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…5253555758…138

Comments

  • #1622
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Scotty # wrote: »
    If you want to know who they are within this thread you will have to read back over the 1600 posts yourself - I don't remember.
    You've repeated, again, an unhelpful slur concerning the motivations of the majority of pro-ban people in this thread. A slur which is based, so far as I can make out, upon nothing more than your own misinterpretations of pro-ban posts.

    In cases like this, and when it's requested as it has been, it's normal for you either to back up your original claim with evidence we can all agree on -- several posts from some forum regular saying something equivalent to "I don't care whether it helps or not, I just want to see it banned because it's islamic" will do fine. A response like "Go find it yourself" is not.

    Alternatively, if you cannot back up your slur with evidence, then it would be fitting for you to withdraw it.


  • #1623
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    I've never before had "romantic" used to describe anything I've said. So what is the evidence?

    My girlfriend of 3 years is a muslim. I have read arguments put forward by different posters on boards and have read the religious reasoning on various websites. I even debunked some interviews posted here, by Scotty I think it was, of women who claim to chosen freely to wear the burka.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    It is used as a symbol of oppression, therefore remove it and hope it decreases the oppression? It doesn't address the problem, it just takes it out of public view.

    :confused: You do realise that the women who wear the burka dont wear it home, right? SO noburka in public, no burka at home = no burka at all.
    Yes you still have the indoctrination, but I would have imagined that the libertarians here would be far more in favour of legislating against certain physical acts or religion rather than the entire religion itself, no? You cant reason people out of positions they weren't reasoned into. You can only try to prevent them from hurting themselves or others.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    No I think it will be severely challenged and only used to justify the position that the State is trying to infringe on their beliefs

    The state already infringes on a great many freedoms, ie the law, so what difference does that make?
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    and turn the vulnerable women away from potential freedom.

    How? Because they wont be allowed out? You do realise that even with the burka, these women aren't allowed out without a male minder anyway, right?


  • #1624
    AhSureTisGrand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭AhSureTisGrand


    I'm religious and support the ban
    yammycat wrote: »
    Sure thing brah, all that needs is 24 hour surveillance in every persons house, cctv monitored by people just doing a job and who won't take any notice of any sexual interactions, and turn a blind eye to any and all events in the bathroom that aren't browbeating.

    I'll just assume you posted that as a throw away smart report without giving a seconds thought to whether it was enforceable or not, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
    These women aren't being murdered, you know. They are capable of reporting crimes against them and providing sufficient evidence to convince a jury, as happens when the only witness is the victim. I would give you the benefit of the doubt on this, but it's a long post and you seem quite sure that it's impossible to prosecute people for things that don't occur in broad daylight.
    Continuing with any action which is in no way needed and which will continue the suffereing and pain of others is wrong, it is simply wrong, and if your religion does not agree then your religion is evil pure and simple.
    I find this statement utterly bizarre so I'm gonna ask you to spell out why you think choosing to wear the burka continues the suffering for those forced to wear it


  • #1625
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    You've repeated, again, an unhelpful slur concerning the motivations of the majority of pro-ban people in this thread.

    I could have sworn someone said it as well, so I went back through the first 10 pages or so (over a 100 posts). Nothing there. It's possible there isn't one person, but I can't be assed reading the other 1,500 posts.

    I don't see him saying it as a slur though, but probably giving the pro-camp more credit then they have.

    From posts I read, some people honestly believe that the second the burka comes off, the husband will go "Oooh, it all makes sense now, I will stop beating you and give you more rights".

    With all honesty to all the pro-ban people. Do you really believe this? That women will start magically stopped being oppressed?

    Back in the 50's/60's women in the western world had the same issue. Wife beating was somewhat common, and no systems in places to stop it. Instead they suffered in silence, or "bumped into doors". To give you an idea of how f'ed up it was, in 1966 New York passed a law that finally allowed you to divorce on the grounds of being beaten, providing you could prove a sufficient amount of beatings have taken place.

    It wasn't until the late 60's/early 70's that Feminism put systems in place to save women/children from abusive husbands (eg. The "we will not be beaten" campaign).

    Now I am pretty sure they didn't go to the wives and say "Stop wearing that item and your husband will stop beating you". Instead they set up shelters for the women until they could support themselves and their children.

    That is what is going to stop the oppression of women.

    So to me this just looks like placating people with irrational fears, rather then dealing with the real issue, which is the oppression of women.


  • #1626
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    All women who wear the burka have been indoctrinated to do so
    Even those highly educated women who converted to Islam later in life? This statement is simply not true. You can show no evidence to suggest it is.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I even debunked some interviews posted here, by Scotty I think it was, of women who claim to chosen freely to wear the burka.
    You would make a very successful politician you know! You mentioned one line of the report I posted and you provided no contradictory evidence whatsoever. Hardly a debunking!
    robindch wrote: »
    You've repeated, again, an unhelpful slur...
    It's not a slur. I have stated from the very start of this thread that I see the ban as little more than Islamaphobia and I have used the word several times. I accept that some people (yourself included) have the women's better interests at heart but in general I think most people (including the French Gov.) are calling for the ban simply because they don't want to see burka clad women on our streets. That is my opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • #1627
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Scotty # wrote: »
    It's not a slur. I have stated from the very start of this thread that I see the ban as little more than Islamaphobia and I have used the word several times. I accept that some people (yourself included) have the women's better interests at heart but in general I think most people (including the French Gov.) are calling for the ban simply because they don't want to see burka clad women on our streets. That is my opinion.
    I would expect that many people don't want to see burka clad women on the streets, I know I don't, but that is not islamaphobia, it is simply not wanted to see the result of the oppressio they are suffering.

    Let me make this clear, I am not suggesting they should stay off the streets. I am merely saying I would rather not see them, and that is rather not see them in the sense that I would rather they were not forced to wear the burka and not that they stayed out of sight.

    Similarly I don't want to see crippled and horribly disfigured children. Again, I don't want them to stay out of sight for my benefit, I simply wish they were not crippled or disfigured.

    It is perfectly possible that a person might not want to see women in burkas for non-islamaphibic reasons.

    MrP


  • #1628
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    I'm religious and support the ban
    MrPudding wrote: »
    it is simply not wanted to see the result of the oppression they are suffering.

    So you prefer the oppression to happen behind closed doors?

    ... According to your comments, to me it seems to you that you could care less about their oppression, only that you don't have to look at it. Slacktivism at best, phobia at worst.


  • #1629
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Hobbes wrote: »
    So you prefer the oppression to happen behind closed doors?

    ... According to your comments, to me it seems to you that you could care less about their oppression, only that you don't have to look at it. Slacktivism at best, phobia at worst.

    Well done Hobbes, nice misrepresentation. :rolleyes: Did you read past the first paragraph? Clearly not.

    MrP


  • #1630
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    I'm religious and support the ban
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Well done Hobbes, nice misrepresentation. :rolleyes: Did you read past the first paragraph? Clearly not.

    MrP

    Yes I did, but I didn't see a point to quote your whole post. In what way have I mis-represented you?


  • #1631
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    I'm religious and support the ban
    MrPudding wrote: »
    I would expect that many people don't want to see burka clad women on the streets, I know I don't, but that is not islamaphobia, it is simply not wanted to see the result of the oppressio they are suffering.

    So do you mind seeing them wear it of their own volition?

    MrPudding wrote: »
    It is perfectly possible that a person might not want to see women in burkas for non-islamaphibic reasons.

    I wouldn't use the word "islamophobic" myself, but I would still argue that there are no alternative reasons to explain why people would not want to see burkas on the street other than ignorance of the culture behind it.


  • Advertisement
  • #1632
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Just to clarify, not wanting to see burka clad women on the stree because you dont want to see the oppression they are suffering implies that they categorize burka clad women as oppressed.

    This form of profiling, in the minds of some, would constitute islamophobia.


  • #1633
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You do realise that the women who wear the burka dont wear it home, right? SO noburka in public, no burka at home = no burka at all.

    True, and it means that ALL women who wore it (by choice or not) are now forced to be housebound (in the sake of those forced), or to give up elements of their culture for no reason whatsoever.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Yes you still have the indoctrination, but I would have imagined that the libertarians here would be far more in favour of legislating against certain physical acts or religion rather than the entire religion itself, no?

    I'm sure the proper libertarians would not be legislating to curtail freedoms for no reason for no net benefit to freedoms at all.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You cant reason people out of positions they weren't reasoned into. You can only try to prevent them from hurting themselves or others.

    You also can't presume that your reason is greater than that of others.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You do realise that even with the burka, these women aren't allowed out without a male minder anyway, right?

    I'm sure we all do. The point stands. In one case, they are able to leave the house. In the other, they are not.


  • #1634
    RussellTuring
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 866 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    My girlfriend of 3 years is a muslim. I have read arguments put forward by different posters on boards and have read the religious reasoning on various websites. I even debunked some interviews posted here, by Scotty I think it was, of women who claim to chosen freely to wear the burka.

    It sounds like you are using inductive rather than deductive reasoning as you claimed earlier. While your girlfriend is entitled to her opinion, and I'd imagine she would have a lot of knowledge on the subject, she can't possibly represent the views of every Muslim woman. Even if she thinks that every woman who wears a burka is oppressed, this doesn't make it true any more than you believing it.
    :confused: You do realise that the women who wear the burka dont wear it home, right? SO noburka in public, no burka at home = no burka at all.
    Yes you still have the indoctrination, but I would have imagined that the libertarians here would be far more in favour of legislating against certain physical acts or religion rather than the entire religion itself, no? You cant reason people out of positions they weren't reasoned into. You can only try to prevent them from hurting themselves or others.

    Yes I do realise this. What's your point? While it might stop it being worn altogether, it won't stop the oppression but will just move it out of public view. And I would imagine that libertarians everywhere would avoid any legislation at all, but what about it? Remember it's only your opinion that every single woman who wears a burka is forced into it; you haven't yet shown that no woman chooses it. Nevertheless, my main problem with the ban is that it's based on the assumption that you know better than the people you are trying to help. You can justify a lot of things that way.
    The state already infringes on a great many freedoms, ie the law, so what difference does that make?

    What do you mean what difference does it make? If it wasn't an especially important issue, we wouldn't be discussing it; the ban wouldn't have ever been suggested.
    How? Because they wont be allowed out? You do realise that even with the burka, these women aren't allowed out without a male minder anyway, right?

    No: by giving the vulnerable women more reason to believe and the oppressive men more ammunition to claim that Western governments are trying to change their ways and can't be trusted.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    I would expect that many people don't want to see burka clad women on the streets, I know I don't, but that is not islamaphobia, it is simply not wanted to see the result of the oppressio they are suffering.

    Let me make this clear, I am not suggesting they should stay off the streets. I am merely saying I would rather not see them, and that is rather not see them in the sense that I would rather they were not forced to wear the burka and not that they stayed out of sight.

    Similarly I don't want to see crippled and horribly disfigured children. Again, I don't want them to stay out of sight for my benefit, I simply wish they were not crippled or disfigured.

    It is perfectly possible that a person might not want to see women in burkas for non-islamaphibic reasons.

    MrP

    Not seeing something doesn't go any way towards ensuring it doesn't exist.


  • #1635
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Scotty # wrote: »
    Even those highly educated women who converted to Islam later in life? This statement is simply not true. You can show no evidence to suggest it is.

    I have explained it many times before in this thread, several times to you. Indoctrination is powerful. Even highly educated people can succumb to it. A relative of mine, by no means a fool, was in an abusive relationship for years (not with a muslim, just to be clear, with a scumbag). How many times have I explained battered-person-syndrome to you and only get disbelief as a repsonse? Look at this thread from the Islam forum (and the linked article) about successful british women converting to Islam Just because someone is highly educated doesn't mean they use any of the education to make that decision (post 11 in that thread).
    Scotty # wrote: »
    You would make a very successful politician you know! You mentioned one line of the report I posted and you provided no contradictory evidence whatsoever. Hardly a debunking!

    I debunked it at the time you posted. Come to think of it I dont remember you posting much after the debunking. That seemed to happen a couple of times in this thread. The anti side say we have no way of knowing that women dont choose to wear the burka, the pro side point out the major influence of indoctrination, the anti side respond only with disbelief, the thread dies down, rises again and you repeat your previous assertions as if indoctrination is no longer an issue.
    I have pointed this out to you before, you stopped posting then and here you are, posting teh same flawed arguments again.


  • #1636
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Hobbes wrote: »
    Yes I did, but I didn't see a point to quote your whole post. In what way have I mis-represented you?

    Really, are you serious? Look at the third paragraph in MrPuddings post:
    "Similarly I don't want to see crippled and horribly disfigured children. Again, I don't want them to stay out of sight for my benefit, I simply wish they were not crippled or disfigured."
    How you can take his post to mean "I dont want to see an obvious muslim" and not " I dont want to see a person under oppression" is baffling and, I can only assume, done on purpose.


  • #1637
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    I wouldn't use the word "islamophobic" myself, but I would still argue that there are no alternative reasons to explain why people would not want to see burkas on the street other than ignorance of the culture behind it.

    Thats funny, because I would argue that there are no alternative reasons to explain why people are happy to see burkas on the street other than ignorance of the culture behind it.


  • #1638
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    Just to clarify, not wanting to see burka clad women on the stree because you dont want to see the oppression they are suffering implies that they categorize burka clad women as oppressed.

    This form of profiling, in the minds of some, would constitute islamophobia.

    I think you are still misrepresenting Mr Pudding. I think it would be more accurate to say that he doesn't want to see women burka-clad on the street as he doesn't like seeing women being oppressed (thats how I feel).

    If this were islamophobia, then I imagine quite a few muslims countries are islamophobic, as only a very small few require or expect women to wear it.


  • #1639
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    True, and it means that ALL women who wore it (by choice or not) are now forced to be housebound (in the sake of those forced), or to give up elements of their culture for no reason whatsoever.

    Its their indoctrination or abusive husbands that keep them inside, so why dont you trying blaming them?
    Incidentally, converts to islam already had to give up parts of their own culture for no reason when they convert, and burka advocating muslims give up parts of their culture when they come to the west, so I dont see what difference culture makes.
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    I'm sure the proper libertarians would not be legislating to curtail freedoms for no reason for no net benefit to freedoms at all.

    The benefit has been explained many, many times already, read the thread.
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    You also can't presume that your reason is greater than that of others
    .

    I have made no presumption, I have examined and concluded with logic. What have you done? what do you understand of the reasoning behind the burka?
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    I'm sure we all do. The point stands. In one case, they are able to leave the house. In the other, they are not.

    Dont know what you were reading, but that wasn't the point I was responding to. RussellTurning said that the burka ban will "turn the vulnerable women away from potential freedom", however as burka wearing women aren't allowed out without a minder, they have no potential for freedom anyway.


  • #1640
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    It sounds like you are using inductive rather than deductive reasoning as you claimed earlier. While your girlfriend is entitled to her opinion, and I'd imagine she would have a lot of knowledge on the subject, she can't possibly represent the views of every Muslim woman. Even if she thinks that every woman who wears a burka is oppressed, this doesn't make it true any more than you believing it.

    You seem to assuming that I am basing my opinion purely on my girlfriends input. Long before I even met here I had the same opinion of the burka. I have yet to hear a single argument for the burka which contradicts the irrationality I detailed 4 1/2 months ago.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    Remember it's only your opinion that every single woman who wears a burka is forced into it; you haven't yet shown that no woman chooses it.

    I have explained many times how no explanation I've heard has indicated a free, informed choice to wear the burka. I have asked multiple times for the anti ban side to give examples that they think show women can freely choose to wear it. Its your side that has been completely lacking in this debate.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    Nevertheless, my main problem with the ban is that it's based on the assumption that you know better than the people you are trying to help. You can justify a lot of things that way.

    Worthless emotive BS. Guy A trying to help guy B could very easily know better than guy B, if guy B knew better than he wouldn't be in trouble. No-one runs around telling doctors or mechanics or lawyers that they are only working on the assumption that they know better than the people you are trying to help. I have presented a detailed reasoning for my side, I have been presented with reasoning for the other side, but only my side stands up to logical scrutiny. Neither you no anyone before has actually shown any rhyme or reason for why my rational is not right. Until you do, I see no reason to assume I'm wrong, despite the anti-sides combined naive incredulity with respect to indoctrination.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    What do you mean what difference does it make? If it wasn't an especially important issue, we wouldn't be discussing it; the ban wouldn't have ever been suggested.

    I was asking what difference does it make that state is trying to infringe on someones belief? I'm sure there are people who think they should be allowed drink and drive, but its illegal so therefore the state is infringing on their beliefs. I guess it should be a surprise that nobody cares about this sort of thing until they agree with the belief.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    No: by giving the vulnerable women more reason to believe and the oppressive men more ammunition to claim that Western governments are trying to change their ways and can't be trusted.

    :confused:Anything you do to try to convince these people that what they are doing is wrong can and will be taken by their oppressors as evidence that Western governments are trying to change their ways and can't be trusted. This is moot.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    Not seeing something doesn't go any way towards ensuring it doesn't exist.

    And doing nothing at all will change so much more, will it?


  • #1641
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Hobbes wrote: »
    Yes I did, but I didn't see a point to quote your whole post. In what way have I mis-represented you?


    So you said

    “So you prefer the oppression to happen behind closed doors?

    ... According to your comments, to me it seems to you that you could care less about their oppression, only that you don't have to look at it. Slacktivism at best, phobia at worst.”

    And this was in response to me saying

    “I know I don't, but that is not islamaphobia, it is simply not wanted to see the result of the oppressio they are suffering.”

    Had I left my post like this then your response might have been correct. However, I did not leave it at that, I went on to say

    “Let me make this clear, I am not suggesting they should stay off the streets. I am merely saying I would rather not see them, and that is rather not see them in the sense that I would rather they were not forced to wear the burka and not that they stayed out of sight.”

    So, in light of this second paragraph, and indeed the crippled child analogy in the next paragraph, I think I made it quite clear that I do not prefer the oppression to be behind closed doors, but would prefer that there was no oppression.

    So, where does this leave us? You give the impression of being reasonably intelligent. I did not say anything particularly complicated or ambiguous. I believe that you are more than capable of working out what I meant. Therefore, I can only assume that your response was not only a misrepresentation of mine, but an intentional misrepresentation. I hope it was intentional actually because if you failed to grasp the meaning of my simple post I fear for posters in the Islam forum as they may be found guilty of an offence simply because the moderator either can’t interpret posts correctly.

    pagancornflake wrote: »
    So do you mind seeing them wear it of their own volition?
    This is where it gets a little tricky. I don’t actually believe a woman can wear this outfit of her own volition. She may think that she is, but I don’t think that a free choice can or is being made. I personally believe that the “free choice” to wear the burka is one that is made under a hideous and insidious form of duress.

    pagancornflake wrote: »
    I wouldn't use the word "islamophobic" myself, but I would still argue that there are no alternative reasons to explain why people would not want to see burkas on the street other than ignorance of the culture behind it.
    Why do I not want ot see burka clad women on the streets? Let me try and answer that. For me seeing women in burkas is indicative of a failure of humanity. It is an indication that there are people in this world that consider their woman as chattel. It is an indication that a large section of the earth’s population are stuck in the dark ages. It is an obscenity and a blight on humanity.

    I dislike religion in general, I don’t care which. I don’t particularly like any of them. I like to think I am an equal opportunity disliker of religion, but islam does seem to wind me up a little bit more.

    I absolutely despise the way a fairly large number of its followers treat women. This treatment should be consigned to the history books and humanity should be collectively embarrassed it took to long to fix it. I understand that not all followers of islam have this belief, but even the moderates have a part to play in the continued oppression of these women. By passively sitting by and allowing followers of the same religion to continue to treat women in this way they are complicit in the oppression.


    pagancornflake wrote: »
    Just to clarify, not wanting to see burka clad women on the stree because you dont want to see the oppression they are suffering implies that they categorize burka clad women as oppressed.

    This form of profiling, in the minds of some, would constitute islamophobia.
    I do categorize burka wearing women as being oppressed. If that makes me isamophobic then bring it on.

    MrP



  • Advertisement
  • #1642
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I have explained it many times before in this thread, several times to you. Indoctrination is powerful. Even highly educated people can succumb to it.
    I agree. I have no doubt that indoctrination is sometimes the cause. But the onus is on you (the pro ban side) to prove that it's ALWAYS the case! (oh yes it is!) And here is where your argument fails. You can't do that. Much as you have tried. The reason, I suspect, is because it's not always the case. If it is - then prove it!

    If a Muslim woman decides to wear the Burka in public and takes pleasure or satisfaction (as many seem to) from the fact that she is living by her traditions in doing so then who are we to stop her? She's not harming anyone. OK She's not helping the cause of those who are forced to wear it but that's not her problem. Because some women are trafficked in the sex industry does that mean we impose sexual restrictions on all women? (Yes it is the same thing!)

    MrPudding wrote:
    It is perfectly possible that a person might not want to see women in burkas for non-islamaphibic reasons
    If you are agreeing to the ban for no other reason than you don't want to see them then I don't know what else you can call it. It's the very definition of Islamaphobia.


  • #1643
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Scotty # wrote: »
    If you are agreeing to the ban for no other reason than you don't want to see them then I don't know what else you can call it. It's the very definition of Islamaphobia.
    Read the last line of my previous post.

    MrP


  • #1644
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Scotty # wrote: »
    I agree. I have no doubt that indoctrination is sometimes the cause. But the onus is on you (the pro ban side) to prove that it's ALWAYS the case! (oh yes it is!) And here is where your argument fails. You can't do that. Much as you have tried. The reason, I suspect, is because it's not always the case. If it is - then prove it!

    I have given as functional a proof as you can get in these kinds of situations. Given that the burka is a cultural (if not religious) garment, debunking the cultural reasoning pretty much covers debunking it for everyone. Now, if you want to claim that there are rational, non cultural reasoning for wearing it, then you must present them.
    Scotty # wrote: »
    If a Muslim woman decides to wear the Burka in public and takes pleasure or satisfaction (as many seem to) from the fact that she is living by her traditions in doing so then who are we to stop her? She's not harming anyone. OK She's not helping the cause of those who are forced to wear it but that's not her problem.

    She is harming someone, at least in our eyes, and you have done nothing to convince us otherwise. Herself, her family and those that are forced to wear it are all damaged by her accepting unquestioningly the oppressive indoctrination thrust upon her. She might not care about other women (shock horror for someone who believes women are less than men) but that doesn't mean we cant see past her short-sightness.
    Scotty # wrote: »
    Because some women are trafficked in the sex industry does that mean we impose sexual restrictions on all women? (Yes it is the same thing!)

    No its not, and bringing it up again like this is dishonest, as I already explained why it isn't (and saying "Yes it is the same thing!" does not make it so).
    Scotty # wrote: »
    If you are agreeing to the ban for no other reason than you don't want to see them then I don't know what else you can call it. It's the very definition of Islamaphobia.

    I assume that if this strawman was a woman you would be happy if it was wearing a burka? :P


  • #1645
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    I'm religious and support the ban
    MrPudding wrote: »
    ...I think I made it quite clear that I do not prefer the oppression to be behind closed doors, but would prefer that there was no oppression....

    Btw, making you text colour intentionally black makes it impossible to read on other boards.ie themes (just in case you were not aware).

    I would prefer there is no oppression either. But forcing someone to stop wearing a burka is not going to have any effect at all on womans rights. If anything it is making it worse.

    Because you are denying the rights for a woman to wear what she wants, while those forced will still continue to be subjugated.

    So my point is, do you honestly believe this will not be the case? And if so in what way?

    Or if it is just a case of "out of sight, out of mind".


  • #1646
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I have given as functional a proof as you can get in these kinds of situations. Given that the burka is a cultural (if not religious) garment, debunking the cultural reasoning pretty much covers debunking it for everyone. Now, if you want to claim that there are rational, non cultural reasoning for wearing it, then you must present them.
    Actually you haven't. You have repeatedly insisted they are 100% indoctrinated without providing any evidence let alone proof. You are bringing 'rationality' to your argument again. Why? Do you believe all irrational behaviour should be outlawed?

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    She is harming someone, at least in our eyes...
    I'm referring to physical harm. Because you may feel insulted or hurt in some way by her wearing a Burka is your problem - not hers.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No its not, and bringing it up again like this is dishonest
    Because some women are forced to wear the burka you impose an outright ban. Because some women are forced to have sex you impose an outright ban. No difference. Your earlier argument is only true if you can prove 100% indoctrination - which you can't.


  • #1647
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Hobbes wrote: »
    I would prefer there is no oppression either. But forcing someone to stop wearing a burka is not going to have any effect at all on womans rights. If anything it is making it worse.

    Not saying I agree with this, but what are the alternatives then?
    Hobbes wrote: »
    Because you are denying the rights for a woman to wear what she wants, while those forced will still continue to be subjugated.

    So my point is, do you honestly believe this will not be the case? And if so in what way?

    To us, they are all forced, whether they recognise is or not.
    Hobbes wrote: »
    Or if it is just a case of "out of sight, out of mind".

    I think you will find that "out of sight, out of mind" is the idea behind the burka :P.


  • #1648
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Thats funny, because I would argue that there are no alternative reasons to explain why people are happy to see burkas on the street other than ignorance of the culture behind it.

    That's funny, because this set of predicates can't be inverted and remain relevant, because contextually, only rejection and legislative prohibition are implicated in people's perception of the garment.

    haha funny


  • #1649
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Scotty # wrote: »
    Actually you haven't. You have repeatedly insisted they are 100% indoctrinated without providing any evidence let alone proof. You are bringing 'rationality' to your argument again. Why? Do you believe all irrational behaviour should be outlawed?

    Go back and find my answers from the last time you brought this up (and then ran away) and you will see my debunking of the cultural reasoning for the burka. No other reasoning has been forthcoming (despite asking for it), so there is no reason to think there is any. I showed the (many) contradictions in their reasoning, what other proof do you need?
    Scotty # wrote: »
    I'm referring to physical harm. Because you may feel insulted or hurt in some way by her wearing a Burka is your problem - not hers.

    I have never seen a more blatant example of shifting the goalposts. And I've already responded to this nonsense reasoning, months ago (second paragraph).
    Scotty # wrote: »
    Because some women are forced to wear the burka you impose an outright ban. Because some women are forced to have sex you impose an outright ban. No difference. Your earlier argument is only true if you can prove 100% indoctrination - which you can't.

    And your argument is only true if you can prove that there is someone who wears the burka that isn't indoctrinated into wearing it. I already showed how their reasons are massively contradictory. You claimed that even educated women wear it (so that counts out the possibility that all the women who wear the burka are just stupid or ignorant). No more reasoning has been offered, so the logical conclusion is that these educated women doing something so contradictory must be indoctrinated. And thats a problem because of how damaging it is.

    And before you repeat yourself (with a little extra incredulity thrown in), I admit that this comes with the caveat of their being no more reasons beyond the ones I've already dealt with. If you can present a reason that overcomes the contradictions I've dealt with and shows that its possible for someone to rationally choose to wear the burka, then I'll admit that its possible not to be indoctrinated. But until then, its only rational to accept that the cultural debunking I've offered covers all the women who wear the burka, as only women of, or entering, the culture in question wear the burka.


  • #1650
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I think you are still misrepresenting Mr Pudding. I think it would be more accurate to say that he doesn't want to see women burka-clad on the street as he doesn't like seeing women being oppressed (thats how I feel).

    That is exactly how I represented him. The rest of what I said was corollary to that (that oppression is wrongly categorically implicated in the wearing of the garment).
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If this were islamophobia, then I imagine quite a few muslims countries are islamophobic, as only a very small few require or expect women to wear it.

    Requirement or expectation are irrelevant to the implication made here in Europe. I'd also add that the wearing of lesser garments of modesty is far more widespread in the Islamic world.


  • Advertisement
  • #1651
    AhSureTisGrand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭AhSureTisGrand


    I'm religious and support the ban
    We should ban Macs because there's no good reason for buying them either


Advertisement