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…5354565859…138

Comments

  • #1652
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    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

    And what has this set of predicates got to do with the set of predicates I quoted? Or to my set of predicates? I wonder if this is what is meant by "educated beyond your intelligence"?


  • #1653
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    The rest of what I said was corollary to that (that oppression is wrongly categorically implicated in the wearing of the garment).

    Can you explain why someone should would wear the burka without being indoctrinated and oppressed into it?
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    Requirement or expectation are irrelevant to the implication made here in Europe.

    Not really, not when muslim groups and leaders call for the banning of the burka too.
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    I'd also add that the wearing of lesser garments of modesty is far more widespread in the Islamic world.

    Which is irrelevant to this discussion as no-one here was arguing that these women shouldn't dress modestly.


  • #1654
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    For all the people who think the burka ban is islamophobic, take a look at this map representing hijab wear:
    Hijab_world2.png
    Notice the red dots? They are places where hijab/burka bans are in place (governmental/educational). Notice how more than 2/3rds are in muslim countries (or countries with a muslims majorities)?

    And for those incredulous at the notion of indoctrination, do you want to hear some of the reasoning? Well Al-Azhar University banned it, not because they opposed to the niqab, "which it said only a minority of Muslim scholars consider an obligation, but it opposes "imprinting it on the minds of girls." Source.

    Even muslims countries recognise that the burka is a tool of indoctrination.


  • #1655
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    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?
    Cultural, religious, traditional, rational, spiritual, who cares!?!?! Why should she have to explain to you or anyone else her reasons? Does your Mrs explain to you everyday why she's dressed the way she is? NO! and nor should she have to.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Can you explain why someone should would wear the burka without being indoctrinated and oppressed into it?
    ...and that brings us neatly back to the start of the thread. :rolleyes:

    Some people here believe a government enforced dress code on every citizen is a step too far and others don't. I hope people will discover sooner rather than later that education is the ONLY way to stop oppression and criminalising the victims helps absolutely no one!

    That's it from me. Nothing more to add.


  • #1656
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Its their indoctrination or abusive husbands that keep them inside, so why dont you trying blaming them?

    Because this thread is about banning the burka, not banning abusive husbands or removing the seeds of "indoctrination" from Muslim children.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    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.

    The fact that existing elements had to be given up (for reasons that could be far more cogent) does not justify the senseless disregard of further cultural elements in legislation. i.e. they may have had to give up the environment of sobriety that they are accustomed to, since this liberty is pretty ubiquitous and unreasonable to have changed for newcomers, but it does not follow that they should give up elements of their cultural clothing on this same basis.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The benefit has been explained many, many times already, read the thread.

    I have, and none of the reasons have carried.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I have made no presumption, I have examined and concluded with logic.

    You have made presumptions => "You cant reason people out of positions they weren't reasoned into"

    - Implies that your reason is more applicable to their wellbeing than theirs

    "You can only try to prevent them from hurting themselves or others."

    -Implies that you know better than they do what to wear.

    I've read over the whole thread and seen no logic from you that has carried to support this.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    What have you done?

    In what respect?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    what do you understand of the reasoning behind the burka?

    What aspect of it?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    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.

    So, in terms of the quality of being exempt or released usually from something onerous, they are in the same position of being subject to a male presence. However, in the (more important imo) respect of constraint in choice or action (choice whether or not to leave the house), they are precluded from leaving the house.

    In terms of freedoms, the ability to leave the house with a male escort > the lack of ability to leave the house.


  • Advertisement
  • #1657
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    I'm religious and support the ban
    MrPudding wrote: »
    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.

    Elaborate.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    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.

    And that there is a culture in which women prefer modesty and to not be looked at and objectified by men. This is the explanation/description offered more often than not from their own mouths. What basis have you to claim that your description is valid and that theirs is not? This is a central issue considering the fact that this matter is being legislated on.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    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.


    platitudes - disregarded
    MrPudding wrote: »
    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.

    Irrelevant to the issue
    MrPudding wrote: »
    I absolutely despise the way a fairly large number of its followers treat women.

    And the way these women themselves elect to be treated?
    MrPudding wrote: »
    This treatment should be consigned to the history books and humanity should be collectively embarrassed it took to long to fix it.

    Declarative platitudes - disregarded

    MrPudding wrote: »
    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.

    What basis have you to claim that this is oppression considering how many of these women elect to do it.


  • #1658
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And what has this set of predicates got to do with the set of predicates I quoted?

    They explain why the set can't be inverted.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Or to my set of predicates?

    Your set (I presume you refer to the inverted ones) was the subject of mine. This is a very basic and short progression, do try to keep up.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I wonder if this is what is meant by "educated beyond your intelligence"?

    I wonder if being consistently confused by the progression of an argument precludes you from remarking on peoples intelligence?

    Yeah, I'd say it does.


  • #1659
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Can you explain why someone should would wear the burka without being indoctrinated and oppressed into it?

    Not wanting to be objectified/ for the sake of modesty or due to religious beliefs.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Not really, not when muslim groups and leaders call for the banning of the burka too.

    Yes really, my point has nothing to do with the islamophobia label:
    This form of profiling, in the minds of some, would constitute islamophobia.

    I didn't say it was a justified label

    It has to do with the validity of the reasons presented to make it illegal. Whether or not it is illegal in Islamic countries does nothing to add validity to the null points being made here.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Which is irrelevant to this discussion as no-one here was arguing that these women shouldn't dress modestly.

    Nope, entirely relevant, since that you are discussing is legally precluding them from dressing to the degree of modesty that they choose.


  • #1660
    pagancornflake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 279 ✭✭pagancornflake


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And for those incredulous at the notion of indoctrination, do you want to hear some of the reasoning? Well Al-Azhar University banned it, not because they opposed to the niqab, "which it said only a minority of Muslim scholars consider an obligation, but it opposes "imprinting it on the minds of girls."
    Even some muslims countries (institutions) recognise that the burka is a tool of indoctrination.

    That's a pretty grand claim to make in light of government and educational institutions banning it in female-only environments?
    "The Supreme Council of Al-Azhar has decided to ban students and teachers from wearing the niqab inside female-only classrooms, that are taught by women only,"

    It also conflicts with the suggestion that it is largely preferred by a large proportion of muslims outside of the few countries that have a large proportion of orthodox Muslims.


  • #1661
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    pagancornflake wrote: »

    Elaborate.



    And that there is a culture in which women prefer modesty and to not be looked at and objectified by men. This is the explanation/description offered more often than not from their own mouths. What basis have you to claim that your description is valid and that theirs is not? This is a central issue considering the fact that this matter is being legislated on.





    platitudes - disregarded




    Irrelevant to the issue



    And the way these women themselves elect to be treated?




    Declarative platitudes - disregarded



    What basis have you to claim that this is oppression considering how many of these women elect to do it.
    You are coming across, whether it is intential or not, as quite rude. Change you tone and I will consider answering you.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #1662
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Not saying I agree with this, but what are the alternatives then?

    Well look at the whole history of the 50s-80s where Europe/US had to deal with marital abuse. We already have systems in place. So use them.
    To us, they are all forced, whether they recognise is or not.

    Not sure who "us" is, but they are not all forced. Many do it on their own free will. Of course when they do explain this they get called delusional and other derogatory terms. Irony is lost on people who are met with women applying their own free will.
    I think you will find that "out of sight, out of mind" is the idea behind the burka :P.

    Which doesn't really answer what I said. That people like it gone because it offends them personally and nothing to do with the womans rights.


  • #1663
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Scotty # wrote: »
    Cultural, religious, traditional, rational, spiritual, who cares!?!?! Why should she have to explain to you or anyone else her reasons? Does your Mrs explain to you everyday why she's dressed the way she is? NO! and nor should she have to.

    Seeing as the argument on our side is that they are indoctrinated (and we have explained the irrationality inherent in the cultural reasoning behind the burka), it only makes sense that someone who supports the burka (or women wearing the burka) should offer more reasoning that hopefully will show that indoctrination is not the case.
    That you (have several times over the course of this thread) first questioned if we know every womans reason for wearing the burka, and when challenged, say it doesn't matter what their reasons are, clearly indicates that you know we are right.
    Scotty # wrote: »
    ...and that brings us neatly back to the start of the thread. :rolleyes:

    Well if you could offer something of worth, then maybe we could move on.
    Scotty # wrote: »
    Some people here believe a government enforced dress code on every citizen is a step too far and others don't. I hope people will discover sooner rather than later that education is the ONLY way to stop oppression and criminalising the victims helps absolutely no one!

    I really wish you would educate yourself on "indoctrination" and the reasons driving the burka, because at this stage your naivety is just embarrassing.
    Scotty # wrote: »
    That's it from me. Nothing more to add.

    See you in another few months, shall I expect the exact same points then too?


  • #1664
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    Because this thread is about banning the burka, not banning abusive husbands or removing the seeds of "indoctrination" from Muslim children.

    Banning the burka removes some of the seeds of indoctrination from Muslim children, so I dont know what you are talking about.
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    The fact that existing elements had to be given up (for reasons that could be far more cogent) does not justify the senseless disregard of further cultural elements in legislation. i.e. they may have had to give up the environment of sobriety that they are accustomed to, since this liberty is pretty ubiquitous and unreasonable to have changed for newcomers, but it does not follow that they should give up elements of their cultural clothing on this same basis.

    You miss my point. You belief the ban is worthless and are trying to emotively back it up with nonsense about "culture". I am countering this because its irrelevant. If you want to argue that the ban is useless, then get to the rest of thread and leave the emotive nonsense aside.
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    I have, and none of the reasons have carried.

    Explain why.
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    You have made presumptions => "You cant reason people out of positions they weren't reasoned into"

    - Implies that your reason is more applicable to their wellbeing than theirs

    :confused: If someone didn't reason themselves into a position, then they have no reasoning applicable to their well being. Not to mention that statement makes no claim about my reasoning versus theirs at all. Boy, there is misreading a statement and then there is misreading a statement...
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    "You can only try to prevent them from hurting themselves or others."

    -Implies that you know better than they do what to wear.

    I've read over the whole thread and seen no logic from you that has carried to support this.

    So you think the burka isn't oppressive? It isn't sexist and misogynistic? Do you or your spouse wear one?
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    In what respect?

    In respect to the reasoning of the women who want to wear the burka? What great insights have you encounter examining the reasoning they give that makes you sure their reasoning is devoid of indoctrination?
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    What aspect of it?

    What aspect do you think? You are taking the piss now, just answer the question.
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    So, in terms of the quality of being exempt or released usually from something onerous, they are in the same position of being subject to a male presence. However, in the (more important imo) respect of constraint in choice or action (choice whether or not to leave the house), they are precluded from leaving the house.

    It has been argued that simply wont last. While they may think of women as being lesser then men, eventually they will be forced to recognise that they need the women to do things in order to keep the household running.
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    In terms of freedoms, the ability to leave the house with a male escort > the lack of ability to leave the house.

    Damn near everything the anti-side says shows incredible ignorance of the culture and mentality of the people who believe the burka necessary.


  • #1665
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    They explain why the set can't be inverted.

    Your set (I presume you refer to the inverted ones) was the subject of mine. This is a very basic and short progression, do try to keep up.

    I wonder if being consistently confused by the progression of an argument precludes you from remarking on peoples intelligence?

    Yeah, I'd say it does.

    Someone who thinks that "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." isn't a reasonable (or linguistically complete) assertion should not comment on the intelligence of others.


  • #1666
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    Not wanting to be objectified/ for the sake of modesty or due to religious beliefs.

    That makes about as much sense as cutting of your leg in order to lose weight. You may avoid sexual objectification (although you may not), but you will be more likely to be objectified in terms of the burka itself. You may not to be a physically distracting presence in the company of men, but sticking out like a sore thumb with the clothing equivalent of a sign saying "I'm too hot to look at" is counter productive.
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    Nope, entirely relevant, since that you are discussing is legally precluding them from dressing to the degree of modesty that they choose.

    They dont choose it, thats the problem (well that and the counter productiveness of it).


  • #1667
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    pagancornflake wrote: »
    That's a pretty grand claim to make in light of government and educational institutions banning it in female-only environments?

    How exactly is it a claim when the university said it themselves:
    The supreme council's statement added that Al-Azhar does not oppose the niqab, which it said only a minority of Muslim scholars consider an obligation, but it opposes "imprinting it on the minds of girls."


  • #1668
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Hobbes wrote: »
    Well look at the whole history of the 50s-80s where Europe/US had to deal with marital abuse. We already have systems in place. So use them.

    They already are in use, they dont work so well in this case because of the extent of control that the oppressor has on the women under the burka.
    Hobbes wrote: »
    Not sure who "us" is, but they are not all forced. Many do it on their own free will. Of course when they do explain this they get called delusional and other derogatory terms. Irony is lost on people who are met with women applying their own free will.

    "Us" is the pro-ban side. And verbal eye-rolling is not a viable counter to an argument you cant counter. These women are indoctrinated, all of their so-called reasoning to wear the burka supports this conclusion and no-one has offered a single example of a woman who has freely chosen to wear it. That all of your examples immediate point to indoctrination is your problem, not ours.
    Hobbes wrote: »
    Which doesn't really answer what I said. That people like it gone because it offends them personally and nothing to do with the womans rights.

    I want it gone because it effects women's rights, so I dont see how it doesn't have anything to do with women's rights. Its all about w omens rights.


  • #1669
    RussellTuring
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 866 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    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.

    Not at all. I was just letting you know that your girlfriend's opinion just shows that you agree with each other and not that your opinion is objectively right. It's not at all surprising that you would end up in a relationship with a woman who shares your opinion on this issue.

    In the post to which you linked you say that the burka is supposed to be a solution to the problem of men's uncontrollable lust, but you know full well that this is not the only reason put forward by women who wear them. Your incredulity at these reasons aside, you still have not shown me that the burkas cannot be worn by choice. This is important to proving your case.
    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.

    You are in favour of the ban. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is necessarily harmful to other people, that it is always as a result of coercion and that banning it is an actual solution. High heels can cause terrible problems to women who wear them and they are not exactly the most practical of footwear. I'm also not convinced by any arguments I hear for wearing them and think it's mostly a result of social pressure. The same can be said for cosmetics and many other items of clothing. None of this makes me want to outlaw them. If you don't like the signs of oppression, fight the oppression.

    Also, why did you ignore my questions at the start of my last post's second paragraph? They weren't rhetorical.
    Worthless emotive BS.

    That wasn't necessary.
    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.

    "Could" is very important here. The second person doesn't necessarily know better because he happens to see the first as a victim. It doesn't give him the right to "help" the other person by whatever means he deems appropriate. People of particular professions have usually spent a lot of time training in a particular area and are thus trusted in this specific area. It is not just because they claim knowledge that the rest of us cannot have.
    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.

    You're starting with the premise that the burka is always worn as a result of oppression without actually proving it and expecting the rest of us to prove you wrong. You've already convinced me that you don't know as much about logical arguments as you seem to think and have only reinforced my view with this fallacy. And I don't think that anybody has denied that the burka can be used to oppress: what we object to are mostly that this is always the case and that you have a right to tell people what they are not allowed to wear so please stop trying to resurrect this straw man argument.
    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.

    Ignoring your implication, intentional or not, that it is acceptable for governments to infringe on religious or cultural beliefs at will, the difference is that the driver, the person who would be held responsible, is risking the lives of others by driving drunk. In the case of the burka, the women who would be punished (as the law holds them responsible for what they wear) are not harming anyone else. Do you genuinely not see the difference?
    :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.

    So you propose we punish the victims? Even if that's the case, I think we'd be wise not to do things that will have little affect other proving the points of the oppressors.
    This is moot.

    This isn't helpful.
    And doing nothing at all will change so much more, will it?

    Of course it won't. But who suggested that? Disagreeing with you on this ban does not equate to preferring inaction.


  • #1670
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    Not at all. I was just letting you know that your girlfriend's opinion just shows that you agree with each other and not that your opinion is objectively right. It's not at all surprising that you would end up in a relationship with a woman who shares your opinion on this issue.

    I "ended up" with her long before I ever asked her opinion on this issue.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    In the post to which you linked you say that the burka is supposed to be a solution to the problem of men's uncontrollable lust, but you know full well that this is not the only reason put forward by women who wear them. Your incredulity at these reasons aside, you still have not shown me that the burkas cannot be worn by choice. This is important to proving your case.

    Its the cultural reason, which accounts for almost the entire reasoning behind it. The other reason (which I have debunked, read the thread) generally pops up after the cultural reasoning is debunked and still ends up being shown to an either nonsensical or extreme response to a problem that doesn't exist.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    You are in favour of the ban. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is necessarily harmful to other people, that it is always as a result of coercion and that banning it is an actual solution. High heels can cause terrible problems to women who wear them and they are not exactly the most practical of footwear. I'm also not convinced by any arguments I hear for wearing them and think it's mostly a result of social pressure. The same can be said for cosmetics and many other items of clothing. None of this makes me want to outlaw them. If you don't like the signs of oppression, fight the oppression.

    I have explained in my previous posts the harm it does, where the oppression is and that banning it is a step in the right direction.
    Banning the burka is fighting the oppression. Seriously, its a joke that people keep bringing up high heels or make-up or skimpy dresses ad the society pressure associated, as if they are in anyway the same scale as the religious and cultural oppression that says if you dont wear the burka, you will go to hell.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    Also, why did you ignore my questions at the start of my last post's second paragraph? They weren't rhetorical.

    First question: it will stop the oppression with the burka. Second question: Legislation needs to happen, change is not exactly forthcoming from the oppressed or the oppressors. Between legislating against the outfit and legislating against the culture in its entirely, I would imagine that libertarians would prefer the outfit.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    That wasn't necessary.

    Neither is worthless emotive BS. Or "a call to emotion" if you are offended for some reason. Your point was an emotive starwman trying to reduce my argument and evidence to an arrogant assumption.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    "Could" is very important here. The second person doesn't necessarily know better because he happens to see the first as a victim. It doesn't give him the right to "help" the other person by whatever means he deems appropriate. People of particular professions have usually spent a lot of time training in a particular area and are thus trusted in this specific area. It is not just because they claim knowledge that the rest of us cannot have.

    I have not claimed knowledge though, I have explained it repeatedly.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    You're starting with the premise that the burka is always worn as a result of oppression without actually proving it and expecting the rest of us to prove you wrong.

    Lying about my position is dishonest. I have explained why I came to the conclusion that it is indoctrinated and I have explained why I think it is oppressive. I have not started with any assumption.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    You've already convinced me that you don't know as much about logical arguments as you seem to think and have only reinforced my view with this fallacy.

    Like I said before, you cant reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    Ignoring your implication, intentional or not, that it is acceptable for governments to infringe on religious or cultural beliefs at will, the difference is that the driver, the person who would be held responsible, is risking the lives of others by driving drunk. In the case of the burka, the women who would be punished (as the law holds them responsible for what they wear) are not harming anyone else. Do you genuinely not see the difference?

    The type of damage is different, but the burka damages more than just the wearer.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    So you propose we punish the victims? Even if that's the case, I think we'd be wise not to do things that will have little affect other proving the points of the oppressors.

    If the victims are being directly forced then the oppressor is punished. If the victim has mindlessly accepting the indoctrination, then the (small) punishment may help them think for themselves again.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    This isn't helpful.

    Of course its not helpful, thats why I said that its moot.
    RussellTuring wrote: »
    Of course it won't. But who suggested that? Disagreeing with you on this ban does not equate to preferring inaction.

    So what is your alternative?


  • #1671
    WooPeeA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭WooPeeA


    I'm religious and support the ban
    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

    Why?

    Because I believe in freedom. Everyone should have a right to dress the way they want.


  • Advertisement
  • #1672
    AhSureTisGrand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭AhSureTisGrand


    I'm religious and support the ban
    WooPeeA wrote: »
    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

    Why?

    Because I believe in freedom. Everyone should have a right to dress the way they want.

    But freedom is slavery, don't cha know. If we let people make their own decisions for themselves, then they have to blame themselves if they suffer ill effects. It makes me sick just thinking about it


  • #1673
    WooPeeA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭WooPeeA


    I'm religious and support the ban
    AhSureTisGrand wrote: »
    But freedom is slavery, don't cha know. If we let people make their own decisions for themselves, then they have to blame themselves if they suffer ill effects. It makes me sick just thinking about it
    Yeah, I forgot that the politician knows best what's good for us. He's the lord and the only right architect of our fate! Leave Britney alone


  • #1674
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    WooPeeA wrote: »
    Because I believe in freedom. Everyone should have a right to dress the way they want.
    Not the best rebuttal I've seen to the the pro-ban arguments, I must say.


  • #1675
    WooPeeA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭WooPeeA


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Not the best rebuttal I've seen to the the pro-ban arguments, I must say.
    I think it's the best one. If you refuse a specific group of people a right to dress the way they want to then you create system where not everyone is equal. A modern slavery where majority can take the dictate over the rest of the society.

    When you create the system where the government decides what you can wear and what you cannot then you give away your own rights as an individual, but in this case the rights of other people are being taken away without their approval.

    And the right of dressing the way we want to has been taken away. Which next right will they take away? Do you want to live in such a nanny state? I don't.


  • #1676
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    WooPeeA wrote: »
    I think it's the best one. If you refuse a specific group of people a right to dress the way they want to then you create system where not everyone is equal. A modern slavery where majority can take the dictate over the rest of the society.

    When you create the system where the government decides what you can wear and what you cannot then you give away your own rights as an individual, but in this case the rights of other people are being taken away without their approval.

    And the right of dressing the way we want to has been taken away. Which next right will they take away? Do you want to live in such a nanny state? I don't.
    The right to dress as we want is, and always has been, a qualified right. There is plenty of legislation that controls what a person can, can't or must wear.

    MrP


  • #1677
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Just thinking, there actually is no right to wear what you want. That specific thing, as a right, does not exist. There are other rights, such as freedom of expression or freedom of religion, which have to an extent been interpreted in such a way as to include a right to dress a certain way, but these are also qualified rights and not absolute.

    Governments have been restricting people's rights since their inception, it is nothing new. The old slippery slope arguement doesn't really gold water.

    MrP


  • #1678
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    WooPeeA wrote: »
    If you refuse a specific group of people a right to dress the way they want to then you create system where not everyone is equal. A modern slavery where majority can take the dictate over the rest of the society.
    You mean, like many muslim men do, when women are forced to wear the burka?


  • #1679
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    You mean, like many muslim men do, when women are forced to wear the burka?

    Do you have a link to evidence that this actually happens ("many muslim do")? I mean in Europe, but overall would also be helpful.

    ie. Not just picking and choosing between countries, after all it is pretty much a given in SA and under the taliban.


  • #1680
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Hobbes wrote: »
    Do you have a link to evidence that this actually happens ("many muslim do")? I mean in Europe, but overall would also be helpful.
    There is copious evidence from the UK -- which generally allows religious to do what they want, so long as they claim it's for religious reasons -- that men are allowed to control their families as they wish. And occasionally, that this control extends to fatal violence.

    A quick google of "pakistan england honor killing" returns almost a million hits, with six or eight different nasty stories on the first page.


  • Advertisement
  • #1681
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,617 ✭✭✭swampgas


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    I've been sitting on the fence on the burka ban issue for a while. I originally voted in favour of the ban but if I had to vote again I'd be more inclined to vote against.

    I'm wondering if a burka ban is more of a message from the government to the men of Islamic communities, saying "we will not permit you to treat you women this way"? The women are stuck in the middle, and don't get much say either way.

    Perhaps change needs to come from within Islamic communities - the women will have to fight for their rights.

    What is less clear (to me) is what the state can best do to support women who may come up against death threats and violence, when they challenge the value system of a culture that denies them equal treatement. Is the basic protection of the law enough? Are more pro-active measures required?

    Recently women in Libya and Saudi Arabia have been agitating for more influence in politics or for the right to drive, this shows that there are women in these cultures prepared to challenge the status quo. I would be very interested to know what these women would make of a burka ban.


Advertisement