|
A legal system that works within the framework of state law but can have different handling of situations so long as the state law isn't broken... there's something similar to this that I just can't put my finger on. Something to do with states that are united and some kind of federal government... Nah never mind Muslims are bad and poo poo.
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
Immortan posted:Wow, those native white Christian Euros (Europe is predominantly atheist FYI) It is now. Maybe you forgot just how many bloody wars we had over Christianity over the years? Between the pogroms, the Crusades and the Protestants a lot of blood was shed by the Christians over the years. Atheism has surged simply because so much chaos and bloodshed has been waged in the name of the Christian God that Europe as a whole has become disillusioned. Given that the Middle East had been relatively (NB: I'm saying RELATIVELY - all countries had wars in those centuries) peaceful and prosperous in that time under Sharia, you can forgive them for not seeing too much of a problem with theology. Immortan posted:sure do have a problem with female heads of state, burqas, FGM, and forced marriages, don't they? Do you know what a burka is called in Christianity? A Nun's Habit. Women weren't allowed to vote until the 1900s, women were sold into marriage until the 20th century: google 'dowry'. How are you this loving bad at the history of the culture you're trying to claim is brilliant? And FGM? It's loving rampant in Christian nations in Africa.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Immortan posted:
And my point was that we're at a period of post-theology in Europe due to the sheer numbers of human deaths caused in the name of religion. Some are suggesting that the situation in the Middle East is potentially the 'enlightenment' period for Islam but I'd personally disagree for reasons this post is not about. What I'm saying is that talking about Europe being a bastion of enlightened folks is because millions died so that others could see the futility. The Middle East had not seen such barbarity until the West got involved. The situations are not comparable by any sensible metric.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 23:57
|
|
But we were talking about Europe in 2015. Try to keep up.
|
Miltank posted:Hijab is not burka or nikab. You can make the argument that high heels are the same thing as as a mask that completely covers the face, but I disagree- its almost completely different. What's wrong with wanting to wear a mask that forces people to consider you as something other than a pair of tits and a nice arse? There are arguments against forced wearing of the different articles of clothing, but actually if you talk to the real women who choose to wear them you might find it's not just 'I HATE MY BITCH SELF SO I WEAR THIS TO REMIND PEOPLE I'M A WHORE.'
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Narciss how come you've spent like $100 to keep posting stupid poo poo in this forum? Asking for a friend. We're friends now? 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Miltank posted:And yet one functions by turning its wearers into semi-anonymous symbols of feminine otherness and the other is an uncomfortable patriarchal norm. So the burqa isn't a patriarchal norm? Or is it a comfortable one?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Even the idea that they keep women from being ogled is rooted in their original patriarchal purpose. It sounds like the problem is patriarchy and not how women can choose to subvert it. Perhaps we should solve the problem and not ban interim solutions?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
I'm 100% against having Sharia as the de-facto law of the country, but then so historically is Islam. Dhimmi have the right to practise their own religion so the idea a Christian couple cannot be married would be ridiculous. Mostly the problem seems to stem from when overtly religious people set their personal religion as the de-facto laws of the land.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Sethex posted:moderates don't wear the burka... sooooo no alienation. Yeah... you've never spoken to a woman who wears a Burqa by choice. Congrats I guess?? And just to avoid any smarmy comeback: yes, I have and do.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Turkey, a Muslim country that for a time sought gender equality did the same thing decades ago in their universities, an is significantly better in the gender equality department today, likely in part because of mustafa's reforms, do you actually think if the burka were banned it would lead to women being kept inside forever? Forever? No. It would be realised as untenable after a short period of time, but that's not what's happening so we can't really do more than speculate. Also do you talk to women from Turkey? They lament how far downhill it's been going. Ataturk's vision has been poo poo upon by Erdogan. Also be fair, Turkey is technically a secular state, that's just been undermined by subsequent leaders. That may take longer to type, but c'mon is that the biggest inconvenience of your life?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Or, you know, some of us don't really care how desperate western dudes are to ogle women.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I think you'll find their motivation was quite far from "we must stop teh moossulmen from stealing our white wimmenz" and "we desperate western men want to be able to ogle". I'm aware, I was responding to captain crank-it's cute little strawman. As for the legislation in question, I think many of the proposers had their heart in the right place, but I'm not sure everyone else saw it that way. And as others said, in liberalised societies, especially ones where other women do not wear the burqa and the men in society have not become immoral molesters, the tendency is for the wearing of the burqa to fade out by itself. While I agree no-one should be forced to wear one, I'm sceptical that banning it in public will actually prevent it being worn. Wasn't there a study that showed it just led to the women being forced to stay indoors instead? Or am I confusing someone's anecdote with research?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
Blazing Ownager posted:ED: Also I am a bit saddened by the rapid spread if Islam as it's just been exploding. Because I finally, finally thought with a lot of religions dying off, maybe in a few generations we'd stop basing policy and life off and pandering to ancient texts. But now it looks like we're in for many more generations of that. It feels like a huge setback. Christianity was dying out in the early 20th century. American corporations deliberately revived it during the Great Depression to protect themselves by firmly interlinking Christianity and Capitalism. That's why you get these free-market Christians who completely disavow Jesus's kindness to the poor while claiming to love him. Marx's opiate of the masses indeed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Name me an ideology anywhere where everyone is 100% consistent and I'll call you a liar. Economics. CONSISTENTLY WRONG THAT IS
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
I would agree about elements of rape culture being ingrained but somehow I don't want to agree with the guy who seems kinda racist until they clarify if they actually are or not. I'm not going to be fooled again you can't make me wear that swastika, mom
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:You're right, the state alienating marginalized immigrants and minorities from their community is definitely a good way to help them smoothly integrate into that state. If there's something that the rise of Daesh has shown it's that isolating and alienating Muslims never ever backfires.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Let us rejoice, we can take comfort that 'maybe' over a long span of time this cultural practice will be naturally eradicated. Yes, truly the intolerant but progressive society is the one that persecutes women for wearing a burqa in public while doing nothing to counter the misogynist reasoning she could potentially be wearing it for. And thank goodness it can tell the difference between women who choose to wear it and those who are forced to by patriarchal households. We are truly the enlightened.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I'll send a memo to the European head of states, then. "Do not let your foreign masters create death squads who will routinely slaughter everyone in Muslim towns". Because you never know, gangs of Mormon militiamen backed by the USA might arrive one day and commit massacres in the banlieues! Please do not mock the death of Joseph Smith for he selflessly granted enlightenment to mankind.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
The Larch posted:IMO, a modest woman should wear a suit of full plate armor and split anyone ogling her in half with a battleaxe. Leave my fetish out of this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
BUT WHAT IF IT'S BIN LADEN UNDER THERE??
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with a good ol' tittybeard.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Sethex posted:The rationale isn't that people want everyone to dress the same, it is that the women who must dress like this are confined to a social structural of severe gender inequality. An the cost those women pay and the young girls who grow up with the niqab normalized is far greater than a women who wants to suit up like a ninja. Legally banning the burqa/niqab is dealing with a symptom of normalised misogyny and not the cause.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Wait, sorry, what? That bolded thing isn't seriously real, is it? If it is, please forgive my ignorance of American invasiveness. That is astonishing and ludicrous beyond belief. Yep, work like this: (mildly NSFW I guess) 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Sethex posted:What? A women who no longer wears a niqab an isn't able to is going to have a really hard time imposing that on her offspring, second the niqab significantly reduces the capacity of the individual to take in new ideas. So in a sense it does combat the cause. And you assume that the woman secretly desires to not wear the dressing but does it just because her misogynist husband forces it? Are these woman thick as cattle to you? For better or worse, the woman in this case believes that in order to be pious she must not reveal her shape to men outside of immediate family. A religious ban would do nothing to change this self-imposed view. Women who are victims of misogyny are not all 100% aware of their oppression and legislating against her one walk-freely-in-public excuse is not going to help this situation. There are many other things you can do to counter this including public outreach to the mosques to have the staff discuss religious dress and acceptable wear under Islam. Legislating social issues is not always the best way to solve a problem. This is one instance where I see it being not very productive. Liberal_L33t posted:It is a non-verbal statement to the effect of "Any male non-family members should minimize their interaction with me." Isn't that normally the intention of those who wear it? No, it is about piety. It's the same reason nuns wear a habit, which is also the same level of covering as described in the Qu'ran. If you agree to ban the Amish clothing and nun habits then I'd be more open to this blanket ban on religious wear, but if it's purely Islamic ones than I'm not on board, really.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Because if you can't see someone's face then they have already deliberately 'otherized' themselves for you. Yeah gently caress burn victims and women who've have acid thrown in their face. OH HEY WAIT THAT LAST ONE HAPPENS IN MISOGYNISTIC CULTURES. Liberal_L33t posted:You mean except for when you said otherwise a few lines above in the same loving post? You are illiterate. Let me bring you back to the line that I just used. Tesseraction posted:For better or worse, the woman in this case believes that in order to be pious she must not reveal her shape to men outside of immediate family. Wait! I'm talking to an idiot! *puts on Horatio shades* Zoom. Enhance! Tesseraction posted:the woman ... believes Gasp! The crux of the issue! It's almost like I used words to mean things. Please understand what belief systems mean and then re-read the post you made. Then re-read the post I made. Then re-read what I was replying to. Then stop making posts that make no sense.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Now you can say 'they've internalized this and believe it themselves, we cannot ban it because it is their choice', which is an argument from practicality. For me personally, whether or not people consent to something doesn't make it automatically acceptable, because that's assuming that everybody has the self-confidence/independence/security/rationality to be able to always make good decisions, which isn't true for like 99% of people alive today, maybe even 100%. But okay, not everyone shares that. What I don't think flies is saying that it's just something different, beyond judgement, you dont' understand because of your euro-centric perspective or whatever. Thing is, you can use that same argument backwards (they don't recognize how dehumanizing it is because of the women's islam-centric perspective) and it presupposes that any judgement is automatically invalid if it is subjective, when there is in fact no such thing as an objective judgement, so all you're doing when saying that is invalidating every single opinion held ever, which gets you nowhere. For the record I 100% agree here. As said above my recommendation is community outreach and finding prayer leaders and Imams who are happy to follow the teachings of the Qu'ran (and hopefully discount some of the less reputable Hadith). I think the culture of misogyny perpetrated in the name of Islam should be addressed. I think reaching out to both Islamic feminists and progressive leaders (of any gender) will be the best method to help.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:That doesn't work so well when the slightest government comment or involvement on such affairs results in conservative religious leaders cynically ringing the alarm bells about religious liberty being under attack. So a law banning it would work better?  Liberal_L33t posted:For the record, I don't necessarily think bans on niqabs or burqas, whether in Turkey or France, were an appropriate idea or the most helpful way to go about the problem of regressive cultural and religious practices. What I dispute is that 1) support for such a law was motivated by mere racial bigotry and 2) the widespread wearing of such clothing isn't symptomatic of a social problem meriting governmental intervention. I agree with (1) in that I do not believe the desire for a ban stems solely from bigotry, and as linked by (I think it was) Cat Mattress several Islamic feminists supported the ban in France. However, there are plenty of people who will happily back such laws because it counters the 'Islamisation of the West' that they live in fear of. There are benign and malevolent motivations behind support for a law, and often by discussing (or arguing about it) with people you can get an idea whether it's the former or the latter. As for (2) my proposed method was not necessarily a government outreach thing. I believe I already said it in this thread but you can't always legislate social issues, and like you say in the first part of the reply, openly-government intervention can come across as attacking freedom of religion, in which case the wagons will circle. Hence why I didn't specifically mention government-led community outreach. I meant community outreach in general.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
I actually don't feign outrage I only feign levity. As I type my light-hearted responses and joke around with puns I'm actually screaming so loud IRL that where once my vocal chords were lie only the still-bleeding wounds whose pain merely fuel my impotent bellow.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
For example, Russia's criminalisation of promotion of homosexuality saw a major increase of homophobic hate crimes, including things like that chilling photo of a gay teen forced to pose nude while beaten and bruised while surrounded by the men who later beat him to death. It has given a carte blanche to homophobic abuse and while some of it will just be rude words on the street, that case mentioned above is what the normalisation of otherisation allows if not outright endorses.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
Come back 'ere or I'll knife ya.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
Additionally social violence and economic violence are two spheres which interact but don't overlap, IMO.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I can't see this as anything but special pleading, especially since the poor are often caricatured as as social subaltern and, conversely, poor minorities are the ones most subject to violence. I was mostly trying to differentiate from 'the economic violence of being taxed' vs. 'the social violence of segregation.' An example where they overlap would be, for example, slavery.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
But first they must ban everyone in this thread. Wait poo poo that's me. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
I'm not sure having "THIS WILL loving KILL YOU" written on the burqa would help the situation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Point is tobacco would be banned already if there wasn't a big and powerful lobby behind them that is doing everything it can to prevent the more radical measures that would have been taken long ago otherwise. I'm aware. I'm trying to inject some levity into the situation. Feigned levity of course, as stated earlier I am livid IRL 24/7.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Ban ears and feet. Hail Satan.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:I want to wipe out the Islamic faith. Done. Checkmate, atheists. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The people who would kill a woman for not wearing a certain piece of clothing probably don't take "it's against the law" as a legitimate reason. Don't be ridiculous. Remember when we started the War on Drugs? Solved that poo poo forever. Also the War on Terrorism. They followed on the success of the War on Poverty.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Unless, of course, the parents opt to then homeschool the child.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
way to misspell benghazi
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 00:55
|
|