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

1246719

Posts

  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I suppose this a good way as any to start a dialogue as to how a backward religious practice can justify itself.


    My only wish is that the ban reached broader, taking in all kinds of mindless (and often, hurtful) religious paraphernalia.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I suppose this a good way as any to start a dialogue as to how a backward religious practice can justify itself.

    Please elaborate.

    And you're right, religious freedoms should mean the right to practice religions you approve of in ways you approve of.

    sig.jpg
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Even if it was, it would be incredibly condecending and misogynistic; there's a reason we have 'Child Protecetive Services' that can take kids away from abusive parents but not 'Women Protectice Services' to haul adult women out of abusive relationships. We have (hopefully) robust social supports, legal advocacy, shelters or housing systems and so forth for women who want to leave abusive relationships and outreach efforts to help empower them to do choose to do so instead.

    Indeed.

    Well, when there is actual evidence of abuse, the district attorney acting on behalf of the state or county can press charges even if the victim doesn't want charges pressed. And while pursuing those charges, the district attorney can also issue a domestic violence restraining order. This doesn't happen a lot, but it can and does happen.

    So, yes, there is power within the law for the government to separate couples when there is evidence of abuse. But, again, there has to be evidence of abuse, fpr which a burqa is neither necessary nor sufficient, and this is done on a case-by-case basis rather than through sweeping legislation.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius 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.

    This is not the equivalent of forcing a woman to leave her abusive husband.

    The closest thing in this strained analogy of yours is forcing all women to leave their husbands, because we believe that some husbands are abusive.

    OF COURSE it's not equivalent. What I'm fucking pointing out is that you're basing "equally bad" on some pretty shaky ground.

    You're saying a ban and a requirement are equally bad because it's "telling women what to do" without accepting that such an argument can be applied to frillions of things. Stopping a murder or forcing someone to murder? Equally bad because you are telling people what to do.


    Analogies aren't meant to perfectly fit because they wouldn't be analogies then, the point is in the underlying motive/argument.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I suppose this a good way as any to start a dialogue as to how a backward religious practice can justify itself.

    Please elaborate.

    And you're right, religious freedoms should mean the right to practice religions you approve of in ways you approve of.

    Indeed, freedom of expression and belief should only be as I determine. Kim Khardasion tear down those pants!

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Because I was accused of being a racist for saying that I didn't really see the burqa ban as all that big of a deal,and I wanted to point out that you could also be painted as a racist for being anti-genital-mutilation.

    The difference is that genital mutilation is objectively harmful, while wearing a head covering is only harmful given certain assumptions about the marriages of those who wear them.

    Genital mutilation is also typically carried out on children who either cannot reasonably be considered to consent or who, increasingly, vigorously try to avoid the procedure. It is also irreversible: once it is done to these girls, their ability to experience sexual pleasure is diminished for life. So it is nothing at all like the veil. When, on the other hand, we do actually get to full fledged adult consent, then it is not at all clear that we should prohibit female genital mutiliation. I would imagine that the only consistent approach would to be to treat it similarly to others who attempt to obtain amputations for non-life-threatening and purely psychological reasons. If anything, when full adult consent is obtained, we should treat it more favorably than other selective amputations, since there is a plain religious motive that rationalizes the behavior.

    Thanatos might, in response to this, point out that young girls also wear the veil. So if young girls cannot, or at least often don't, consent to female genital mutilation, then why should we take them to be consenting to the veil? Why not protect them from that?

    Well there are a number of points here. First, for there to be any basis for protecting young girls from the veil, I would first expect that there be some extremely convincing data purporting to show that it is in fact harmful. Absent that, it is a family matter outside the purview of the state. Even if there were social science data in the offing that was able to reach the level of strength and precision required to show that the veil itself were harmful, we have to balance that harm against the fundamental value of religious freedom. It may, after all, be the case that many non-criminal ways of raising a child are harmful. It may be harmful to allow a child of a young age to wear makeup and heels; it might, by contrast, be harmful not to allow a child to wear makeup and heels. Either way, it is not the sort of thing that we tend to decide with state power. To selectively target the harms done by religious parenting practices while simultaneously taking a silent and permissive attitude towards other harms done by non-religious parenting practices is hypocritical at best, and a clear violation of social justice at worst. When the policy is also targeted at a distrusted minority religion, it seems eminently clear that the real goal is marginalization and state enforcement of secondary status.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius 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.

    This is not the equivalent of forcing a woman to leave her abusive husband.

    The closest thing in this strained analogy of yours is forcing all women to leave their husbands, because we believe that some husbands are abusive.
    Even if it was, it would be incredibly condecending and misogynistic; there's a reason we have 'Child Protecetive Services' that can take kids away from abusive parents but not 'Women Protectice Services' to haul adult women out of abusive relationships. We have (hopefully) robust social supports, legal advocacy, shelters or housing systems and so forth for women who want to leave abusive relationships and outreach efforts to help empower them to do choose to do so instead.

    Irrelevant.

    I wasn't saying that that shit is okay, I was saying that they aren't both just as bad. Both being bad does not mean one can't be the worst.

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I suppose this a good way as any to start a dialogue as to how a backward religious practice can justify itself.


    My only wish is that the ban reached broader, taking in all kinds of mindless (and often, hurtful) religious paraphernalia.

    Again, you're imposing your own reading (as are the French) and treating the burqa as if it were a static concept for you to define. However, the burqa and veiling are evolving ideas that are part of the dialogue between certain strands of Islam and modernity.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    So, yes, there is power within the law for the government to separate couples when there is evidence of abuse. But, again, there has to be evidence of abuse, fpr which a burqa is neither necessary nor sufficient, and this is done on a case-by-case basis rather than through sweeping legislation.

    Of course there is also no implication that this is supposed to be just as invasive.

    This ban does not mean that any woman wearing a burqa is immediately separated from her husband.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    But your comparison is silly; of course if you compare 'forcibly remove from abusive situation' to 'forcibly detain in abusive situation', it's worse to force her into abuse - but that's because there's no variance in the 'violating autonomy' question, just the abuse status. Besides, nobody is seriously suggesting that women be forced to stay in abusive situations. Except for the sense that this law would push truly abused women even deeper into isolation, I suppose - but that's still an argument against it.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    OF COURSE it's not equivalent. What I'm fucking pointing out is that you're basing "equally bad" on some pretty shaky ground.

    You're saying a ban and a requirement are equally bad because it's "telling women what to do" without accepting that such an argument can be applied to frillions of things.

    I'm saying that making decisions for women because believe you know better than them is fundamentally misogynistic.

    You're saying it's ok because you really know better than them in this case.

    Spot the disconnect in our discussion.

    (I'm also saying the ban is many other things: pointless, misguided, inconsistent insofar as it serves only to victimize those that it assumes are already victims, none of which you have addressed).
    Stopping a murder or forcing someone to murder? Equally bad because you are telling people what to do.

    There's no equivalency here. We didn't ban murder on the pretext that we were preventing women from being forced to perform it. We also didn't murder everyone to prevent murder.

    The fundamental thing you're missing here is that a law that seeks to solve the problem of "some women being forced to do X" by "forcing all women to not do X" is taking a position in its solution fundamentally similar to the position in its problem in a way that "don't kill people" as a solution to "people are being murdered" does not.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    MrMister wrote: »
    When, on the other hand, we do actually get to full fledged adult consent, then it is not at all clear that we should prohibit female genital mutiliation. I would imagine that the only consistent approach would to be to treat it similarly to others who attempt to obtain amputations for non-life-threatening and purely psychological reasons. If anything, when full adult consent is obtained, we should treat it more favorably than other selective amputations, since there is a plain religious motive that rationalizes the behavior.

    Wait what?

    Are you saying that because there is a religious motivator we should consider doing it?

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    MrMister wrote: »
    When, on the other hand, we do actually get to full fledged adult consent, then it is not at all clear that we should prohibit female genital mutiliation. I would imagine that the only consistent approach would to be to treat it similarly to others who attempt to obtain amputations for non-life-threatening and purely psychological reasons. If anything, when full adult consent is obtained, we should treat it more favorably than other selective amputations, since there is a plain religious motive that rationalizes the behavior.

    I agree with the gist of your post. I'll just point out that there is a pretty lively discussion going on in a lot of different communities regarding the ethics of selective amputations in the context of body integrity identity disorder.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Something which occurs to me.

    Bans on female circumcision are justified by them by the procedure usually being performed on minors, who are incapable of giving consent to it.

    Bans on burqas are attacked by claiming that the bans violate the rights of adults who specifically consent to wearing them.

    Would it be acceptable to ban minors from wearing burqas, if that ban is not extended to adults?

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    When, on the other hand, we do actually get to full fledged adult consent, then it is not at all clear that we should prohibit female genital mutiliation. I would imagine that the only consistent approach would to be to treat it similarly to others who attempt to obtain amputations for non-life-threatening and purely psychological reasons. If anything, when full adult consent is obtained, we should treat it more favorably than other selective amputations, since there is a plain religious motive that rationalizes the behavior.

    Wait what?

    Are you saying that because there is a religious motivator we should consider doing it?

    When an adult wants to intentionally mutilate themselves as an expression of their religious beliefs? Yes they should be allowed to, its their body.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Why though? That still operates under the assumption they're inherently harmful.

    EDIT: posted in response to Jothki

    sig.jpg
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    jothki wrote: »
    Something which occurs to me.

    Bans on female circumcision are justified by them by the procedure usually being performed on minors, who are incapable of giving consent to it.

    Bans on burqas are attacked by claiming that the bans violate the rights of adults who specifically consent to wearing them.

    Would it be acceptable to ban minors from wearing burqas, if that ban is not extended to adults?

    Only if you could show that banning minors from wearing burqas is going to alleviate some major social ill.

    Yes, it is acceptable to restrict the rights of minors more than we restrict the rights of adults, but you still need to have a good reason to restrict those rights.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Why though? That still operates under the assumption they're inherently harmful.

    EDIT: posted in response to Jothki

    Also, what differentiates them from other forms of religious clothing?

    Let's clarify that the ban covers all forms of clothing that cover a person's face, which would include non-burqa veils.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    So, yes, there is power within the law for the government to separate couples when there is evidence of abuse. But, again, there has to be evidence of abuse, fpr which a burqa is neither necessary nor sufficient, and this is done on a case-by-case basis rather than through sweeping legislation.

    Of course there is also no implication that this is supposed to be just as invasive.

    This ban does not mean that any woman wearing a burqa is immediately separated from her husband.

    Nope, she just gets fined by the fashion police. Otherwise known as the actual police.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Why though? That still operates under the assumption they're inherently harmful.

    EDIT: posted in response to Jothki

    Also, what differentiates them from other forms of religious clothing?

    Let's clarify that the ban covers all forms of clothing that cover a person's face, which would include non-burqa veils.

    I think its pretty clear that's just a thin cover to hide the "but this is really about going after muslims" thing.

    No one is going to get in trouble for wrapping a scarf around their face during the winter here.

    sig.jpg
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    When, on the other hand, we do actually get to full fledged adult consent, then it is not at all clear that we should prohibit female genital mutiliation. I would imagine that the only consistent approach would to be to treat it similarly to others who attempt to obtain amputations for non-life-threatening and purely psychological reasons. If anything, when full adult consent is obtained, we should treat it more favorably than other selective amputations, since there is a plain religious motive that rationalizes the behavior.

    Wait what?

    Are you saying that because there is a religious motivator we should consider doing it?

    If there is a religious motivation then we should consider allowing it, yes. In general, one of our goals is to allow for the free exercise of religion insofar as is compatible with granting the same freedom to others.
    Feral wrote:
    I agree with the gist of your post. I'll just point out that there is a pretty lively discussion going on in a lot of different communities regarding the ethics of selective amputations in the context of body integrity identity disorder.

    That was pretty much what I was thinking of, thought I don't actually know much about said debate.

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    jothki wrote: »
    Something which occurs to me.

    Bans on female circumcision are justified by them by the procedure usually being performed on minors, who are incapable of giving consent to it.

    Bans on burqas are attacked by claiming that the bans violate the rights of adults who specifically consent to wearing them.

    Would it be acceptable to ban minors from wearing burqas, if that ban is not extended to adults?
    That still requires us to assume that the Burqa causes lasting psychological damage of a kind so serious it requires state intervention.

    And even if we accepted that it did, and that the children are victims in such cases, it's not clear how fining the children would fix anything.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    OF COURSE it's not equivalent. What I'm fucking pointing out is that you're basing "equally bad" on some pretty shaky ground.

    You're saying a ban and a requirement are equally bad because it's "telling women what to do" without accepting that such an argument can be applied to frillions of things.

    I'm saying that making decisions for women because believe you know better than them is fundamentally misogynistic.

    You're saying it's ok because you really know better than them in this case.

    I'm pretty sure I would remember it if I said anything like that.

    (I'm also saying the ban is many other things: pointless, misguided, inconsistent insofar as it serves only to victimize those that it assumes are already victims, none of which you have addressed).
    Why would I address things I agree with?
    Stopping a murder or forcing someone to murder? Equally bad because you are telling people what to do.

    There's no equivalency here. We didn't ban murder on the pretext that we were preventing women from being forced to perform it.
    No. And we didn't ban murder because we just love forcing people not to do it.

    Did you delete a line where you pointed out that murder and wearing a burqa aren't the same thing? Because that would almost be as good as your argument here.


    Point: "forcing women what to do" and "restricting choices" are things that are so broadly applicable that to claim any instance in which it happens is JUST AS BAD as any other instance is stupid. Even if banning the burqa and forcing it on all women are both misogynistic it doesn't necessarily lead you to the conclusion that both are equally bad. That is simply laughable.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    jothki wrote: »
    Something which occurs to me.

    Bans on female circumcision are justified by them by the procedure usually being performed on minors, who are incapable of giving consent to it.

    Bans on burqas are attacked by claiming that the bans violate the rights of adults who specifically consent to wearing them.

    Would it be acceptable to ban minors from wearing burqas, if that ban is not extended to adults?

    Minors are treated as chattel for the most part (unfortunately) and so their legal rights are far more restricted. Due to that it would be less bad than a blanket ban (or a ban on blankets) however it still fails to show any reason why the State should be mandating certain dress codes. The only acceptable one, to me, is the ban on indecent exposure to make sure that naughty bits are covered by some cloth. And even then I'm not all that strongly attached to it.

    I'm kind of curious here. How would people in this thread react to Rome reenacting its prohibition on wearing pants/anything other than a toga? [google books]

    tea-1.jpg
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Why though? That still operates under the assumption they're inherently harmful.

    EDIT: posted in response to Jothki

    Also, what differentiates them from other forms of religious clothing?

    Let's clarify that the ban covers all forms of clothing that cover a person's face, which would include non-burqa veils.

    I think its pretty clear that's just a thin cover to hide the "but this is really about going after muslims" thing.

    No one is going to get in trouble for wrapping a scarf around their face during the winter here.

    yeah, this law is as likely to be applied to people attending a masquerade ball as a poll worker was to inquire as to the eligibility of a white voter's grandfather under Jim Crow

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Why though? That still operates under the assumption they're inherently harmful.

    EDIT: posted in response to Jothki

    Also, what differentiates them from other forms of religious clothing?

    Let's clarify that the ban covers all forms of clothing that cover a person's face, which would include non-burqa veils.

    I think its pretty clear that's just a thin cover to hide the "but this is really about going after muslims" thing.

    No one is going to get in trouble for wrapping a scarf around their face during the winter here.

    Completely agreed. I wanted to clarify the scope of the law, since a burqa is a very specific garment. There are many other forms of veiling that within the Muslim community and the law would crack down on those as well.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Gah, MrMister actually mentioned exactly what I said in my post. Serves me right for skimming the last few posts.

    And yeah, the idea is more to sidestep the issue of freedom of expression. Talking about the point at which the government should intervene for the perceived benefit of others seems more significant here.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    So, yes, there is power within the law for the government to separate couples when there is evidence of abuse. But, again, there has to be evidence of abuse, fpr which a burqa is neither necessary nor sufficient, and this is done on a case-by-case basis rather than through sweeping legislation.

    Of course there is also no implication that this is supposed to be just as invasive.

    This ban does not mean that any woman wearing a burqa is immediately separated from her husband.

    Nope, she just gets fined by the fashion police. Otherwise known as the actual police.

    And there's no better way to combat the creeping influence of shariah law than by empowering the police to make sure women are properly dressed!

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Why though? That still operates under the assumption they're inherently harmful.

    EDIT: posted in response to Jothki

    Also, what differentiates them from other forms of religious clothing?

    Let's clarify that the ban covers all forms of clothing that cover a person's face, which would include non-burqa veils.

    And good luck enforcing that in February.

    tea-1.jpg
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Why though? That still operates under the assumption they're inherently harmful.

    EDIT: posted in response to Jothki

    Also, what differentiates them from other forms of religious clothing?

    Let's clarify that the ban covers all forms of clothing that cover a person's face, which would include non-burqa veils.

    And good luck enforcing that in February.

    I am sure they will start arresting all the women wearing white clothing who are taking part in a traditional ceremony that marks the point at which a woman must submit to her male partner as man submits to God.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    MrMister wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    When, on the other hand, we do actually get to full fledged adult consent, then it is not at all clear that we should prohibit female genital mutiliation. I would imagine that the only consistent approach would to be to treat it similarly to others who attempt to obtain amputations for non-life-threatening and purely psychological reasons. If anything, when full adult consent is obtained, we should treat it more favorably than other selective amputations, since there is a plain religious motive that rationalizes the behavior.

    Wait what?

    Are you saying that because there is a religious motivator we should consider doing it?

    If there is a religious motivation then we should consider allowing it, yes. In general, one of our goals is to allow for the free exercise of religion insofar as is compatible with granting the same freedom to others.

    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.

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    No. And we didn't ban murder because we just love forcing people not to do it.

    Did you delete a line where you pointed out that murder and wearing a burqa aren't the same thing? Because that would almost be as good as your argument here.

    Point: "forcing women what to do" and "restricting choices" are things that are so broadly applicable that to claim any instance in which it happens is JUST AS BAD as any other instance is stupid.

    I see no further point in continuing this discussion with you. You seem incapable, by nature or will, to recognize the difference between "Women are people to, and they shouldn't be forced to wear something they don't want to wear! Let's force women not to wear something they do want to wear!"

    and

    "People have a right to life. Let's force everyone to not murder one another".

    The former is self-contradictory with respect to its position on its claimed motivation, the equality of women. The latter is not self-contradictory with respect to its position on its claimed motivation, the sanctity of life.
    Even if banning the burqa and forcing it on all women are both misogynistic it doesn't necessarily lead you to the conclusion that both are equally bad. That is simply laughable.

    It does if we accept the claim that the motivation here is to protect the right's of women to make choices for themselves. That's the entire claim here, which you seem to insist on sticking your head in the sand and ignoring.

    You can't protect a woman's right to choose what to wear by taking away her right to choose what to wear. That's always going to be a fundamentally problematic and inconsistent position to take, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with your irrelevant attempts to fumble around and distinguish which kind of thing is worse for them to wear and so which choice is less bad.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    They have a right to freedom of expression and religion even if their beliefs are silly. I don't need a good reason to not have the ban. The supporters need a really good reason to have the ban. All I am seeing is using the burqa as an extremely shitty proxy for abuse.

  • Caveman PawsCaveman Paws Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    No. And we didn't ban murder because we just love forcing people not to do it.

    Did you delete a line where you pointed out that murder and wearing a burqa aren't the same thing? Because that would almost be as good as your argument here.

    Point: "forcing women what to do" and "restricting choices" are things that are so broadly applicable that to claim any instance in which it happens is JUST AS BAD as any other instance is stupid.

    I see no further point in continuing this discussion with you. You seem incapable, by nature or will, to recognize the difference between "Women are people to, and they shouldn't be forced to wear something they don't want to wear! Let's force women not to wear something they do want to wear!"

    and

    "People have a right to life. Let's force everyone to not murder one another".

    The former is self-contradictory with respect to its position on its claimed motivation, the equality of women. The latter is not self-contradictory with respect to its position on its claimed motivation, the sanctity of life.
    Even if banning the burqa and forcing it on all women are both misogynistic it doesn't necessarily lead you to the conclusion that both are equally bad. That is simply laughable.

    It does if we accept the claim that the motivation here is to protect the right's of women to make choices for themselves. That's the entire claim here, which you seem to insist on sticking your head in the sand and ignoring.

    You can't protect a woman's right to choose what to wear by taking away her right to choose what to wear. That's always going to be a fundamentally problematic and inconsistent position to take, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with your irrelevant attempts to fumble around and distinguish which kind of thing is worse for them to wear and so which choice is less bad.

    Pretty much that. This ban doesn't feel like a legit attempt to help the women, and makes me wonder if there isn't a large number of voters who are anti muslim in France.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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 realise 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.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    That might work if they also banned the clothing Catholic nuns wore.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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 have to say, that's a pretty messed-up perspective. One of the recent honor killings in France involved a father of a muslim girl who dared to go out on a date with someone; the father decided to 'excercise his religious freedom' by getting into his truck, driving around until he found them couple, and running them over until they were dead. He had to preserve his family honor, afterall.

    No, I do not think we ought to be protecting people's ultimately harmful superstitious inclinations. That said, I also don't think bans on Burqas does anything for us.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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.

    tea-1.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.