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…5758606263…138

Comments

  • #1772
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    Of course you don't. You don't see anybodys point and if you did, you'd dismiss it as it disagrees with the pronouncments of The Great Mark Hamill.

    Would it kill you to have a civil conversation? Why do you have such a chip on your shoulder?
    Nodin wrote: »
    I've already linked to studies that reference the adoption of coverings as a form of protest/defiance and resistance. Wheres your evidence for 100% coercion?

    They didn't adopt the coverings as a form of protest, they were already wearing it. They adopted it as a symbol of protest, as it was a protest against a society that wanted to change social attitudes inherently tied to the wearing of it.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Your reasoning is our new God is it?

    What "argument"? You want peoples freedoms restrained and have offered no evidence whatsoever except your word, delivered in a manner that rivals a Pope or an Ayatollah. You maintain 100% coercion therefore its for you to back it up. Wheres your evidence?

    Jesus H Christ on a bike, you are as bad as a creationist with all these damn ad hominems. Trying to turn the fact that I have detailed the reasoning of my argument several times into some sort of flaw is just plain pathetic. Your repeated ignoring of detail my points in favour of derogatory ad hominems makes it look like you have been getting trolling lessons from J C.
    FFS, you say "Your reasoning is our new God is it?" and then you ask for my reasoning. At least troll consistently
    Nodin wrote: »
    Theres been muslims in france since the 19th century, so the odds of it having "grown" are minimal. Its statistically irrelevant. When it goes over one percent, we'll worry. And them maybe somebody will look into the reasons behind its growth, as opposed to trotting out some authoritarian diktat and expecting everyone to follow blindly on.

    Wasn't it you who said "I do have some interest in the welfare of fellow human beings however."? Guess you dont count the people who have suffered under the burka as fellow human beings.
    Nodin wrote: »
    ...these are people living in the west. They're surrounded by things that challenge their beliefs.

    But they can still send their kids to schools who support their ideologies and they dont have to bring their wives to classes/support groups who actively try to undermine their authority over them. Do you think they will be happy to give these up?


  • #1773
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    ...a bit rich from somebody who wants to force society to conform to his notions 'for their own good'.

    I was hoping that underneath all the trolling and the ad hominems and the BS that you, at least, understood my argument, but its looking more and more like you have no idea what you are talking about.


  • #1774
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Folks, could we collectively lower the temperature plz?


  • #1775
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It does but obviously wearing an burkha or any other item of clothing does not fall under

    "are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. "

    Well, obviously a lot of people will disagree with you there. I think it is possible that a ban on this disgusting garment could be justified on a moral basis. I am not sure that we should be showing children that it is ok to subjugate women. Additionally, it is probably arguable that forced wearing of a burka impacts the rights and freedoms of the women forced to wear it. I think it is also arguable that those women that "choose" to wear the burka do no such thing.

    MrP


  • #1776
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


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

    Jesus H Christ on a bike, you are as bad as a creationist with all these damn ad hominems. Trying to turn the fact that I have detailed the reasoning of my argument several times into some sort of flaw is just plain pathetic. Your repeated ignoring of detail my points in favour of derogatory ad hominems makes it look like you have been getting trolling lessons from J C.
    FFS, you say "Your reasoning is our new God is it?" and then you ask for my reasoning. At least troll consistently
    .......

    To repeat - your unsupported word/'reasoning' is not sufficient.

    Evidence of 100% coercion - I've asked inumerable times now, and you've made no attempt to provide any.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    .............
    Guess you dont count the people who have suffered under the burka as fellow human beings.
    .......

    You presume suffering. You've provided no evidence that French muslims suffered under the Burka.


  • Advertisement
  • #1777
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Meanwhile in Norway, the Centre Party's justice policy spokeswoman, has condemned ritual circumcision of infant boys. Religious leaders, needless to say, are furious and claim that it's an attack on religious freedom.

    http://freethinker.co.uk/2012/06/17/religious-leaders-furious-over-norways-proposed-circumcision-ban/


  • #1778
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Meanwhile in Norway, the Centre Party's justice policy spokeswoman, has condemned ritual circumcision of infant boys. Religious leaders, needless to say, are furious and claim that it's an attack on religious freedom.

    http://freethinker.co.uk/2012/06/17/religious-leaders-furious-over-norways-proposed-circumcision-ban/

    A wrathful God has smitten their website, it seemeth.

    This refers to it....he must have gone off to get beer for the footy.
    http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/atheism?before=1340026777


  • #1779
    joseph brand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,540 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Well, obviously a lot of people will disagree with you there. I think it is possible that a ban on this disgusting garment could be justified on a moral basis. I am not sure that we should be showing children that it is ok to subjugate women. Additionally, it is probably arguable that forced wearing of a burka impacts the rights and freedoms of the women forced to wear it. I think it is also arguable that those women that "choose" to wear the burka do no such thing.

    MrP

    Had a friend say something similar. "Lots of the women choose to wear it".

    This may be true but it doesn't matter. If every woman is expected to wear this sackcloth, which is degrading, it doesn't make it ok just because a few don't mind or actively enjoy wearing the thing.

    The burka needs to go, along with Islam. To improve living standards in any developing nation, women needs equal rights, which Islam doesn't permit, and eh . . . . read the below, Hitchens says it better than I ever could.
    "The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some doctrine—religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you'll throw in a handful of seeds perhaps and some credit, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but education, health, and optimism will increase. It doesn't matter; try it in Bangladesh, try it in Bolivia, it works—works all the time. Name me one religion that stands for that, or ever has. Wherever you look in the world and you try to remove the shackles of ignorance and disease stupidity from women, it is invariably the clericy that stands in the way, or in the case of—now, furthermore, if you are going to grant this to Catholic charities, say, which I would hope are doing a lot of work in Africa, if I was a member of a church that had preached that AIDS was not as bad as condoms, I'd be putting some conscience money into Africa too, I must say." --Christopher Hitchens

    Mother Teresa|838305]] was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.”
    ― Christopher Hitchens


  • #1780
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    joseph brand wrote: »
    Had a friend say something similar. "Lots of the women choose to wear it".

    This may be true but it doesn't matter. If every woman is expected to wear this sackcloth, which is degrading, it doesn't make it ok just because a few don't mind or actively enjoy wearing the thing.

    The burka needs to go, along with Islam. To improve living standards in any developing nation, women needs equal rights, which Islam doesn't permit, and eh . . . . read the below, Hitchens says it better than I ever could.

    Thats all well and good, but the perversity of human nature means that attempts at force will only make people cling to it even more tightly.


  • #1781
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    I'm religious and support the ban
    It's been shown that the burka ban does not get rid of the social prejudices it signifies, and that it in fact harms the women because when the ban is in place, they are no longer just forced to wear the burka, but are forced to stay inside as they are not allowed to exit their homes without covering up.

    Is this not a completely ham-fisted way of going about the issue, which unavoidably harms people in the process, and actively discriminates against people who choose to wear it as a religious statement, not as a misogynistic statement?

    In the end, the meaning of the burka is a subjective matter that is determined by the individuals wearing it, so it is ridiculous to just outright ban it.


  • Advertisement
  • #1782
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    To repeat - your unsupported word/'reasoning' is not sufficient.

    Evidence of 100% coercion - I've asked inumerable times now, and you've made no attempt to provide any.

    Saying its not sufficient is not the same thing as it being insufficient. You haven't even attempted to debunk any of my reasoning, you wont engage with the possibility that the burka has more to it than the simple act of wearing a body covering cloth. If you would ever read up on the burka, read the cultural/religious justifications that people give for it, then you could at least say how my reasoning is wrong, rather than blindly declare it insufficient.
    Nodin wrote: »
    You presume suffering. You've provided no evidence that French muslims suffered under the Burka.

    They are oppressed, therefore they suffer. They have less rights and freedom than they should have. You might not agree that they are oppressed (and they might not) but that is my argument.


  • #1783
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Saying its not sufficient is not the same thing as it being insufficient. You haven't even ............... that is my argument.

    .....Proof of 100% coercion?


  • #1784
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    I'm religious and support the ban
    I'm a bit busy this week and I'm taking an hour or so to answer each point in depth. I'll try to get back asap.


  • #1785
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    .....Proof of 100% coercion?

    I've explained it, several times. Any time you want to grow up and engage in an adult conversation would be nice.


  • #1786
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I've explained it, several times. Any time you want to grow up and engage in an adult conversation would be nice.

    I'm probably not being very clear.

    I'd like to see what research your opinion is based on. Something from a peer reviewed publication, preferably, detailing the relationship of coercion and the burka in Western countries, thanks.


  • #1787
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    I'm probably not being very clear.

    I'd like to see what research your opinion is based on. Something from a peer reviewed publication, preferably, detailing the relationship of coercion and the burka in Western countries, thanks.

    You are being clear, but also disingenuous. If you read my explanation, you would see that peer reviewed studies are irrelevant for my argument, as the justification/obligation for the burka inherently contain contradictions that result in oppression. All it takes is one justification that does not so horribly fall afoul of those misogynistic contradictions and then there would be an argument that burka is 1005 coerced..

    If you could take one minute to actually read up on the interpretation of Hijab that people use to justify the burka, you could at least see where I am coming from and could debate me sensibly.


  • #1788
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You are being clear, but also disingenuous. If you read my explanation, you would see that peer reviewed studies are irrelevant for my argument,.......................

    Dear o dear. That there, Mark, requires the kind of faith that I lack and cannot give. An opinion based on nothing is an opinion not worth taking seriously, let alone imposing restrictions on other human beings for. Theres no point in replacing theistic modes of thinking with that.


  • #1789
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    Dear o dear. That there, Mark, requires the kind of faith that I lack and cannot give. An opinion based on nothing is an opinion not worth taking seriously, let alone imposing restrictions on other human beings for. Theres no point in replacing theistic modes of thinking with that.

    What the hell are you talking about? Have you still not read about the burka and the justifications for it? Why would I need a study to show that 100% of those supporting the burka are oppressed if the very purpose of the burka, as described by those people, is oppression? A study would be moot.
    The only with a theistic mode of thinking is you, completely ignoring any evidence put to you while at the same time calling for said evidence.


  • #1790
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    What the hell are you talking about? Have you still not read about the burka and the justifications for it? Why would I need a study to show that 100% of those supporting the burka are oppressed if the very purpose of the burka, as described by those people, is oppression? A study would be moot.
    The only with a theistic mode of thinking is you, completely ignoring any evidence put to you while at the same time calling for said evidence.

    You offered objective reasearched peer reviewed evidence? When?

    The fact is Mark, that I'm not convinced by your reasoning and reject your analysis. Normally at this stage of any argument, people refer to 3rd party evidence to back their position. The fact that you don't - and see no need to do so, your reasoning being sufficient for you - is somewhat disturbing.


  • #1791
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    You offered objective reasearched peer reviewed evidence? When?

    My evidence is the religious/cultural justifications for the burka that are given by the people who want. If the burka is oppressive, as indicated by the reasoning they give, then it stands to reason that everyone who wears it is oppressed.
    Nodin wrote: »
    The fact is Mark, that I'm not convinced by your reasoning and reject your analysis. Normally at this stage of any argument, people refer to 3rd party evidence to back their position. The fact that you don't - and see no need to do so, your reasoning being sufficient for you - is somewhat disturbing.

    The fact that you continue to ignore what I have said, in relation to the evidence for my argument, is more than somehwat trolling.


  • Advertisement
  • #1792
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    ^^^ Folks, this is the last polite request to keep the tone civil :)


  • #1793
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    My evidence is the religious/cultural justifications for the burka that are given by the people who want. If the burka is oppressive, as indicated by the reasoning they give, then it stands to reason that everyone who wears it is oppressed.
    ...............

    This woman doesn't appear to be in the least bit oppressed. Which would, of course, mean that "everyone" is overstating and oversimplifying the case.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/10/france-burqa-law-kenza-drider

    I've already defined what normally constitutes "evidence".


  • #1794
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭SeanW


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    This woman doesn't appear to be in the least bit oppressed. Which would, of course, mean that "everyone" is overstating and oversimplifying the case.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/10/france-burqa-law-kenza-drider

    I've already defined what normally constitutes "evidence".
    By definition, things that are only generally true do have exceptions.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #1795
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    I've already defined what normally constitutes "evidence".

    And I have repeatedly asked you to read up on the burka and its justifications. I need no other evidence for the burka being oppressive, if the the burka, as it is described and justified, is itself oppressive.

    That a wearer will risk fine or police intervention to continue wearing the burka doesn't make them not oppressed, might as well argue that early christians willing to die for their beliefs makes their beliefs more likely to be true. It doesn't help when the woman in your article is wears the burka in entirely necessarily situations, even by its own arguments: "swathed in the material she refuses to take off even while speaking to a female journalist in her own home".


  • #1796
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And I have repeatedly asked you to read up on the burka and its justifications.".

    I'm aware of a number.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I need no other evidence for the burka being oppressive, if the the burka, as it is described and justified, is itself oppressive. ".

    Your reading of a few of them. Again, this is insufficient.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    That a wearer will risk fine or police intervention to continue wearing the burka doesn't make them not oppressed, might as well argue that early christians willing to die for their beliefs makes their beliefs more likely to be true.
    .

    An analogy that doesn't seem to be applicable.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It doesn't help when the woman in your article is wears the burka in entirely necessarily situations, even by its own arguments: "swathed in the material she refuses to take off even while speaking to a female journalist in her own home".

    It ties into what I stated about it being adopted as a symbol of defiance, and the human tendency to try to cling to things that are being forcibly removed from them, such as the ban in Iran, the oppression of the RC church here.


  • #1797
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    I'm aware of a number.

    Your reading of a few of them. Again, this is insufficient.

    Its not insufficient if you know the general religious/cultural justification that the burka rests on and which applies to all the wearers.
    Nodin wrote: »
    An analogy that doesn't seem to be applicable.

    Why not? You presented the woman as if her willingness to be punished for wearing the burka somehow negated the oppression of it, as if brainwashing could never reach the point where the victim fights for their right to be oppressed.
    Nodin wrote: »
    It ties into what I stated about it being adopted as a symbol of defiance, and the human tendency to try to cling to things that are being forcibly removed from them, such as the ban in Iran, the oppression of the RC church here.

    Which will come up no matter what you do. We have been trying to change the educations system for the better for years in this country and have been met with resistance left, right and centre.


  • #1798
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Its not insufficient if you know the general religious/cultural justification that the burka rests on and which applies to all the wearers. .

    Again, thats your view, which is insufficient.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Why not? You presented the woman as if her willingness to be punished for wearing the burka somehow negated the oppression of it, as if brainwashing could never reach the point where the victim fights for their right to be oppressed. .

    An amazing system of thought here. If somebodys motives are unknown, its presumed they are "oppressed", if they state they act of their own free will they are "brainwashed".


  • #1799
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    Again, thats your view, which is insufficient.



    An amazing system of thought here. If somebodys motives are unknown, its presumed they are "oppressed", if they state they act of their own free will they are "brainwashed".
    I find the freewill aspect of this to be the interesting side of this argument.

    Marks appears to have a similar view of this to me, one which you apparently do not share. If you are girl that is brought up from birth to believe that you are a second class citizen; that there is a god watching you and the god wants you to cover up and if you don't you will probably burn in hell; that if you don't cover up you will be raped and these ideas are drilled into you by the people you trust for years and years tell me, how can your decision to wear the burka be one that was freely made?

    Of course they don't have to wear it, they can do whatever they want, it's just that they are being told to wear it by people they have been brought up to obey, if they don't wear it they will displease a god they have been brought up to fear and run the risk of being raped. Yeah, that will be a free choice all right. :rolleyes:

    MrP


  • #1800
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    Again, thats your view, which is insufficient.

    Again, saying its insufficient is itself, insufficient.
    Nodin wrote: »
    An amazing system of thought here. If somebodys motives are unknown, its presumed they are "oppressed", if they state they act of their own free will they are "brainwashed".

    Again, read up on the ****ing burka already. The motives have never been unknown.


  • Advertisement
  • #1801
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Again, saying its insufficient is itself, insufficient. .

    Not really, I wouldn't take anyones word for it. You've presented no studies to back your claim at all. Your word is not good enough unless backed by some evidence. I've already clarified what constitutes "evidence" and what would normally be expected.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Again, read up on the ****ing burka already. The motives have never been unknown.

    You keep evading the ones involving choice and defiance, however, because they don't suit your argument.


Advertisement