Burka ban

sensibleken wrote: »

fairly debateable. as evidenced by the pages of debate

Actually, I dont think many here debating on either side would say the burka isn't oppressive (do you think the burka isn't oppressive?), the debate is whether the people have made a free will choice to suffer it and therefore we shouldn't interfere, and whether the burka is bad for society regardless of free choice or not.

Valmont wrote: »

What I'm saying is, is that forcing women to take off their Burkas under the threat of violence because of your own strawman of 100% rationality is completely anathema to individual rights and freedoms and everything that the liberal west should hold dear.

Who says the women are threatened with violence if they dont take of their burkas? Another strawman?

Valmont wrote: »

That you think you know more about what is good for them than they do demonstrates a classic case of statist arrogance, whereby philosopher kings such as yourself can go around forcing people to do what you think is in their self-interest. When faced with other seemingly irrational acts which should be banned according to your own logic, you just placed them further down the list of things to ban, citing a pressing need of some sort to get rid of the Burka.

Must really bother you living in a society were we have people do that for a living. Honestly, where do you think laws come from?

Valmont wrote: »

Using your haughty reasoning I could tell you that Straight Blast Gym and the UFC have indoctrinated you into believing that cage fighting is a rational activity and that you couldn't possibly be engaging in such a relatively dangerous activity unless you are mentally deficient or indoctrinated (don't call me up on this one, I've been training in MMA for five years).

Still ignoring the point about the burka being damaging to society? Even if someone could show that mma is irrational (and I'd love to see someone try), its still a personal choice with personal outcomes. The burka is not, for reasons repeatedly explained here.

Valmont wrote: »

Yes, in a coarse and muddled sense "society is based on telling people what to do", but this becomes a serious matter when we start telling people what to do using the coercive apparatus of the state.

What, you mean the police? How do you think we ensure that our laws are not followed if not by coercion? what do you think the police force, judicial system and prisons are for?

Valmont wrote: »

If I don't want any Burka clad women in my shop, then that's my own business but banning Burkas from public spaces, under the threat of punishment, all because of your fanciful notions of rationality and indoctrination (which you still haven't elaborated upon)

I have explained repeatedly why the burka is irrational and why it comes only from an source of indoctrination (the problems with issue it thinks it addresses and how it address it). Read the rest of the thread before making up such clearly obvious lies.

Valmont wrote: »

are nothing but an elitist, authoritative, and maniacal attempt to establish a hegemony of what you believe to be right and proper- dictatorial is the word I'm after.

And by your own libertarian inanity, your contradiction of me is nothing but an elitist, authoritative, and maniacal attempt to establish a hegemony of what you believe to be right and proper. See how this nonsense of no-one interfering with anyone else gets no-one anywhere?

Valmont wrote: »

What I'm saying is, is that forcing women to take off their Burkas under the threat of violence because of your own strawman of 100% rationality is completely anathema to individual rights and freedoms and everything that the liberal west should hold dear.

In the same way we *force* people not to own Uzis under a threat of violence.

If I don't want any Burka clad women in my shop, then that's my own business but banning Burkas from public spaces, under the threat of punishment, all because of your fanciful notions of rationality and indoctrination (which you still haven't elaborated upon) are nothing but an elitist, authoritative, and maniacal attempt to establish a hegemony of what you believe to be right and proper- dictatorial is the word I'm after.

No - because the norm is now that what happens in public - also goes for publicly accessible private spaces. I can't ban Africans, red haired Irishmen, travellers, Jews or homosexuals from a shop based on a whim, if a burka is a proper and allowable form of dress then I shouldn't be able to discriminate against people wearing one. If the burka is fine for public spaces then it should also be fine for shops, theatres and stadiums. It should also be fine for public servants, doctors, police, nurses etc too.

pH wrote: »

If the burka is fine for public spaces then it should also be fine for shops, theatres and stadiums. It should also be fine for public servants, doctors, police, nurses etc too.

Same argument could also be made for oversized sunglasses but I hear no one calling to outlaw them...

Scotty # wrote: »

Yes, of course they do and I think we all agree on that.

But the pro-ban argument has not shown that sexism and oppression are always (or ever) the case with European Burka wearers and that is the root of this debate.

We have, we have discussed the origin and the point of the burka. Please dont tell me that at this stage that you dont actually know what the burka is about?

Scotty # wrote: »

If it was shown beyond doubt that these women were wearing the Burka against their will then I'd be the first one calling for a ban but it simply isn't the case and the studies have show it. Therefore the ban can not be justified.

The women dont have to be against it for it to be sexist and oppressive, indoctrination remember?

Scotty # wrote: »

From reading the studies there appears to be a new wave of women who, for various reasons, want to live a more traditional and 'spiritual' life and this includes wearing the Burka. You would call this indoctrination but going by the interviews in the report I posted earlier, these women seem to have made very informed decisions. I don't understand it... knor do I understand vows of silence, or poverty, or devoting ones life to God, or climbing Croagh Patrick barefoot, or getting in a ring to punch the head off someone (though I enjoy watching that one).

But... I respect peoples right to choose their own lifestyle as long as they are not harming anyone and on that principle I oppose the ban.

I would disagree. Their reasons dont sound very informed at all. Doing things for tradition and spirituality doesn't add one iota of rationality.

Mark, I'll say this as simple as I can in the hope that you understand.

If a woman is forced to have sex it is rape. If a woman chooses to have sex it is 'making love' (or whatever you want to call it).

If she is forced to wear a Burka it is sexist. If she freely chooses and decides to wear a Burka is it not! If she has considered her options and chosen to wear it it is NOT indoctrination (or do you actually know what the word means at all?).

Thats because they're not SEXIST!.

As usual the point being made went over your head. I said the same argument (ie. regarding concealing your face - nothing to do with sexism) could be made about the sunglasses and wearing them in shops, etc.

Doing things for tradition and spirituality doesn't add one iota of rationality.

For the umteenth time. RATIONALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who says the women are threatened with violence if they dont take of their burkas? Another strawman?

Take off your Burka. No. Pay your Fine. No. Then you're going to jail- that is the usual pattern of events when you refuse to comply with the police.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Still ignoring the point about the burka being damaging to society?

I remember it, but it wasn't convincing. I don't see anything damaging about the Burka. Define society for me first and maybe I'll listen. In fact, I was in Alton towers recently and for the first time in my life, I saw many women wearing burkas. Seeing them flying around on rollercoasters with their families didn't really give off the indoctrinating damage to society you speak of.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even if someone could show that mma is irrational (and I'd love to see someone try), its still a personal choice with personal outcomes. The burka is not, for reasons repeatedly explained here.

You haven't explained that here. You've created an imaginary line between one perceived act of irrationality and another. I still don't see how you can apply your logic to Burkas but not a host of other supposedly "irrational" acts.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I have explained repeatedly why the burka is irrational and why it comes only from an source of indoctrination (the problems with issue it thinks it addresses and how it address it). Read the rest of the thread before making up such clearly obvious lies.

You have explained why you think it is irrational, simultaneously raising questions about any action ever perceived by anyone to be irrational. Your argument rests on some undefined universal rationality, that you seem to apply only arbitrarily, and worst of all, are condoning violence to achieve it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And by your own libertarian inanity, your contradiction of me is nothing but an elitist, authoritative, and maniacal attempt to establish a hegemony of what you believe to be right and proper. See how this nonsense of no-one interfering with anyone else gets no-one anywhere?

The key point you're missing here is that I'm not proposing to arrest you for doing it in public.

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

You seem not to make any distinction between rational, respectful debate and authoritarianism. While I can see plenty of reasons why the latter may be regarded as "maniacal", what's so bad about mature discussion?

Are you not arguing from the point of view that your opinion is better (elitist), therefore you should be listened to (authoritative) and thats the way the world should be (establish a hegemony of what is believed to be right and proper)? We are both arguing from the point of view that we think we are right and since our opinion is right, thats how things should be, there is no difference. These calls to emotion are better suited to a tabloid newspaper trying to muddy the water for controversy, rather than a mature debate.

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Do you not see any difference between using words to persuade someone (not impinging upon their free will) and forcing an opinion on them?

I see the difference between someone with a compromised free will who wont or cant listen and someone who will. Why cant you?
Even hypothetically, dont you agree that its possible for someones free will to be compromised because of upbringing?

Valmont wrote: »

Take off your Burka. No. Pay your Fine. No. Then you're going to jail- that is the usual pattern of events when you refuse to comply with the police.

And where does this the threat of violence you claimed come into it?

Valmont wrote: »

I remember it, but it wasn't convincing. I don't see anything damaging about the Burka. Define society for me first and maybe I'll listen. In fact, I was in Alton towers recently and for the first time in my life, I saw many women wearing burkas. Seeing them flying around on rollercoasters with their families didn't really give off the indoctrinating damage to society you speak of.

Define society? You getting lessons in inane debating from Jakkass or something?
You dont see how sexism or racism or oppression is damaging for society?
You dont see how a full body tent designed so that women aren't visible to men because, apparently, men turn into uncontrollable lust monsters if they see women and this is, apparently womens problem to fix, not mens, is bad for society? You dont see how thinking that men having uncontrollable lust is just something that should be accepted by society and men dont need to do anything about it, is a bad thing? You dont think that women being told its their fault for mens lust is bad imagine telling a rape victim its her fault simply because she is a a woman)? What about filling little childrens heads with sh*t? That not bad for society, having a new generation believing this crap?

Valmont wrote: »

You haven't explained that here. You've created an imaginary line between one perceived act of irrationality and another. I still don't see how you can apply your logic to Burkas but not a host of other supposedly "irrational" acts.

I have explained it (I certainly explained it last year when this thread started, and I definitely explained it again after robin updated the thread a few weeks ago), read the damn thread. (I'll give you a clue, its where I talked about the burka being a cultural meme and what it represents and tries to instill in people).

Valmont wrote: »

You have explained why you think it is irrational, simultaneously raising questions about any action ever perceived by anyone to be irrational. Your argument rests on some undefined universal rationality, that you seem to apply only arbitrarily

I have explained why its internally irrational, why the burka fails to do what it sets out to do, why the problem isn't even there in the first place. There is no arbitrary definitions of rationality used, the burka is supposed to be a solution to a problem, but the problem (men being unable to control their lust in the presence of women) doesn't exist (hence there is no effort in the western world to "solve" it) and the solution, even should the problem exist, makes no sense. Firstly, it assumes that its purely the womans fault and the womans problem to overcome (which makes no sense, even if the problem existed in the past, it doesn't exist in the present in the west, so men, it seems, can get over it). Secondly, it makes the women stand out more and become more alluring and more of a curiosity piece for men (which contradicts its supposed purpose of making women less noticeable). And thirdly, even after hundreds of years of use, it has not improved the situation its thinks its addressing, just look at what happens to women who even remove a small part of the burka (eg to eat) in countries where it is enforced (the abuse and threats they will get), not to mention that even wearing the burka, they aren't allowed out by themselves.

Its amazing the ignorance displayed and the ridiculous delaying arguments put forward by some people on this thread. It doesn't matter who looks at a solution to a problem, if the problem doesn't exist or the solution cant work, then the solution is unavoidably irrational.
Even your own "argument", that I'm only saying its irrational in my opinion, based on some undefined arbitrarily applied irrationality equally applies to your own point, you think I'm irrational based on some undefined view of irrationality that you are applying arbitrarily. Then again, thats the problem with bullsh*t philosophy, in the end its moot as its emotive reasoning can be made to apply to both sides. So lets drop this nonsense, better left to the snake tongued theists trying to wriggle out of an ecumenical conundrum and try and make rational points.

Valmont wrote: »

and worst of all, are condoning violence to achieve it.

This lie about violence ends here. I have not condoned any violence. A policeman can enforce a fine without threatening violence.

Valmont wrote: »

The key point you're missing here is that I'm not proposing to arrest you for doing it in public.

I'm not proposing to arrest you for disagreeing with me either. I think you didn't understand the point I was making (I was referring to your contradiction of me being the same form as my contradiction of you), go back and try again.