Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
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

1235719

Posts

  • JuliusJulius 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.

    Either you're having trouble with the English language or I'm not being clear.

    And since I'm being phrapeisously clear the problem seems to lie with you and your insistence on reading my every post as "LOL I LURV BANNING BURQAS WHARGARBLLL". I'm incredibly sure that I never actually said that I support this ban but whatever.
    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.
    No it doesn't. The only way to reach such a conclusion is to be really, really dumb.

    Saying that women can do everything a man can except be a fighter-pilot is simply not as misogynistic as saying that women are only good for cooking and raising kids.

    And banning the burqa because you want women to become more equal isn't the same as forcing them to wear a burqa because women are inferior and men are animals.
    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.

    Except I started this argument for those things you deem "irrelevant" and "fumbling around". I never fucking called into question that this wasn't menfolk telling womenfolk what to do (even though I could argue with that).

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The Ender wrote: »
    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.

    So then is banning Burqas bad because it's intended to suppress aspects of Muslim culture that shouldn't be suppressed in that manner, or because it won't do enough to succeed in its objective of suppressing them?

    Edit: I feel like launching into a discussion of social engineering in general, but that might be dragging the thread off topic. Maybe not, but eh.

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The Ender wrote: »
    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.

    Allowing honor killings is not compatible with a fully free liberal society--it requires that certain members be able to enforce their religious values on non-consenting others. That is why, in my first specification, I said we should allow as much religious freedom as is compatible with granting the same freedom to others. Face-coverings most certainly do not involve the same violation of that constraint that honor killings do.

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    Saying that women can do everything a man can except be a fighter-pilot is simply not as misogynistic as saying that women are only good for cooking and raising kids.

    And banning the burqa because you want women to become more equal isn't the same as forcing them to wear a burqa because women are inferior and men are animals.

    So, to be clear, you've decide for women that taking away their right to wear something is better for them than allowing them to wear it, because you know that this will result in a better outcome for them than allowing them to choose for themselves?

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Saying that women can do everything a man can except be a fighter-pilot is simply not as misogynistic as saying that women are only good for cooking and raising kids.

    And banning the burqa because you want women to become more equal isn't the same as forcing them to wear a burqa because women are inferior and men are animals.

    So, to be clear, you've decide for women that taking away their right to wear something is better for them than allowing them to wear it, because you know that this will result in a better outcome for them than allowing them to choose for themselves?

    If he *knew* that, would that change your opinion of his decision?

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    Except I started this argument for those things you deem "irrelevant" and "fumbling around". I never fucking called into question that this wasn't menfolk telling womenfolk what to do (even though I could argue with that).

    I'd be interested to see this.

    tea-1.jpg
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I honestly see this on the same level as a ban on the swastika, or a ban on burning crosses; it's a symbol of hate.

    Okay, ouch, that doesn't help your position in the slightest.

    Christ, I barely tapped into page one of this before finding something totally ridiculous.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I honestly see this on the same level as a ban on the swastika, or a ban on burning crosses; it's a symbol of hate.

    Okay, ouch, that doesn't help your position in the slightest.

    Christ, I barely tapped into page one of this before finding something totally ridiculous.

    And now I really want to debate cultural engineering.

  • monikermoniker 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.

    And I'd say it's both, considering the timing and context of its enactment. Nobody had problems with overtly religious head coverings in schools/government buildings when it was a yarmulke being talked about. Well...maybe Vichy, but that doesn't count.

    tea-1.jpg
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    jothki wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Saying that women can do everything a man can except be a fighter-pilot is simply not as misogynistic as saying that women are only good for cooking and raising kids.

    And banning the burqa because you want women to become more equal isn't the same as forcing them to wear a burqa because women are inferior and men are animals.

    So, to be clear, you've decide for women that taking away their right to wear something is better for them than allowing them to wear it, because you know that this will result in a better outcome for them than allowing them to choose for themselves?

    If he *knew* that, would that change your opinion of his decision?

    If the moon were made of green cheese, pigs would fly.

    Let's stick to hypotheticals that are at least in the realm of possibility.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I honestly see this on the same level as a ban on the swastika, or a ban on burning crosses; it's a symbol of hate.

    Okay, ouch, that doesn't help your position in the slightest.

    Christ, I barely tapped into page one of this before finding something totally ridiculous.

    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate. Often, combinations thereof, and often have originations of motivation in not the wearer themselves, but the generations above them or community around them.

    As a society, we've all recognized that free speech isn't carte blanche to say or do whatever. I certainly don't mind entertaining a discussion on whether or not similar restrictions should apply to outward religious expression.

  • Skoal CatSkoal Cat Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Has there been much crime commited by people wearing burqas to hide their identity? I hate solutions to problems that don't exist.

    ceres wrote: »
    Skoal Cat is correct.
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I honestly see this on the same level as a ban on the swastika, or a ban on burning crosses; it's a symbol of hate.

    Okay, ouch, that doesn't help your position in the slightest.

    Christ, I barely tapped into page one of this before finding something totally ridiculous.

    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate. Often, combinations thereof.

    As a society, we've all recognized that free speech isn't carte blanche to say or do whatever. I certainly don't mind entertaining a discussion on whether or not similar restrictions should apply to outward religious expression.

    That's more or less what I was gearing up to say next. Not everyone who dons a symbol is necessarily a part of that message, though. Like I wear a crucifix around my neck, but I don't identify with Catholicism and Christianity.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate.
    And people have a right to use those symbols. Laws that oppress those things because they simply represent things people don't like are bullshit.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I honestly see this on the same level as a ban on the swastika, or a ban on burning crosses; it's a symbol of hate.

    Okay, ouch, that doesn't help your position in the slightest.

    Christ, I barely tapped into page one of this before finding something totally ridiculous.

    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate. Often, combinations thereof.

    As a society, we've all recognized that free speech isn't carte blanche to say or do whatever. I certainly don't mind entertaining a discussion on whether or not similar restrictions should apply to outward religious expression.

    That's more or less what I was gearing up to say next. Not everyone who dons a symbol is necessarily a part of that message, though. Like I wear a crucifix around my neck, but I don't identify with Catholicism and Christianity.

    Even if you claim that everyone who displays a religious symbol (or a style of dress associated with a religious faith) is an adherent of that faith, basing what governmental censorship of one type of free speech is acceptable based solely on the opinions of the folks diametrically opposed to that type of speech is, to be diplomatic and understated, incredibly fucking problematic.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I honestly see this on the same level as a ban on the swastika, or a ban on burning crosses; it's a symbol of hate.

    Okay, ouch, that doesn't help your position in the slightest.

    Christ, I barely tapped into page one of this before finding something totally ridiculous.

    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate. Often, combinations thereof, and often have originations of motivation in not the wearer themselves, but the generations above them or community around them.

    As a society, we've all recognized that free speech isn't carte blanche to say or do whatever. I certainly don't mind entertaining a discussion on whether or not similar restrictions should apply to outward religious expression.

    The only restrictions on free speech are perjury, slander/libel, and imminent lawlessness. Perjury is only there because it is necessary for a justice system to function, slander/libel require pretty hefty bars of evidence to tangible harm in order to actually be applicable, and imminent lawlessness means before the police can reasonably respond and is an even higher test requirement than the prior clear and present danger.

    How is this not basically carte blanche for protected speech?

    tea-1.jpg
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate.
    And people have a right to use those symbols. Laws that oppress those things because they simply represent things people don't like are bullshit.

    Reminds me of when my boss ended an interview with an applicant because she had punk-rock stuff on her purse. Not that that situation is related to law, but people need to learn how to co-exist with others despite liking different things or having disagreements.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate.
    And people have a right to use those symbols. Laws that oppress those things because they simply represent things people don't like are bullshit.

    Somehow I doubt you'd be rushing to the same defense if we were talking about swastikas or confederate flags.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate.
    And people have a right to use those symbols. Laws that oppress those things because they simply represent things people don't like are bullshit.

    Somehow I doubt you'd be rushing to the same defense if we were talking about swastikas or confederate flags.

    I fully believe in their rights. Rights are not something that the government simply tolerates and can remove simply because of they are an inconvenience. They are something that should not be abridged unless required to prevent serious and immediate harm.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I honestly see this on the same level as a ban on the swastika, or a ban on burning crosses; it's a symbol of hate.

    Okay, ouch, that doesn't help your position in the slightest.

    Christ, I barely tapped into page one of this before finding something totally ridiculous.

    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate. Often, combinations thereof.

    As a society, we've all recognized that free speech isn't carte blanche to say or do whatever. I certainly don't mind entertaining a discussion on whether or not similar restrictions should apply to outward religious expression.

    That's more or less what I was gearing up to say next. Not everyone who dons a symbol is necessarily a part of that message, though. Like I wear a crucifix around my neck, but I don't identify with Catholicism and Christianity.

    Even if you claim that everyone who displays a religious symbol (or a style of dress associated with a religious faith) is an adherent of that faith, basing what governmental censorship of one type of free speech is acceptable based solely on the opinions of the folks diametrically opposed to that type of speech is, to be diplomatic and understated, incredibly fucking problematic.

    Well yeah, it no longer is freedom of speech / expression because the government is putting down speech / expression they don't approve of. That's the whole point of that ideal, that disagreement doesn't mean mandating law.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate.
    And people have a right to use those symbols. Laws that oppress those things because they simply represent things people don't like are bullshit.

    Somehow I doubt you'd be rushing to the same defense if we were talking about swastikas or confederate flags.

    I would. Private citizens have and should have every right to display both on their own private property.

    How about the folks who claim that homosexuals are all deviant pedophiles, and thus symbols of gay pride are in fact endorsing the sexual abuse of children? Should that logic be acceptable when deciding what types of free speech to criminalize?

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Saying that women can do everything a man can except be a fighter-pilot is simply not as misogynistic as saying that women are only good for cooking and raising kids.

    And banning the burqa because you want women to become more equal isn't the same as forcing them to wear a burqa because women are inferior and men are animals.

    So, to be clear, you've decide for women that taking away their right to wear something is better for them than allowing them to wear it, because you know that this will result in a better outcome for them than allowing them to choose for themselves?

    Huh what?


    I said it wasn't as misogynistic. Being wrong isn't related to that because technically you could be incredibly misogynistic and right. The outcome isn't relevant to the actual idea behind the policy.



    More importantly, and this is where you start to feel bad because this is a forum and you can't delete what you have said, THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU INITIALLY STATED! You claimed that banning and forcing were equal.
    It feels fundamentally patriarchal to me in much the same way that ordering women to wear Burqas is reprehensible.

    Bollocks to letting a woman choose, you said it was as bad as forcing them the other way. So I'm going to edit your post into something which bears a more close resemblance to what you have said and I'm going to reply to that.
    So, to be clear, you've decide for women that taking away their right to wear something is better for them than FORCING them to wear it, because you know that this will result in a better outcome for them than forcing them to cover up their visage in fear of those rampaging assaulters known as men?

    Yes. Incredibly I just can't quite understand how forcing religious oppression on a woman would ever be equal to removing that religious oppression. (even if using "force" which actually more accurately is "a small fine".)

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate.
    And people have a right to use those symbols. Laws that oppress those things because they simply represent things people don't like are bullshit.

    Somehow I doubt you'd be rushing to the same defense if we were talking about swastikas or confederate flags.

    You'd be wrong. I've vigorously defended the WBC's right to protest in other threads. I'd like to see Mississippi change its flag from incorporating a symbol of racism and treason, but through the democratic process.

    I'd also like to see Illinois change its flag because it looks godawful. Not racist, just ugly.

    tea-1.jpg
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate.
    And people have a right to use those symbols. Laws that oppress those things because they simply represent things people don't like are bullshit.

    Somehow I doubt you'd be rushing to the same defense if we were talking about swastikas or confederate flags.

    It's funny you mention that. There was a guy at my highschool who had a Confederate flag hanging up in his truck rear-view mirror (which, obscuring that, what the fuck driving laws). We all thought he was a [silly goose], but nobody said anything about making him take it down. He could do what he wants. But he has to accept what opinion it's going to make people have of him at first-glance.

    People can use whatever symbol they want, it's their right. And I have the right to think they're a [silly goose] for it. But I'm not gonna start banter about not allowing them to do / say things. Except Westboro, those people can go to hell.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate.
    And people have a right to use those symbols. Laws that oppress those things because they simply represent things people don't like are bullshit.

    Somehow I doubt you'd be rushing to the same defense if we were talking about swastikas or confederate flags.

    I would. Private citizens have and should have every right to display both on their own private property.

    How about the folks who claim that homosexuals are all deviant pedophiles, and thus symbols of gay pride are in fact endorsing the sexual abuse of children? Should that logic be acceptable when deciding what types of free speech to criminalize?

    You're talking to the D&D board's leading anti-theist. Of course I'd be for criminalizing such dipshittery.


    Well, 2nd-leading anti-theist. Thanatos started this thread, after all.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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 don't think not doing it would lead to religious wars and furthermore I think that liberal tolerance is more than just allowing people to do whatever.

    I mean, we're talking about a relatively fringe-issue (female circumcision not being all that common) but I think taking a stance is very important. Maybe we don't all have to go with the french solution of hating anything religious (though food for thought, right?) but I also don't think you have to bend to every insane demand religious folk give you.


    And I'm quite willing to place genital mutilation in the category of "insane" even when dealing with adults.

    EDIT: Yeah or what Ronya said:P

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    So, to be clear, you've decide for women that taking away their right to wear something is better for them than FORCING them to wear it, because you know that this will result in a better outcome for them than forcing them to cover up their visage in fear of those rampaging assaulters known as men?

    Yes. Incredibly I just can't quite understand how forcing religious oppression on a woman would ever be equal to removing that religious oppression. (even if using "force" which actually more accurately is "a small fine".)

    Except that we are not banning the wearing of Burqas in all and only those cases where women are being forced to wear them, so your edit does not in even the slightest way reflect the reality of the law.

    Trivially, preventing women from being chained to the stove to force them to cook 24/7 can be solved by banning women from cooking, and this would obviously be better for those particular women if it somehow unchained them from the stove. This is not a shatteringly insightful or deep point, but nor does it make banning cooking a good idea outside of a really really daft thought experiment. It's only a net win if you pretend women who want to cook and aren't chained to stoves don't exist.

    You're deliberately ignoring the existence of anyone who might be disenfranchised by your decision in order to characterize your position as solely one of "removing religious oppression with a small fine", because if you were willing to actually deal with the existence of women whose choice to wear it is being removed, you'd be forced to acknowledge that you're accomplishing nothing more than trading one infringement on a woman's choice for another.

    Solving sharia law by policing what women wear is oxymoronic.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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.

    tea-1.jpg
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Well, 2nd-leading anti-theist. Thanatos started this thread, after all.

    Nah I think you still retain the title of #1. Thanatos I'd associate with something else. :P I've said it before and I'll say it again, though, that of all the anti-theists I've ever spoken to I like Ross the best because he's the most fair and level headed, despite past disagreements.

    Also, I'm glad I'm not the only one that brought up WBC as an example.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    So then is banning Burqas bad because it's intended to suppress aspects of Muslim culture that shouldn't be suppressed in that manner, or because it won't do enough to succeed in its objective of suppressing them?

    I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. I dislike the ban because it imposes a sanction on women regarding what rights they have to wear something, it punishes the victim and it has much more to do with reducing the visibility of a problem than it does with dealing with the problem.

    I think that bold and immediate legislation is essential for the French muslim ghettos. A lot of that legislation should probably be the funding of outreach programs, though against my own interests I'd have to say that a large portion probably also needs to go to pretty draconian short-term policing. When there is a growing market involving 12-16 year old girls whose parents are paying large dowrys to men to have sex with them illegally, some of those girls then bleeding to death with pregnancy complications, I'd say drastic measures are called for to violently stamp it out.

    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.
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    I mean, we're talking about a relatively fringe-issue (female circumcision not being all that common) but I think taking a stance is very important. Maybe we don't all have to go with the french solution of hating anything religious (though food for thought, right?) but I also don't think you have to bend to every insane demand religious folk give you.

    I agree.

    "Strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." - Thomas Jefferson

    A.K.A,

    "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Well, 2nd-leading anti-theist. Thanatos started this thread, after all.

    Nah I think you still retain the title of #1. Thanatos I'd associate with something else. :P I've said it before and I'll say it again, though, that of all the anti-theists I've ever spoken to I like Ross the best because he's the most fair and level headed, despite past disagreements.

    I appreciate that.


    Naturally, I'm chalking it up to your overwhelming East Texas bias.

  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Considering that the burqa is not part of the traditional hijab and was incorporated into certain sects of Islam as a means of maintaining the segregation and subordination of women, I really don't have a problem with banning them. Personally I find that less monstrous than maintaining a system which first teaches women that it is a sin to show their faces in public (the only religious justification given for wearing the burqa) and only then allows them to "decide" for themselves.

    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    All religious symbols, at some level, are symbols of either oppression, guilt, fear, shame, or hate.
    And people have a right to use those symbols. Laws that oppress those things because they simply represent things people don't like are bullshit.

    Somehow I doubt you'd be rushing to the same defense if we were talking about swastikas or confederate flags.

    I would. Private citizens have and should have every right to display both on their own private property.

    How about the folks who claim that homosexuals are all deviant pedophiles, and thus symbols of gay pride are in fact endorsing the sexual abuse of children? Should that logic be acceptable when deciding what types of free speech to criminalize?

    You're talking to the D&D board's leading anti-theist. Of course I'd be for criminalizing such dipshittery.


    Well, 2nd-leading anti-theist. Thanatos started this thread, after all.

    So you'd agree with this quote?
    Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be
    anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

    tea-1.jpg
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Naturally, I'm chalking it up to your overwhelming East Texas bias.

    East Texas is my proof that purgatory exists.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    I mean, we're talking about a relatively fringe-issue (female circumcision not being all that common) but I think taking a stance is very important. Maybe we don't all have to go with the french solution of hating anything religious (though food for thought, right?) but I also don't think you have to bend to every insane demand religious folk give you.

    I agree.

    "Strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." - Thomas Jefferson

    A.K.A,

    "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

    In what way is allowing women to wear what they wish threatening the foundation of the Republic?

    tea-1.jpg
  • Chaos PunkChaos Punk Registered User
    edited April 2011
    It's relieving to see so many comments about freedom of expression and individual liberty...

    I'm sure if the French Government really wanted to ban Burqas for any reason, all they would have to do is find a way to convince other legislators and some special interest groups that it is a public safety risk, security breach or a health concern. In the United States, that's how we get everything banned that we don't like. Keep those filthy gamblers out of the mall, fun is contagious and wrong.

    We are all the man behind the curtain.... pay no attention to any of us
Sign In or Register to comment.