Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

French Burqa Ban

1679111219

Posts

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.

    I can't be held responsible for whatever nervous breakdown may occur from the removal of a projected unverifiable belief system.

    We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.

    Ridiculous acts that in no way harm other people. You don't have the right to not be offended.

    Wow, I really thought the old "personal faith doesn't harm anyone" fallacy had been put to bed ages ago. That's just poorly informed rhetoric, and possibly grounds for disqualification.


    Certainly at least a 5-yard penalty.

    13 DEAD IN HORRIFIC BURQAH ATTACK

    4 Kashmiri women murdered for not wearing burqas.

    If only a hundred euro fine had been there to save them.

    Well it was in Kashmir, so I don't know what the exchange rate is like.

    sig.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika Suicide Squab Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    You're afraid that Western Liberalism cannot win the battle of ideas with fundamentalist Islam and so are going to abandon those precepts of Western Liberalism (personal, religious, and expressive freedom) in order to try and use the power of the State to rig the marketplace of ideas against the unbearably enticing draw of Wahhabi-ism.

    I must say, the relative progressive Western ideologies that have been developing and expanding since the Renaissance are really catching on like wildfire in the Middle East.

    In another couple hundred years, women may even get to go outside without asking permission.


    *crosses fingers*

    I truly am amazed at just how little belief you have in liberal democracy and individual freedom.

    I'm truly amazed at how little you think it must be worked at to succeed.

    I mean, shit. We had to fight two civil wars here in the US just to get to where we are now.

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Ah, so personal secular beliefs can never harm others. Good to know.

    Yes, beware my fearsome encouragement to think for yourself and question unverifiable claims.

    Your children may be taken in by my seductive philosophies and become something horrible, like a secular humanist or something.

    Which religion did Ted Kaczynski belong to again?

    I want to be able to steer clear of it, since it killed a bunch of people

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The difference is between how you choose to practice your faith and how you (hypothetically) could coerce your children to practice similar beliefs under threat of guilt, shame, or abuse. Not that you would, I know, I'm just sayin'.
    Again, the studies show that at least a substantial minority are recent converts who would not have been "coerced" as children. You are applying a stereotype to deny all their rights.

  • AtomikaAtomika Suicide Squab Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Bagginses wrote: »
    You do realize that there's nothing in the Koran specifically calling for a burqa, right? The closest the text comes is telling women to cover their breasts and dress decent. All the other coverings in Islam are due to varying differences in what "decent" is defined as, a "myriad and intangible and rapidly changing" determination.

    Same thing with Pentecostals or whoever. Just because it's not specifically mandated doesn't mean it's not externalized by a religious community. Religious community is as religious community does.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Ah, so personal secular beliefs can never harm others. Good to know.

    Yes, beware my fearsome encouragement to think for yourself and question unverifiable claims.

    Your children may be taken in by my seductive philosophies and become something horrible, like a secular humanist or something.

    I'm sure you'll be quite tolerant of your children thinking for themselves if or when they decide to explore different religious faiths.

    Oh, wait.

    Also, you are not the sum total of all secular belief systems.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Ah, so personal secular beliefs can never harm others. Good to know.

    Yes, beware my fearsome encouragement to think for yourself and question unverifiable claims.

    Your children may be taken in by my seductive philosophies and become something horrible, like a secular humanist or something.

    I'm sure you'll be quite tolerant of your children thinking for themselves if or when they decide to explore different religious faiths.

    Oh, wait.

    Also, you are not the sum total of all secular belief systems.

    They're free to think what they like as long as they end up thinking like me goes hand in hand with its ok because I'm right.

    sig.jpg
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    If you think that most people believe shit because it is verifiable and not because it usually fits with their preconceived notions, I have a bridge to sell you.

    I can't be held responsible for whatever nervous breakdown may occur from the removal of a projected unverifiable belief system.

    We shouldn't be held to tolerance of ridiculous acts and social pressures because fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.

    Ridiculous acts that in no way harm other people. You don't have the right to not be offended.

    Wow, I really thought the old "personal faith doesn't harm anyone" fallacy had been put to bed ages ago. That's just poorly informed rhetoric, and possibly grounds for disqualification.


    Certainly at least a 5-yard penalty.

    13 DEAD IN HORRIFIC BURQAH ATTACK

    4 Kashmiri women murdered for not wearing burqas.

    If only a hundred euro fine had been there to save them.

    Well it was in Kashmir, so I don't know what the exchange rate is like.

    Clearly, we need to make short skirts and toplessness mandatory to fight rape.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Arcadia Champion (Retired) WanderingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Shockingly, if you don't single out a group they end up assimilating pretty well and then your general cultural values project onto theirs and replace the home culture.

    Of course, if you do single out a group, you get problems and frequently radicalization.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • AtomikaAtomika Suicide Squab Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Ah, so personal secular beliefs can never harm others. Good to know.

    Yes, beware my fearsome encouragement to think for yourself and question unverifiable claims.

    Your children may be taken in by my seductive philosophies and become something horrible, like a secular humanist or something.

    Which religion did Ted Kaczynski belong to again?

    I want to be able to steer clear of it, since it killed a bunch of people

    Ah. The old "wholesale dogmatic irrationality is no worse than random acts of psychosis" chestnut.


    That's the one you want to play.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Ah, so personal secular beliefs can never harm others. Good to know.

    Yes, beware my fearsome encouragement to think for yourself and question unverifiable claims.

    Your children may be taken in by my seductive philosophies and become something horrible, like a secular humanist or something.

    Which religion did Ted Kaczynski belong to again?

    I want to be able to steer clear of it, since it killed a bunch of people

    Ah. The old "wholesale dogmatic irrationality is no worse than random acts of psychosis" chestnut.


    That's the one you want to play.

    Well the whole "all people with a belief system are crazy people" chestnut has gotten kind of stale.

    sig.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Ah, so personal secular beliefs can never harm others. Good to know.

    Yes, beware my fearsome encouragement to think for yourself and question unverifiable claims.

    Your children may be taken in by my seductive philosophies and become something horrible, like a secular humanist or something.

    Which religion did Ted Kaczynski belong to again?

    I want to be able to steer clear of it, since it killed a bunch of people

    No atheists have ever become attached to an supposedly rational philosophy and killed millions in China and Russia all while claiming that their shit was completely verifiable and 100 percent scientific.

    It is precisely because we know we are not perfectly rational robots that we should allow freedom of speech.

  • AtomikaAtomika Suicide Squab Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Shockingly, if you don't single out a group they end up assimilating pretty well and then your general cultural values project onto theirs and replace the home culture.

    Of course, if you do single out a group, you get problems and frequently radicalization.

    Which is why I've quite openly been opposed throughout this thread to just about any special protection afforded to extreme religious expression, regardless of specific faith. Since my first post.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    You're afraid that Western Liberalism cannot win the battle of ideas with fundamentalist Islam and so are going to abandon those precepts of Western Liberalism (personal, religious, and expressive freedom) in order to try and use the power of the State to rig the marketplace of ideas against the unbearably enticing draw of Wahhabi-ism.

    I must say, the relative progressive Western ideologies that have been developing and expanding since the Renaissance are really catching on like wildfire in the Middle East.

    In another couple hundred years, women may even get to go outside without asking permission.


    *crosses fingers*

    I truly am amazed at just how little belief you have in liberal democracy and individual freedom.

    I'm truly amazed at how little you think it must be worked at to succeed.

    Then you are incredibly mistaken. Much as how I believe that politics is a strong slow boring of hard boards I believe that a free and liberal society takes constant vigilance and effort.

    One thing to be vigilant against? The State mandating a dress code targeted at a maligned minority.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Shockingly, if you don't single out a group they end up assimilating pretty well and then your general cultural values project onto theirs and replace the home culture.

    Of course, if you do single out a group, you get problems and frequently radicalization.

    Which is why I've quite openly been opposed throughout this thread to just about any special protection afforded to extreme religious expression, regardless of specific faith. Since my first post.

    No you just prefer laws to persecute them.

    sig.jpg
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Ah, so personal secular beliefs can never harm others. Good to know.

    Yes, beware my fearsome encouragement to think for yourself and question unverifiable claims.

    Your children may be taken in by my seductive philosophies and become something horrible, like a secular humanist or something.

    Which religion did Ted Kaczynski belong to again?

    I want to be able to steer clear of it, since it killed a bunch of people

    Ah. The old "wholesale dogmatic irrationality is no worse than random acts of psychosis" chestnut.


    That's the one you want to play.

    Ah. The old "rather than acknowledging that violence can be motivated by both secular and religious concerns I'll transparently try to dodge the point with a silly and annoying 'Ah the old 'so and so thing, so that's the move you want to play is it?' non-engagement engagement" chestnut.

    That's the one you want to play.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • AtomikaAtomika Suicide Squab Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Ah, so personal secular beliefs can never harm others. Good to know.

    Yes, beware my fearsome encouragement to think for yourself and question unverifiable claims.

    Your children may be taken in by my seductive philosophies and become something horrible, like a secular humanist or something.

    Which religion did Ted Kaczynski belong to again?

    I want to be able to steer clear of it, since it killed a bunch of people

    Ah. The old "wholesale dogmatic irrationality is no worse than random acts of psychosis" chestnut.


    That's the one you want to play.

    Well the whole "all people with a belief system are crazy people" chestnut has gotten kind of stale.

    If we just have to go there, those voices in your head are more real than the voices in red letters.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Arcadia Champion (Retired) WanderingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Ah, so personal secular beliefs can never harm others. Good to know.

    Yes, beware my fearsome encouragement to think for yourself and question unverifiable claims.

    Your children may be taken in by my seductive philosophies and become something horrible, like a secular humanist or something.

    Which religion did Ted Kaczynski belong to again?

    I want to be able to steer clear of it, since it killed a bunch of people

    Ah. The old "wholesale dogmatic irrationality is no worse than random acts of psychosis" chestnut.


    That's the one you want to play.

    Well the whole "all people with a belief system are crazy people" chestnut has gotten kind of stale.

    You forgot non-white people are crazy!

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • AtomikaAtomika Suicide Squab Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Shockingly, if you don't single out a group they end up assimilating pretty well and then your general cultural values project onto theirs and replace the home culture.

    Of course, if you do single out a group, you get problems and frequently radicalization.

    Which is why I've quite openly been opposed throughout this thread to just about any special protection afforded to extreme religious expression, regardless of specific faith. Since my first post.

    No you just prefer laws to persecute them.

    Not "them," just their religions.

  • AtomikaAtomika Suicide Squab Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Ah, so personal secular beliefs can never harm others. Good to know.

    Yes, beware my fearsome encouragement to think for yourself and question unverifiable claims.

    Your children may be taken in by my seductive philosophies and become something horrible, like a secular humanist or something.

    Which religion did Ted Kaczynski belong to again?

    I want to be able to steer clear of it, since it killed a bunch of people

    Ah. The old "wholesale dogmatic irrationality is no worse than random acts of psychosis" chestnut.


    That's the one you want to play.

    Do you actually know any Muslims? Like, real honest to goodness breathing human beings to self identify as followers of Islam? Because you're pulling the same bullshit in the opposite direction here.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Bliss 101Bliss 101 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    How does my wearing chinos harm other people such that the power of the State should be brought to bear in order to end this abomination unto the West?

    Just to be slightly pedantic, harm to other people isn't the issue here. It's about harm to yourself, more analogous to not wearing a seat belt. Only they're legislating against (what they perceive as) social, not physical, harm in the long term.

    I think this is a terrible law as it sets an extremely dangerous precedent. It also doesn't help the women in question at all.

    MSL59.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Arcadia Champion (Retired) WanderingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Shockingly, if you don't single out a group they end up assimilating pretty well and then your general cultural values project onto theirs and replace the home culture.

    Of course, if you do single out a group, you get problems and frequently radicalization.

    Which is why I've quite openly been opposed throughout this thread to just about any special protection afforded to extreme religious expression, regardless of specific faith. Since my first post.

    No you just prefer laws to persecute them.

    Not "them," just their religions.

    Faith *is* identity. Just like your non-faith is a key part of your identity, seeing as how you are the single most tribal person on these boards.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Chaos PunkChaos Punk Registered User
    edited April 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Chaos Punk wrote: »
    So is the liberal opposition to burqa bans really that much different in reasoning than the position held by libertarians?
    Mainstream liberalism in the United States tends to include rather libertarian (note the lowercase L there) social views.

    I'm not sure why this would be surprising. The two terms (libertarian and liberal) are from a common root, after all.

    I understand the history classical liberalism. I began my political leanings as a liberal back in school. Other than economic theory, I seldom notice much difference in the end goals of liberals and libertarians... perhaps some contrary reasoning, but ultimately very similiar. I'm surprised by the frequency of discord amongst the two groups.

    We are all the man behind the curtain.... pay no attention to any of us
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Chaos Punk wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Chaos Punk wrote: »
    So is the liberal opposition to burqa bans really that much different in reasoning than the position held by libertarians?
    Mainstream liberalism in the United States tends to include rather libertarian (note the lowercase L there) social views.

    I'm not sure why this would be surprising. The two terms (libertarian and liberal) are from a common root, after all.

    I understand the history classical liberalism. I began my political leanings as a liberal back in school. Other than economic theory, I seldom notice much difference in the end goals of liberals and libertarians... perhaps some contrary reasoning, but ultimately very similiar. I'm surprised by the frequency of discord amongst the two groups.

    Liberals and libertarians come to the same end on social issues but through different chains of logic.

    sig.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Who lives Who dies Who Guacamoles? Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Bliss 101 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    How does my wearing chinos harm other people such that the power of the State should be brought to bear in order to end this abomination unto the West?

    Just to be slightly pedantic, harm to other people isn't the issue here. It's about harm to yourself, more analogous to not wearing a seat belt. Only they're legislating against (what they perceive as) social, not physical, harm in the long term.

    I think this is a terrible law as it sets an extremely dangerous precedent. It also doesn't help the women in question at all.

    I'm liking what I read here.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
    GNU Terry Pratchett
  • HamurabiHamurabi Cambridge, MARegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I mentioned this in the Middle East thread, but I'll reiterate it here.

    Westerners (myself included) have the noblest of goals in trying to subtly or unsubtly force western values of liberalism (and specifically, sex equality) on the east. We just want them (all) to enjoy the freedoms we do here, and thereby liberate them. The problem, in my view, lies in the execution. You can't legislate social progressivism. You can't force people into your worldview. As has been noted, the women themselves want to wear burqas, because they've been thoroughly inculcated to believe it's in their best interest. Frankly, from a practical perspective, they're probably right -- men in Pakistani markets will leer at a woman who isn't covered up.

    I've only seen two forces thus far that can accomplish this: economics and time. The former in the sense that industrialization brings with it western amenities, which bring with them western values (capitalism, personal socioeconomic fulfillment, etc.); the latter in the sense that the youth of the Middle East is the most liberalized of any group of people to live in that area in history, and their children will be even more liberalized than they are.

    That's not to say that gross human rights violations shouldn't be forcefully rebuked -- you don't get to mutilate your infant daughters or stone homosexuals to death thanks to the magical umbrella protection of Cultural Relativity™. I do not, however, see the wearing of burqas on a par with either of those two.

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Can we ban burqas on the grounds that the 'q' looks too much like a 'g' on the thread list?

  • Curly_BraceCurly_Brace Prototype Mimiga VillageRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Bliss 101 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    How does my wearing chinos harm other people such that the power of the State should be brought to bear in order to end this abomination unto the West?

    Just to be slightly pedantic, harm to other people isn't the issue here. It's about harm to yourself, more analogous to not wearing a seat belt. Only they're legislating against (what they perceive as) social, not physical, harm in the long term.

    I think this is a terrible law as it sets an extremely dangerous precedent. It also doesn't help the women in question at all.

    (Bolded for emphasis.) This is the central problem with this legislation, right here. (Not to mention the civil rights angle, which others have touched on previously.) Also, it is important to remember the political context in which this is taking place, i.e. France. To say there has been tension relating to the Muslim immigrants in France is an understatement.

    tom_sig2.jpgYKjfRSx.png
  • HamurabiHamurabi Cambridge, MARegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I second the notion.

    I thought for a second that the French had banned sammiches, and was thoroughly dismayed!

  • DockenDocken Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    You know, I was going to write a long diatribe, essentially focusing on cultural relativism and how a state has an inherent right to control the societal view of its people, provided that such a position was overwhelming the view of the populace and had no negative impact on a minority (I don't feel restricting a dress code in this instance would constitute a material negative impact in this instance).

    Having said that, the stark reality is that France is legislating against the burqa because there is significant tension in the community - the Burqa is not really the issue here, but rather France's feeling of being "threatened".

    Unfortunately I can't really defend their decision because it hasn't been made on good fatih - ie it hasn't been made because they're really concerned about Islamic women, hasn't been made because of some overt issue regarding the burqa and public spaces and it hasn't been made because they feel like they will make significant gains in educating/changing the Muslim minority.

    Its been done for base political reasons and as such I can't condone... which is unfortunate because I think there are reasonable good faith arguments on this topic in general, just not in this specific instance.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    I guess I'm weird in that I don't believe that crazy people's antics shouldn't be provided for by any public instance.

    Which sounds better: liberal tolerance, or the wars of religion? I'd go with liberal tolerance.

    Alternate answer: religion is generally a fundamental part of people's identities and self-conceptions. If we place any value on personal autonomy at all, then we'll allow people to freely exercise their religion.

    I'll bite the bullet and assert that states have a legitimate authority in shaping the nature of national, religious and cultural identity if the democratic polity so decides; obviously, the decisionmaking process should exercise caution, and the measures taken minimally intrusive where possible, but I think the legitimacy of any resulting relevant legislation here should not be considered invalid on the sole grounds of individual liberty.

    To sketch the argument in principle, and I should emphasize that I do not wish to draw any far-fetched analogies here - modern states are complicated institutions that implicitly require that cultural expression fall within certain bounds; capitalism requires a carefully inculcated alienation and submission to private authority, secularism requires a maintained dissonance over how certain your religious convictions really are, welfare requires an moral identification with your poorer brethren, etc. It wasn't so terribly long ago that one's inherited career was a fundamental part of one's identity and self-conception but obviously modern economies would have a great deal of trouble working with this.

    To pick an easy example - consider India. It is a deeply embedded cultural practice for families to favor sons; in a background where sons no longer die rapidly to conflict and disease, this is a problem. Infanticide is easy to ban but ultrasounds and sex-selective abortions are harder technologies to seal away. Obviously this doesn't weigh in favor of any imaginable intrusive intervention, but if the democratic government of an Indian state decided to punish sex-selective abortions, subsidize having daughters, or bombard new couples with progressive propaganda, I daresay it has every legitimate authority in doing so. We have some knowledge of what the institutions of a modern liberal state should look like. Why wait?

    Again, I am contesting the principle that individual expression of identity and self-conception override state interests; my choice of example has nothing to do with burqas. To drag in burqas would require some presumptions that are dubious at best, especially an argument that the practice is likely to spread. The argument for harm is simple - status quos are capable of exercising social pressures and the entrenchment of an overtly religious status quo enforced through the wearing of a prominent restrictive garment would not be desirable - but two thousand burqas do not threaten the independent communal identity of the French Muslim subcommunity, never mind the French nation.

    I rather regard that if France had done nothing and twiddled on its thumbs in this matter, burqas would likely remain fringe. The full-body veil did become entrenched in the Arab world apparently abruptly, but in those states gangs of prowling religious enforcers played a part and this does not seem likely to occur in France. I do think that, despite my lack of personal belief that the threat is real or imminent, that the French government has the legitimate authority to legislate here.

    And I strongly disagree because the institutions of a modern liberal state should ideally promote Majority Rule with Minority Rights. This specific issue tramples on the rights of individual women as well as a minority religion. I don't quite see how the same frame holds true for outlawing sex-selective abortions or dedicating funds to pamphleting. If the French government wanted to spend $Riviera on PSA's telling Muslim women to throw off the shackles of a veil and embrace French fashion I'd be perfectly fine with it. It does not. It uses the authority of the State to dictate acceptable wardrobes in a facially neutral language that happens to target a specific minority. That is horrible and an abuse of the legitimate function of how the State interacts with individuals.

    At risk of utterly breaking an analogy which I specifically avoided because analogizing hasn't really improved discourse in this thread, I daresay the closer element would be to the outlawing rather than to the pamphleting (trivia: it is, actually, illegal to conduct or have sex-selective abortions in many states in India).

    I'm not seeing how it might be acceptable to tell women what to do with their bodies in one case due to a perceived cultural fault but not acceptable in the other. Is it the minority aspect here that is the key difference?

    And I just don't see how the contexts are similarly applicable. I don't believe nor am I arguing for individual liberty uber alles as the basis for my disagreement with the burqa ban or similar. I agree with you that the State has a legitimate role in creating laws that abridge individual rights/liberties under certain circumstances. My argument is that the State has to cross over a pretty high bar in order to justify restrictions and so forth. I also believe that this requirement should be on a sliding scale depending upon the subject. Issues of free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion should force any attempt at curtailing them to be excessively high because it doesn't really infringe upon anyone else's rights (you do not have the right to not be offended) and because of my conviction that an open marketplace of ideas is necessary for a democracy to thrive.

    To complicate matters more and make even worse analogies that aren't really analogous: There is no library large enough nor with a budget big enough to contain the entirety of published works. This means that they have to decide on what to collect and what to keep out and balance it with the principle of open access to the world's knowledge. The difference between selection and censorship is very fine. It is also extremely important.

    Wait, so do you concede the right of the state to abridge individual rights and liberties in the areas of freedom of speech, expression and religion or not? Saying "the state has a right to restrict X but any attempt to restrict X should be subjected to a test that should be excessively high so that it will fail it" doesn't meaningfully allow for "the state has a right to restrict X".

    In extremely tightly defined circumstances, yes I do. These are pretty much solely those that are necessary for a functioning society. Meaning perjury when addressing a criminal justice system built on the assumption of truthful testimony and expressions of imminent lawlessness. Note that this isn't just general lawlessness, but actual incitement to riot for which the police would have no reasonable time of preparation.
    ronya wrote: »
    My point is not just that states have a right to restrict expression and religion, but that states have a legitimate right to do so in pursuit of the explicit goal of reshaping individual identities; the proposal-specific test I would prefer applied would that of practical efficacy in engineering an outcome from which the marketplace of ideas can carry out the rest - placing a thumb on the scales to achieve a desired outcome or get it to adjust faster to a desired outcome, so to speak. At some point restrictions have to be lifted or legitimized, as a moral and practical democratic matter. It is too my conviction that an open marketplace of ideas is necessary for democracy to thrive; I am skeptical of how well it can function in the short run, though. Cultural evolution takes generations.

    This I disagree with completely. (Well, not the last sentence, mind.) The State does not have a legitimate right to restrict expression solely on the basis of social engineering or pushing desired social outcomes. It is blatantly viewpoint discrimination and using force of law to prevent ideas from being voiced. Again "Let's all kill that guy over there with this knife I have in my hand right now!" is not legitimately protected speech, but only due to the fact that violence would be imminent. "Somebody should knife Bernie Madoff" is, and by right out to be, protected speech that the State cannot legitimately use its power to curtail. Even though the sentiment of murdering Bernie Madoff is (arguably) not in the State's interest.

    Yes, it is viewpoint discrimination; my conviction is that we can safely judge that some views are definitely not going to win in the marketplace of ideas given long enough and so pressuring these views to go away faster is a legitimate goal of the state.

    It is a common libertarian pretense that legal recognition of some set of individual rights and the protection of said rights from physical attack is the be-all and end-all of liberty; well, no, nonstate institutions are quite capable of exerting restrictions on individual liberty, and one hardly needs to have a knife waved at one's person in order to be intimidated. A media personality exhorting a massive audience to knife Bernie Madoff can reasonably expect that at least one of his listeners may take the advice to heart; if Bernie Madoff is then knifed, to assert that the personality bears no moral culpability seems to me implausible.

    Libertarians argue that civil rights violate personal liberties - freedom of association, in particular - and well, yes they do; I would defend this violation on the same grounds; you may dislike interacting with protected groups but to hell with your personal disposition here - the state has every right to coerce you into doing otherwise, even if no substantive material harm would come to those protected in the absence of state action (they could always shop elsewhere, but that's not the point). I do recognize that such restrictions are, in practice, ineffective at actually fighting discrimination - their primary effect is in forming a new status quo in social interaction; identically any attempt at social engineering must consider the same pragmatic issues: one cannot change minds easily, but it is much easier to nudge the status quo so that the single violator becomes the one breaking social norms rather than the single protected individual.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Docken wrote: »
    You know, I was going to write a long diatribe, essentially focusing on cultural relativism and how a state has an inherent right to control the societal view of its people, provided that such a position was overwhelming the view of the populace and had no negative impact on a minority (I don't feel restricting a dress code in this instance would constitute a material negative impact in this instance).
    That's not a path we want to go down. The state has the power to outlaw certain behaviors that impinge on the rights of others. Your statement implies that the state has the legitimate power to pass laws to change peoples' opinions, rather than just the power to punish people for acting on those beliefs in such a way that impinges on the rights of others.

    In the case of women wearing a burqa, I'm hard-pressed to see how their beliefs regarding modesty and their expressions of such beliefs in any way impinge on the rights of others. The fact that someone lives their life in a manner that the majority disapproves of is not, in of itself, a legitimate reason for government to regulate said lifestyle. Plenty of people find things like homosexuality icky, and for a long time this discomfort with said lifestyle was the basis for legal restrictions on homosexuality.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    @ronya: did you see my post on liberalism? I am curious what you would say in response.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I did miss it. Reading it now.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Shockingly, if you don't single out a group they end up assimilating pretty well and then your general cultural values project onto theirs and replace the home culture.

    Of course, if you do single out a group, you get problems and frequently radicalization.

    Which is why I've quite openly been opposed throughout this thread to just about any special protection afforded to extreme religious expression, regardless of specific faith. Since my first post.

    No you just prefer laws to persecute them.

    Not "them," just their religions.

    Faith *is* identity. Just like your non-faith is a key part of your identity, seeing as how you are the single most tribal person on these boards.

    It may have something with me being an atheist as well (and effectively one from childhood, which is not as uncommon where I'm from), and my lousy insistence on bring up "past events" over and over, but I am reminded of Ross' part in the "isms in film" thread, when he so lovely summarized hundreds of years of Chinese culture in a few short sentences.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • AtomikaAtomika Suicide Squab Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Shockingly, if you don't single out a group they end up assimilating pretty well and then your general cultural values project onto theirs and replace the home culture.

    Of course, if you do single out a group, you get problems and frequently radicalization.

    Which is why I've quite openly been opposed throughout this thread to just about any special protection afforded to extreme religious expression, regardless of specific faith. Since my first post.

    No you just prefer laws to persecute them.

    Not "them," just their religions.

    Faith *is* identity. Just like your non-faith is a key part of your identity, seeing as how you are the single most tribal person on these boards.

    It may have something with me being an atheist as well (and effectively one from childhood, which is not as uncommon where I'm born), and my lousy insistence on bring up "past events" over and over, but I am reminded of Ross' part in the "isms in film" thread, when he so lovely summarized hundreds of years of Chinese culture in a few short sentences.

    In my defense, I did preface the comment with the caveat, "As a jingoist Westerner,"

    It was terse juxtaposition of cultural norms, not intended as an authoritative thesis.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Shockingly, if you don't single out a group they end up assimilating pretty well and then your general cultural values project onto theirs and replace the home culture.

    Of course, if you do single out a group, you get problems and frequently radicalization.

    Which is why I've quite openly been opposed throughout this thread to just about any special protection afforded to extreme religious expression, regardless of specific faith. Since my first post.

    No you just prefer laws to persecute them.

    Not "them," just their religions.

    Faith *is* identity. Just like your non-faith is a key part of your identity, seeing as how you are the single most tribal person on these boards.

    It may have something with me being an atheist as well (and effectively one from childhood, which is not as uncommon where I'm born), and my lousy insistence on bring up "past events" over and over, but I am reminded of Ross' part in the "isms in film" thread, when he so lovely summarized hundreds of years of Chinese culture in a few short sentences.

    In my defense, I did preface the comment with the caveat, "As a jingoist Westerner,"

    It was terse juxtaposition of cultural norms, not intended as an authoritative thesis.

    That's absolutely true--if anyone were to follow the signature link, they'd see that as well.

    Though on the other hand, it's basically like saying, in Joe Pesci's voice, "And I mean no disrespect..."

    Anyway, I'm distracting us from the topic, and apologize for it. Please continue, everyone.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »

    I think the primary difference is that the burqa (and to lesser extents, the hajib, as well as similarly-intended practices in Jewish orthodoxy or Christian Pentecostal denominations)

    Yeah I think it's important to note that we don't like any of that. I strongly oppose the "modest christian girl" type of clothing too. It comes from the same fucking place where women need to be covered up lest they show they have actual girl-parts.

    Do you believe that the State should prohibit the wearing of ankle length skirts and crosses by force of law?

    Not at the moment. I don't believe that such an action would definitely wrong though.

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    The thing is that I don't believe it's "equally disagreeable". Technically taking a woman away from an abusive husband infringes on her right to do whatever she wants, but how on earth can that ever be as disagreeable as forcing her to stay with her abusive husband?

    Simply because the act is somewhat similar does not mean they're equivalent.

    Okay - so suppose we dealt with the issue of domestic abuse by legislating that women must not leaves their homes with visible bruising or cuts on their faces, rather than creating a complex apparatus for helping women that are being beat-up by their husbands and creating a Zeitgeist of intolerance for that sort of behavior.

    That seems to me to be more how the Burqa legislation is aimed. 'We don't want to see that these women are being abused,' rather than, 'We want to help these women who are being abused / we want to prevent the abuse of women,'

    There are lots of good proposals for curbing the honor killings, mutilations & parent-sponsored rape of young girls in the French muslim ghettos. Banning the damn Burqas is not one such proposal.

    I certainly agree.

    I don't think the burqa-ban is intended for that purpose anyway. France is aggressively secular; I don't believe peeps from the US even realize how much.

    You guys do know that any overt symbol of a religious nature is forbidden for government employees (those who deal with the public), right? And that such stuff is banned from public schools? That France has a long history of banning religious symbols from lots of public, starting way back before there were any muslims around there.

    You mean since 2004? And I'm well aware that the national religion of France is The State/Secularism. In fact I think that was a main sticking point in the thread when that very recent ban on overt religious symbols in government buildings/schools was made.

    Yes, the school-thing is since 2004.

    The ban on religious burial-grounds has existed way longer though. (almost all cemeteries are public under supervision of the local government, since like probably a hundred years or so)


    And I was just bringing this up because some people seem to think this is a case of muslimhate instead of the good old fashioned french religion-hate.

    Maybe it's generic religion-hate to you. It's definitely Muslim-hate and immigrant-hate to the people supporting the ban in France. And France's habit of xenophobia is just as prolific their habit of being anti-religious. Just last year Sarkozy proposed stripping citizenship of any foreign-born French citizen convicted of a serious crime.

    Supporting France's ban on the basis of being anti-religion is like supporting the KKK hanging a black guy from a tree, just because you're pro-death penalty. It's not just about religion/capital punishment. It never has been.

    sanstodo wrote: »
    Again, this law covers all clothing that covers the face, not just the burqa.

    And voting literacy tests in the Jim Crow South purportedly applied to all people, not just blacks.
    And the Minutemen claim to be against all illegal immigrants, not just brown ones.

Sign In or Register to comment.