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

145791019

Posts

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The instigation of the burqa (nay, the overwhelming volume of all personal religious expression) has originations outside the decision-making process of the bearer/wearer.

    Wouldn't be much of a religion with out some outside entity making a decision regarding lifestyle now would it?

    sig.jpg
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The Ender wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    ...What's the problem of declaring a Burqa to be a symbol of hate? The garb, traditionally, is for use as declaring a woman a piece of property. Perhaps 'hate' isn't exactly the right word, but it's sort of splitting hairs - it certainly leads to a lot of hateful things.

    The problem is that in declaring the burqa itself to be a symbol of hate, even when worn voluntarily, is that you're subscribing to a really problematic if not downright colonial view of Islamic culture. The idea that Muslim women should be "liberated", by use of government force if need be, simply by adopting all Western cultural and sartorial practices is fraught with over a century of really toxic political and historical baggage, to the point where Muslim women have every right to be skeptical of it.

    I'd also say that theologically, the veil carries a good deal more meanings than just "women are property".

    Please note that there's a huge difference between that and claiming that forcing women under threat of violence to wear a burqa is a hateful act. Because it is. But note the aspect of "force" and "violence" there.

  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    ...What's the problem of declaring a Burqa to be a symbol of hate? The garb, traditionally, is for use as declaring a woman a piece of property. Perhaps 'hate' isn't exactly the right word, but it's sort of splitting hairs - it certainly leads to a lot of hateful things.

    Citation needed.

    I haven't seen any reports on increased incidence of crime or threats or what have you amongst the populace that wears burqas. Aside from, of course, the fact that anyone now wearing a burqa is by definition a criminal.

    When did you get the authority to limit the spectrum of admissible hateful and oppressive acts to "reported crimes or threats?"

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    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".

    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.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    ...What's the problem of declaring a Burqa to be a symbol of hate? The garb, traditionally, is for use as declaring a woman a piece of property. Perhaps 'hate' isn't exactly the right word, but it's sort of splitting hairs - it certainly leads to a lot of hateful things.

    It'd be a symbol of oppression, but not hate.

    Again, this law covers all clothing that covers the face, not just the burqa.
    The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

    Most discriminatory practices are facially neutral. Especially now that blatant bigotry gets frowned upon by society.

    tea-1.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The instigation of the burqa (nay, the overwhelming volume of all personal religious expression) has originations outside the decision-making process of the bearer/wearer.

    Wouldn't be much of a religion with out some outside entity making a decision regarding lifestyle now would it?

    Are you equating scriptural mandates with tangentially-related idiosyncratic cultural mores because you like to waste time discussing bullshit, or are you legitimately this off the mark?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    ...What's the problem of declaring a Burqa to be a symbol of hate? The garb, traditionally, is for use as declaring a woman a piece of property. Perhaps 'hate' isn't exactly the right word, but it's sort of splitting hairs - it certainly leads to a lot of hateful things.

    Citation needed.

    I haven't seen any reports on increased incidence of crime or threats or what have you amongst the populace that wears burqas. Aside from, of course, the fact that anyone now wearing a burqa is by definition a criminal.

    When did you get the authority to limit the spectrum of admissible hateful and oppressive acts to "reported crimes or threats?"

    "What have you" is pretty unlimited, but thank you for being purposefully obtuse. Mind actually substantiating your claim with anything of substance, now?

    tea-1.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Again, have we found an argument that this will actually do anything of value or are we sticking to whether its ok or not?

    sig.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The instigation of the burqa (nay, the overwhelming volume of all personal religious expression) has originations outside the decision-making process of the bearer/wearer.

    Wouldn't be much of a religion with out some outside entity making a decision regarding lifestyle now would it?

    Are you equating scriptural mandates with tangentially-related idiosyncratic cultural mores because you like to waste time discussing bullshit, or are you legitimately this off the mark?

    I'm not sure you and I are talking about the same thing.

    sig.jpg
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    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.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    ...What's the problem of declaring a Burqa to be a symbol of hate? The garb, traditionally, is for use as declaring a woman a piece of property. Perhaps 'hate' isn't exactly the right word, but it's sort of splitting hairs - it certainly leads to a lot of hateful things.

    Citation needed.

    I haven't seen any reports on increased incidence of crime or threats or what have you amongst the populace that wears burqas. Aside from, of course, the fact that anyone now wearing a burqa is by definition a criminal.

    When did you get the authority to limit the spectrum of admissible hateful and oppressive acts to "reported crimes or threats?"

    "What have you" is pretty unlimited, but thank you for being purposefully obtuse. Mind actually substantiating your claim with anything of substance, now?

    1) I made no claim. You've got me confused, I think.

    2) Re: said claim, are you actually asking for citation on the assertion that forced adoption of religiously-motivated oppression, vis a vis guilt, threats, or other forms of coercion, is bad? Should we also grab you a citation on the color of the sky?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    ronya wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    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.
    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.

    tea-1.jpg
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    ?.) It is still a fucking net-win if we accept the incredibly uncontroversial position that people wearing a burqa voluntarily without any pressure are a minority.

    This is a highly controversial position.

    Seriously?


    Like, the woman wearing a burqa because they just like it without even knowing about religion telling them isn't a minority??

    Religion is not coercion. If you want to occupy some rhetorical position in which it's taken as accepted fact that all religious women who want to wear a veil are victims of religion and need to be liberated from that, then I have no interest in continuing this conversation.

    Brosef, I did not say coercion. I said pressure.

    And religion is fucking pressure simply because it's religion. If bearded men in their circle-jerking ways claim that something is an important part in showing how religious you are then that shit is pressure. If all the bros in your environment started claiming that pants are for girls and that real men wear skirts and put flowers in their hair you can claim all you want that they didn't force you to wear a skirt but it's still pressure.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    ...What's the problem of declaring a Burqa to be a symbol of hate? The garb, traditionally, is for use as declaring a woman a piece of property. Perhaps 'hate' isn't exactly the right word, but it's sort of splitting hairs - it certainly leads to a lot of hateful things.

    Citation needed.

    I haven't seen any reports on increased incidence of crime or threats or what have you amongst the populace that wears burqas. Aside from, of course, the fact that anyone now wearing a burqa is by definition a criminal.

    When did you get the authority to limit the spectrum of admissible hateful and oppressive acts to "reported crimes or threats?"

    "What have you" is pretty unlimited, but thank you for being purposefully obtuse. Mind actually substantiating your claim with anything of substance, now?

    1) I made no claim. You've got me confused, I think.

    2) Re: said claim, are you actually asking for citation on the assertion that forced adoption of religiously-motivated oppression, vis a vis guilt, threats, or other forms of coercion, is bad? Should we also grab you a citation on the color of the sky?

    No, I'm asking for citation on the claim that donning a burqa --by its very inherent evil poly-cotton blend-ness-- leads to a lot of hateful things.

    tea-1.jpg
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    ?.) It is still a fucking net-win if we accept the incredibly uncontroversial position that people wearing a burqa voluntarily without any pressure are a minority.

    This is a highly controversial position.

    Seriously?


    Like, the woman wearing a burqa because they just like it without even knowing about religion telling them isn't a minority??

    Religion is not coercion. If you want to occupy some rhetorical position in which it's taken as accepted fact that all religious women who want to wear a veil are victims of religion and need to be liberated from that, then I have no interest in continuing this conversation.

    Brosef, I did not say coercion. I said pressure.

    And religion is fucking pressure simply because it's religion. If bearded men in their circle-jerking ways claim that something is an important part in showing how religious you are then that shit is pressure. If all the bros in your environment started claiming that pants are for girls and that real men wear skirts and put flowers in their hair you can claim all you want that they didn't force you to wear a skirt but it's still pressure.

    Pressure so high that, in your own words, it's "a fucking net-win" to free women from the tyranny of it?

    Suffice to say that I'm not interested in whatever sub-atomic line you're trying to parse between coercion and pressure here. I'm done.

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    As a Jewish girl growing up, the coolest thing about getting through my Bat Mitzvah was getting my own tallit and yarmulke to wear, complete with my own tallit bag. I wore it every friday and saturday, every time I went to synagogue, I wore my tallit. It was my way of showing off that I was a modern jewish woman, with all the religious rights guaranteed to me by law and equality. My being allowed, encouraged even, to wear the Tallit was a way of showing just how far the jewish religion had come since my aunt's childhood. I was equal to a man in every way under jewish law and I wore my tallit proudly to show that.

    As I got older, I softened a bit, I wore the tallit less and less. I stopped wearing the yarmulke and instead opted for the more feminine lace head covering. Often times I would not wear the tallit at all, wanting to not stand out so obviously in a community where the women did not do such things (I was raised in a conservative synagogue and attended reform synagogues when I got older by necessity, not choice). Was there some societal pressure? perhaps. Maybe it was just me being a stranger and trying to fit into the community that led to me removing the prayer shawl that as a child I took to symbolize my equality.

    maybe it was because as I got older, I knew that I was equal to a man, both in the eyes of the religion and in my own eyes, that I did not need to wear the physical example of my equality. I knew it and they knew it.

    For a while I drifted even back further and wore my head covered completely, long skirts and long sleeved shirts, dressing as an Orthodox woman would, in a search for more meaning to my religious beliefs. I later found that this did not make me feel closer to God, only hot and itchy.

    I'm now even more comfortable with my religion than I was then. I know what I believe, I know what I feel, and I know how it effects me in my life. And how it effects others. I still choose not to wear my Tallit on the occasions that I attend synagogue (last High Holidays we went to services and I opted to not wear my tallit, as I felt to myself that coming before God unadorned other than the most basic clothing left me with more concentration to focus on the prayers and their meanings).

    My point with all this anecdotal evidence is that it's my choice. As an adult, I have been educated in my religion throughout my life, I have tried and tested many other ways of life, and I can still make that choice.


    Now, for a woman of Islam, it may not be as easy to make those decisions, while living in a poor community like Gaza or Iran, or elsewhere. But in a strongly secular country like France (yes, they live in the ghettos and are fairly insular in their communities I admit I know very little about life) or in a country with strong education and personal freedom like America, it's a bit condescending to say that the woman just doesn't know that she's being oppressed.

    Nobody forces an Orthodox woman to wear her hair hidden beneath a wig, or to keep their arms and legs covered. Amish women and men are not completely segregated from the world that they don't know what other options are out there. Is it so hard to believe that there might be a willingness to wearing a veil? That while you see it as Oppression, the woman might see it as an act of faith? No different than the gold cross you wear around your neck, or the star of david that I wear around mine?





    As a side note,
    Spoiler:

  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Pressure is a form of coercion.

    Religion is pressure, therefore it is also coercion.


    The area of dispute is determining the threshold at which that coercion becomes a restriction of personal liberty, where the "freedom" to choose to capitulate to that coercion stops actually being a personal choice.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    ...What's the problem of declaring a Burqa to be a symbol of hate? The garb, traditionally, is for use as declaring a woman a piece of property. Perhaps 'hate' isn't exactly the right word, but it's sort of splitting hairs - it certainly leads to a lot of hateful things.

    Citation needed.

    I haven't seen any reports on increased incidence of crime or threats or what have you amongst the populace that wears burqas. Aside from, of course, the fact that anyone now wearing a burqa is by definition a criminal.

    When did you get the authority to limit the spectrum of admissible hateful and oppressive acts to "reported crimes or threats?"

    "What have you" is pretty unlimited, but thank you for being purposefully obtuse. Mind actually substantiating your claim with anything of substance, now?

    1) I made no claim. You've got me confused, I think.

    2) Re: said claim, are you actually asking for citation on the assertion that forced adoption of religiously-motivated oppression, vis a vis guilt, threats, or other forms of coercion, is bad? Should we also grab you a citation on the color of the sky?

    No, I'm asking for citation on the claim that donning a burqa --by its very inherent evil poly-cotton blend-ness-- leads to a lot of hateful things.

    Well you should ask Ender then. Not that I or Ross wouldn't be willing to start another argument about how what you just said wasn't implied but that burqas -by their intended purpose and design and not their make up- are sort of bad.

    But as I am already trying to convince someone that the sky is blue I gotta leave it up for Ender.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The Ender wrote: »
    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.

    Why do you wear a crucifix as jewelry, out of curiosity? I never understood that practice.

    Is it out of ignorance for what the device was / is used for?

    Two reason why I wear it:

    1) is my 'religious' affiliation (though I've long since dropped Christian / Catholic as titles). I actually noted recently that I'm dropping referring to myself as being "religious" too. My brother asked if I was going to change to spiritual and I told him no, it's 'faithful.' The faith I have is placed in people's willingness to follow some things Jesus had to teach about how to interact with others, not just beating on the drum of "HE DIED FOR YOUR SINS." Most Jesus lovers don't seem to state much beyond that these days (especially here in East Texas) and it drives me nuts. There's some actual good ideas there.

    ... Uh I didn't mean to go into that much detail there, but the tl;dr is "Jesus had some good ideas, as a person."

    2) This is the most important reason - it belonged to my grandpa and my grandmother gave it to me when I graduated from highschool, a few years after he died. So it's more of keeping his memory with me than anything.

    "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)
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    ?.) It is still a fucking net-win if we accept the incredibly uncontroversial position that people wearing a burqa voluntarily without any pressure are a minority.

    This is a highly controversial position.

    Seriously?


    Like, the woman wearing a burqa because they just like it without even knowing about religion telling them isn't a minority??

    Religion is not coercion. If you want to occupy some rhetorical position in which it's taken as accepted fact that all religious women who want to wear a veil are victims of religion and need to be liberated from that, then I have no interest in continuing this conversation.

    Brosef, I did not say coercion. I said pressure.

    And religion is fucking pressure simply because it's religion. If bearded men in their circle-jerking ways claim that something is an important part in showing how religious you are then that shit is pressure. If all the bros in your environment started claiming that pants are for girls and that real men wear skirts and put flowers in their hair you can claim all you want that they didn't force you to wear a skirt but it's still pressure.

    And now old French men who are notably hostile to your religion are trying to pressure you stop wearing something you view as necessary for appearing decent in public. How is that an improvement?

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    ...What's the problem of declaring a Burqa to be a symbol of hate? The garb, traditionally, is for use as declaring a woman a piece of property. Perhaps 'hate' isn't exactly the right word, but it's sort of splitting hairs - it certainly leads to a lot of hateful things.

    It'd be a symbol of oppression, but not hate.

    Again, this law covers all clothing that covers the face, not just the burqa.

    I know, I even stated that in a post prior to the one you quoted.

    "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
    The area of dispute is determining the threshold at which that coercion becomes a restriction of personal liberty, where the "freedom" to choose to capitulate to that coercion stops actually being a personal choice.
    And any society that determines nonviolent religious pressure counts as illegal coercion is a society where freedom of speech and religion has lost any real meaning.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Pressure is a form of coercion.

    Religion is pressure, therefore it is also coercion.

    France to Outlaw High School Cafeterias

    tea-1.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    ...What's the problem of declaring a Burqa to be a symbol of hate? The garb, traditionally, is for use as declaring a woman a piece of property. Perhaps 'hate' isn't exactly the right word, but it's sort of splitting hairs - it certainly leads to a lot of hateful things.

    Citation needed.

    I haven't seen any reports on increased incidence of crime or threats or what have you amongst the populace that wears burqas. Aside from, of course, the fact that anyone now wearing a burqa is by definition a criminal.

    When did you get the authority to limit the spectrum of admissible hateful and oppressive acts to "reported crimes or threats?"

    "What have you" is pretty unlimited, but thank you for being purposefully obtuse. Mind actually substantiating your claim with anything of substance, now?

    1) I made no claim. You've got me confused, I think.

    2) Re: said claim, are you actually asking for citation on the assertion that forced adoption of religiously-motivated oppression, vis a vis guilt, threats, or other forms of coercion, is bad? Should we also grab you a citation on the color of the sky?

    No, I'm asking for citation on the claim that donning a burqa --by its very inherent evil poly-cotton blend-ness-- leads to a lot of hateful things.

    Well you should ask Ender then. Not that I or Ross wouldn't be willing to start another argument about how what you just said wasn't implied but that burqas -by their intended purpose and design and not their make up- are sort of bad.

    But as I am already trying to convince someone that the sky is blue I gotta leave it up for Ender.

    I am asking Ender. See my quote up there? Immediately following Ender's? That's me asking Ender.

    tea-1.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Pressure is a form of coercion.

    Religion is pressure, therefore it is also coercion.

    France to Outlaw High School Cafeterias

    All politics banned.

    If societal and religious pressure can be made unlawful, name speech that would be protected. There isn't a whole lot of difference between most political rhetoric and religious rhetoric.

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

    I don't think that the examples you use actually have any traction. After all, it is allowed in our society that one might reject the capitalist paradigm and move to a commune, and, further, that is exactly the sort of freedom the liberal writers cherish. It may be the case that were we not to have certain compassion, then we could not sustain a welfare program, but, fortunately, we do have such compassion, and as such we are willing to sustain a welfare program: as such a welfare program is consistent with our autonomous choice. Furthermore, far from family careers being dead and gone, many people do in fact take pride in their careers, and especially in careers that are familial, but this is perfectly consistent with liberalism and personal autonomy. What would be inconsistent with liberalism would be enforcing a caste system wherein labor options are closed off by birth: however, simply allowing people to make their family traditions, including the career, a central part of their lives is most certainly allowable. It is, again, exactly the sort of diversity in modes of life that liberal writers cherish.

    There are a number of rationales for why we should have this sort of personal autonomy, and why your expansive view of state power must be wrong. The first, and perhaps most practical, is that people never actually agree on what the good life is, let alone which religion is correct. So if we want to live together in peace and never repeat the bloodbaths of the wars of religion, then we've got to figure out how to live and let live as much as possible. Second, and still rather practical, whatever the good life is, we do not really trust the state to figure it out--this is especially true if the good life varies from person to person. The best way of living possible is better left to the discovery of a marketplace of ideas where radically different conceptions are allowed to freely compete and prove themselves. Finally, perhaps a bit more abstractly, autonomy itself is valuable. Living the very best human life involves making free choices among competing conceptions of the good.

    I think that, in fact, all of these arguments are good. So there is a superabundance of reasons to be a liberal political theorist, and as such, there is a superabundance of reasons to take the state to be limited in its legitimate intrusions into the individual's pursuit of happiness.
    ronya wrote:
    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?

    As far as I see, there are two ways to go for the liberal theorist.

    1) The sex imbalance literally threatens the continued ability of the state to provide for the needs of its citizens. If this is so, then certain liberal values may have to give. John Stuart Mill and Rousseau, for instance, both think that there are certain populations which are simply not governable by liberal social systems--they are too conflict-torn, barbaric, intolerant, and ignorant to benefit from a liberal political framework. It may be that the population of India is one such population. That would be the case if the cultural value on having boys were such that it would literally destroy their society were it allowed to go on uninterfered with.

    2) Sex-selective abortions should be legal. This, I have to say, strikes me as more plausible.

  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    That while you see it as Oppression, the woman might see it as an act of faith? No different than the gold cross you wear around your neck, or the star of david that I wear around mine?

    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) makes a very strong stance on the sexual identity and place in communal/familial hierarchy in ways that things like rosaries or crucifixes or yalmulkahs do not.

    I'll again bring up the the point of motivation/origination, stating my belief that any belief that has to implanted within you externally that you in no way would have come to outside the religious environment is arguable a falsely-ascribed/attained belief.

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2011
    That while you see it as Oppression, the woman might see it as an act of faith? No different than the gold cross you wear around your neck, or the star of david that I wear around mine?

    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) makes a very strong stance on the sexual identity and place in communal/familial hierarchy in ways that things like rosaries or crucifixes or yalmulkahs do not.

    I'll again bring up the the point of motivation/origination, stating my belief that any belief that has to implanted within you externally that you in no way would have come to outside the religious environment is arguable a falsely-ascribed/attained belief.

    So it's like wearing a top at the beach.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    ?.) It is still a fucking net-win if we accept the incredibly uncontroversial position that people wearing a burqa voluntarily without any pressure are a minority.

    This is a highly controversial position.

    Seriously?


    Like, the woman wearing a burqa because they just like it without even knowing about religion telling them isn't a minority??

    Religion is not coercion. If you want to occupy some rhetorical position in which it's taken as accepted fact that all religious women who want to wear a veil are victims of religion and need to be liberated from that, then I have no interest in continuing this conversation.

    Brosef, I did not say coercion. I said pressure.

    And religion is fucking pressure simply because it's religion. If bearded men in their circle-jerking ways claim that something is an important part in showing how religious you are then that shit is pressure. If all the bros in your environment started claiming that pants are for girls and that real men wear skirts and put flowers in their hair you can claim all you want that they didn't force you to wear a skirt but it's still pressure.

    Pressure so high that, in your own words, it's "a fucking net-win" to free women from the tyranny of it?
    Bro, again I'm not sure if you understand this language.

    If you do this:
    all kinds of bad shit that will maybe happen - all kinds of positive shit that will maybe happen= any number greater than 0

    then you've got yourself a fucking net-win. You didn't say that the net-win had to be worth it so any pressure high enough to cancel out the utterly incredibly rare cases where women do it for no reason at all is a net win.

    Suffice to say that I'm not interested in whatever sub-atomic line you're trying to parse between coercion and pressure here. I'm done.

    sub-atomic?

    pressure is when they imply that you'll get your face punched if you don't wear it, coercion is when they punch your face in because you're not wearing it.

  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Bagginses wrote: »
    That while you see it as Oppression, the woman might see it as an act of faith? No different than the gold cross you wear around your neck, or the star of david that I wear around mine?

    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) makes a very strong stance on the sexual identity and place in communal/familial hierarchy in ways that things like rosaries or crucifixes or yalmulkahs do not.

    I'll again bring up the the point of motivation/origination, stating my belief that any belief that has to implanted within you externally that you in no way would have come to outside the religious environment is arguable a falsely-ascribed/attained belief.

    So it's like wearing a top at the beach.

    I would also like to express my strong belief that women should go topless whenever they feel like it.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I'll again bring up the the point of motivation/origination, stating my belief that any belief that has to implanted within you externally that you in no way would have come to outside the religious environment is arguable a falsely-ascribed/attained belief.
    That describes pretty much all beliefs. It isn't like I would have come up with the idea of global warming, various economic models, evolution, etc. without the outside environment implanting them into me.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This thread has taken a sort of depressing turn.

    Was it when Thanatos declared Burqas to be a symbol of hate? 'Cause that was page 1.

    ...What's the problem of declaring a Burqa to be a symbol of hate? The garb, traditionally, is for use as declaring a woman a piece of property. Perhaps 'hate' isn't exactly the right word, but it's sort of splitting hairs - it certainly leads to a lot of hateful things.

    Citation needed.

    I haven't seen any reports on increased incidence of crime or threats or what have you amongst the populace that wears burqas. Aside from, of course, the fact that anyone now wearing a burqa is by definition a criminal.

    When did you get the authority to limit the spectrum of admissible hateful and oppressive acts to "reported crimes or threats?"

    "What have you" is pretty unlimited, but thank you for being purposefully obtuse. Mind actually substantiating your claim with anything of substance, now?

    1) I made no claim. You've got me confused, I think.

    2) Re: said claim, are you actually asking for citation on the assertion that forced adoption of religiously-motivated oppression, vis a vis guilt, threats, or other forms of coercion, is bad? Should we also grab you a citation on the color of the sky?

    No, I'm asking for citation on the claim that donning a burqa --by its very inherent evil poly-cotton blend-ness-- leads to a lot of hateful things.

    Well you should ask Ender then. Not that I or Ross wouldn't be willing to start another argument about how what you just said wasn't implied but that burqas -by their intended purpose and design and not their make up- are sort of bad.

    But as I am already trying to convince someone that the sky is blue I gotta leave it up for Ender.

    I am asking Ender. See my quote up there? Immediately following Ender's? That's me asking Ender.

    yeah but after that you it looks like you're asking Ross to back up that claim.

  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Pressure is a form of coercion.

    Religion is pressure, therefore it is also coercion.

    France to Outlaw High School Cafeterias

    All politics banned.

    If societal and religious pressure can be made unlawful, name speech that would be protected. There isn't a whole lot of difference between most political rhetoric and religious rhetoric.

    Why is everyone leaving out the last line of that post?
    The area of dispute is determining the threshold at which that coercion becomes a restriction of personal liberty, where the "freedom" to choose to capitulate to that coercion stops actually being a personal choice.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    pressure is when they imply that you'll get your face punched if you don't wear it, coercion is when they punch your face in because you're not wearing it.
    Pressure is also when you say that you should do something because it is fucking awesome. Pressure is a perfectly normal part of life and is expected.

  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Bagginses wrote: »
    That while you see it as Oppression, the woman might see it as an act of faith? No different than the gold cross you wear around your neck, or the star of david that I wear around mine?

    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) makes a very strong stance on the sexual identity and place in communal/familial hierarchy in ways that things like rosaries or crucifixes or yalmulkahs do not.

    I'll again bring up the the point of motivation/origination, stating my belief that any belief that has to implanted within you externally that you in no way would have come to outside the religious environment is arguable a falsely-ascribed/attained belief.

    So it's like wearing a top at the beach.

    I would also like to express my strong belief that women should go topless whenever they feel like it.

    I would like to also express my strong belief that women should go topless and men should go without pants if they feel like it.

    hell, i would like to express my strong belief (that I would not have come to without some external implantation (damn you ancient greece!) that the human body is beautiful in all its forms and everybody should be allowed to be naked whenever they damned well please. :P

    Especially angelina jolie.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Why is everyone leaving out the last line of that post?
    The area of dispute is determining the threshold at which that coercion becomes a restriction of personal liberty, where the "freedom" to choose to capitulate to that coercion stops actually being a personal choice.

    I'd suggest that in Western countries with Muslim minority populations that there's a metric fuckton more "coercion" or societal pressure to conform to the Western standards of feminine dress and behavior than there are to conform to traditional Middle Eastern Muslim female dress and behavior.

    Should the government take legal action to ensure that women don't feel coerced into shaving their legs, wearing makeup, and dressing in ways that sacrifice their personal comfort in favor of making them appear sexually available and desirable to Western men?

    Or does that not count as coercion because it's secular and not religious in nature?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Pressure is a form of coercion.

    Religion is pressure, therefore it is also coercion.

    France to Outlaw High School Cafeterias

    All politics banned.

    If societal and religious pressure can be made unlawful, name speech that would be protected. There isn't a whole lot of difference between most political rhetoric and religious rhetoric.

    Why is everyone leaving out the last line of that post?
    The area of dispute is determining the threshold at which that coercion becomes a restriction of personal liberty, where the "freedom" to choose to capitulate to that coercion stops actually being a personal choice.

    Couscous didn't. You could choose to respond to his points rather than my joke retort.
    Couscous wrote: »
    The area of dispute is determining the threshold at which that coercion becomes a restriction of personal liberty, where the "freedom" to choose to capitulate to that coercion stops actually being a personal choice.
    And any society that determines nonviolent religious pressure counts as illegal coercion is a society where freedom of speech and religion has lost any real meaning.
    If societal and religious pressure can be made unlawful, name speech that would be protected. There isn't a whole lot of difference between most political rhetoric and religious rhetoric.

    tea-1.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Pressure is a form of coercion.

    Religion is pressure, therefore it is also coercion.

    France to Outlaw High School Cafeterias

    All politics banned.

    If societal and religious pressure can be made unlawful, name speech that would be protected. There isn't a whole lot of difference between most political rhetoric and religious rhetoric.

    Why is everyone leaving out the last line of that post?
    The area of dispute is determining the threshold at which that coercion becomes a restriction of personal liberty, where the "freedom" to choose to capitulate to that coercion stops actually being a personal choice.
    Because your definition is so broad that it would allow banning pretty much anything. It is the difference between banning threats of violence and banning telling a person he is a silly goose.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited April 2011

    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.

  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    I'll again bring up the the point of motivation/origination, stating my belief that any belief that has to implanted within you externally that you in no way would have come to outside the religious environment is arguable a falsely-ascribed/attained belief.
    That describes pretty much all beliefs. It isn't like I would have come up with the idea of global warming, various economic models, evolution, etc. without the outside environment implanting them into me.

    You couldn't look at an economic model, check the math, and go, "Yep, it checks out?"

    It's not so much the external origination, it's the external metric that the position has to ascribe to be "proven," a la, using scripture to prove scripture.


    Take, for example, opinions on women's rights. Most religious texts are fairly regressive, so an external religious coercive element would encourage you to believe the same. You can't check the veracity of such opinions without the use of the coercive source; ergo, the opinion can't be objectively validated.

145791019
Sign In or Register to comment.