someone contracting to follow Sharia law, where there is no conflict with State law.


  • #985
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Not an answer, please try again. Who are you to say these are facts?

    If i want to cover my face I can.
    If you want to see it and I dont want you to, there is nothing (legal) you can do to force me to show it to you.
    These are the facts.
    I can state this because I am a sentient adult who is aware of his environment.

    "Could"? You need to prove it (to some extent), else why should we take heed of you?

    I dont need or have to prove anything.
    I have made a very rational argument for my case, I accept there are some people who blankly refuse to even entertain, not necessarily accept someone elses ideas. You are one of these people therefore no matter what I say you will disagree, consequently I do not have to prove anything to you.
    Apologies, it was Moomoo1 who mentioned it. You all have the same nonsense arguments, so you are all so interchangeable.

    Pity you couldn't just apologise without an insult.


    PS; I accept your apology.


  • #986
    g5fd6ow0hseima
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,787 ✭✭✭g5fd6ow0hseima


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »
    I am not interested in debating the religious merits to it.

    There is no debate. Only that creationists are defying their god by mutilating themselves.


  • #987
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    For anyone interested, there was an article Beyond the veil in Saturday's Irish times, where they talk to five women in Ireland who wear a Niqab. Aficionados of such things will quickly note that this means they cover everything except their eyes. For our purposes, I don't actually see much of a difference in principle.

    Anyway, I both want to comment on the article, while at the same time not pre-empt how anyone else reacts to it. So I'll use that helpful spoiler feature.
    I suppose the first point is that, obviously, the women most likely to volunteer to be interviewed are ones who support and choose to wear the veil. We're hardly going to hear from a woman who says "I hate the bloody thing, but himself would blow a gasket if I so much as hung up his washing without it on."

    Also, I've that feeling that they are telling us what at least some of us want to hear - that they are educated women, freely deciding this is what they want to do. I'd like to have heard a bit more from the woman from Tallaght, who seemed to be a convert who had decided to adopt a veil. I mean, its obviously her business. I'd just like to better understand what actually put on this path. It seems like quite an extreme decision, but maybe its just an example of the zeal of the convert.

    But I think the bottom line is these women both seem to have made a choice to wear a veil, and to be quite positive in their defence of the practice. It makes sense to them. I cannot see any reason, after reading the article, why these women should be obstructed from practicing their religion in their chosen manner. I don't see any way in which their choice restricts me or anyone else.


  • #988
    g5fd6ow0hseima
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,787 ✭✭✭g5fd6ow0hseima


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nemi wrote: »
    For anyone interested, there was an article Beyond the veil in Saturday's Irish times, where they talk to five women in Ireland who wear a Niqab. Aficionados of such things will quickly note that this means they cover everything except their eyes. For our purposes, I don't actually see much of a difference in principle.

    Anyway, I both want to comment on the article, while at the same time not pre-empt how anyone else reacts to it. So I'll use that helpful spoiler feature.

    The most interesting aspect was the part which briefly touched on the feminist aspect of the veil - with one of the interviewed stating that men are weak and they are susceptible to image.

    This made me think - regardless of the plain misandry - isnt the instance of wearing a veil to thwart men just waving the white towel and accepting the dominance of men? If there's any feminists on here, I'd like to hear what you have to say because I simply cannot get my head around the idea of a women - in belief of superiority over men - decides to physically shield herself away from the world.


  • #989
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nemi wrote: »
    Well, we contend that they are wrong. There is a remote chance that they are right.

    And? This applies to almost any claim someone can make. Its moot, as to wether we should listen to them and actually take any heed of the law.
    Nemi wrote: »
    All I really meant was there's no block on someone contracting to follow Sharia law, where there is no conflict with State law.

    I never said there was, I just said that I dont beleive a country should take a law system like that believes itself to be unquestionably infallible.


  • #990
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    If i want to cover my face I can.
    If you want to see it and I dont want you to, there is nothing (legal) you can do to force me to show it to you.
    These are the facts.
    I can state this because I am a sentient adult who is aware of his environment.

    But where, in the law, does it say that you are allowed not to show me? I'm honestly curious. We live in a society where few people completely cover their faces, so we dont generally have to ask people to show them, so the "right" is simply there because we rarely have situations where it comes into question.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    I dont need or have to prove anything.

    To be taken heed of, yes you do.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    I have made a very rational argument for my case, I accept there are some people who blankly refuse to even entertain, not necessarily accept someone elses ideas. You are one of these people therefore no matter what I say you will disagree, consequently I do not have to prove anything to you.

    I have not blankly refused to entertain your arguments, I have rebuted each one. You are the one who ignores my rebutes. What points have I blankly efused to entertain?


  • Advertisement
  • #991
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But where, in the law, does it say that you are allowed not to show me? I'm honestly curious. We live in a society where few people completely cover their faces, so we dont generally have to ask people to show them, so the "right" is simply there because we rarely have situations where it comes into question.

    In all fairness this is the last time I'm going to go through this, ok?

    First; I will say, I never stated I had a legal "right" to cover, I stated there was nothing legal you could do to make me show.

    Say I am walking down the street with my face covered, which in this country I am able to do.
    It could be because I'm cold and am using a scarf or I could have a facial deformity or any number of legitimate reasons.
    Now, say you approach me and insist on seeing my face.
    If I don't want to comply with your demand the only thing you can do is use physical force in order to make me.
    In this country it is actually illegal to physically force someone to do something against their wishes.
    If this hypothetical situation were to occur, the gardaí would either arrest or caution you for harassment or assault.

    To put it simply,
    If I want to cover my face I can.
    If you want to see it you can't.

    This is the situation in this country with regards to this situation.
    You can disagree with me till you are blue in the face but it won't change these facts.

    Now, if you are going to respond to this post, remember,
    this whole line of discussion started when someone stated that they had "the right to see the face of every citizen"
    and I pointed out that this was incorrect, as I have just shown by the hypothetical example above.
    I have not blankly refused to entertain your arguments, I have rebuted each one. You are the one who ignores my rebutes. What points have I blankly efused to entertain?

    Re-read the posts and this should become clear.


Advertisement