|
Main Paineframe posted:Secular political groups generally weren't able to withstand the political suppression, but the religiously-centered groups proved to be stronger and better able to weather the storm for a variety of reasons, and thus ended up being major forces by virtue of being the only real organized opposition left. Which leads me to: quote:People who sign up for ISIS don't do so because they're inhumane monsters who love brutality, they do it because they feel that the goal is important enough to be worth any brutality that might be needed to successfully carry it out - and considering how successful ISIS has been, it's not surprising that people who might agree with their ultimate goals are signing up despite the brutality.
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
Consent of the governed overrules value judgements in terms of what political system is best for a given people. Enlightened despotism never works the way you want it to, and returning power the people at least creates an environment where progress can happen. So long as an elite can repress popular sentiment, broad social progress is next to impossible. Doesn't mean you have to support them, or don't invade them if they commit gross crimes against humanity, but you don't get to overrule the will of the people who live there because it happens to be inconvenient for you. If you want a progressive society, a real society, then democratic rule isn't optional, it's mandatory.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
I wouldn't call supporting sharia 'rational' (that implies too much), but understandable given context makes sense. Though that 'defying god' bit is interesting, because it would demonstrate a lack of secularization as the main stumbling block here. If you're a politician in the west, you cannot appeal to any particular religious law, you have to justify your policy on the basis of some kind of secular morality (utilitarianism, liberal-rights-talk, etc). The fact that an appeal-to-god works in these countries is the problem, because it grants religious authorities political power.asdf32 posted:One comment I have is that when these debates come up a lot of people are inclined to turn to foundation document as if it's an ultimate source. It's not. Human institutions may be informed by a text but living, changing institutions can't be entirely defined by one. And while texts don't change, the character of major religions certainly does. If we're evaluating Islam today, we need to consider it as it is today. I'm personally not sure at all what that means. Smudgie Buggler posted:"Overrules" according to who or what? Morality Court? rudatron fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Should Stalin get a pass for his brutality because the Soviets rapidly modernized Russian society and crushed organized religion?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
History has shown that people in power tend to not want to give up that power. The transition from pre-modern to modern represents a change in thought, but also in power structures - that cannot happen without confrontation. Even british liberal democracy would have been impossible without the english civil war.On Authority - Engels posted:A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. rudatron fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:For some reason, there aren't really any instances of someone successfully forcibly imposing human rights reforms on a society without pairing it with all-new human rights violations or slaughtering massive numbers of innocent people. Some would probably suggest that it's just a No True Scotsman problem and that a true human rights reformer could accomplish it just fine, but it is the nature of humans to be imperfect, and since there is no perfect human rights reformer, I'm inclined to think that the whole approach is fundamentally flawed. Relying on a single dictator (even a domestic one) to impose justice and human rights from the barrel of a gun without the consent of the governed seems to inevitably involve flagrant injustice and massive human rights violations. The goals may be partially noble (although always mixed with plenty of horrible) but the results always seem to turn out horrific.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:So we should support the abolition of democratic policies, institute spectacularly violent secret police organizations, and sell the populace out as slave labor. And in return we get to force women to wear clothes we find more sexually appealing and murder them when they resist? Sounds like progess to me. I mean, take a big example here, Saudi Arabia. Support for that regime has, since it's inception, relied on the backing of religious authorities. There's always been a tension, but push comes to shove, both sides know they need the other. Suppose a big uprising occurs on such a scale such that the kingdom has to dissolve. Do you seriously think those religious authorities are just going to step down, throw up their hands and say 'well I guess we had a good run'?. No, they're gonna get their most devoted supporters to crush the opposition, because that's what entrenched interest do when they're threatened. If the opposition is ever going to win, yeah, it's gotta do shady poo poo. Because if it doesn't, it's going to lose to the other side. That's how civil wars work.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Don't we have threads where we talk endless poo poo about Christianity? Outside of the need to protect Muslim minorities within Western nations against right-wing bigots I don't understand any other reason to be so protective of Islam.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
There are American political groups that advocate the supplanting of secular law with biblical law, even in only parts. You're correct in seeing both attempts as similar anti-modern movements (that need to be crushed), but wrong in thinking its religiosity that's the cause. Christianity as a religion didn't 'advance', and the problem within Islamic countries is not the lack of 'advancement'. It's about the power balance between political ideologies within each community. In America, the literalists/fundamentalist/reaction are marginalized, in Islamic countries they're dominant (or ascendent). Islamism, in spite of what islamists themselves claim, is a political ideology just like any other, and it's not a particularly inventive one either (it's just yet more proof that supremacist thought is not limited to any one identity or community). However much propaganda value it is for the islamists (and the christian-supremacists) to claim that islamism is the 'authentic' Islam, it's just not true. Like, let me put it to you this way. When people point to stuff like the crusades, the usual response is 'well that period is over, christians have calmed down now'. Okay, but the attacks against Islam justify themselves on the quran, and how much worse it is. Okay, so if the actions of a community are based on its holy book, and how violent it is, then has the christian bible 'chilled out' over the preceding centuries? Has it been edited greatly? Not really. edit: Now the cause of the dominance of islamic reaction is related to missteps of the west and the cold war, which can be true without denying the agency of muslims themselves. Obviously I'd like the trend to be reversed, but realistically there's no much I or any non-muslim can do about it. The Islamic robespierre has to come from within. What we can do is marginalize the muslim literalists in the west, as you would marginalize any other similar movement, but you have to do that without be discriminatory against the broader community as whole. rudatron fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
The problem with this thesis, that the issue is a lack of central organization of a religion, is that it doesn't have any mechanical reason for being the case. Why would an authority have any more of an incentive to accept/oppose liberalism than the Muslim world as a whole, right now? Detaching it from being used as a political tool, sure, that would would do wonders, because you have leaders who transparently use such organizations for their own ends, so groups that oppose entrenched power may have a better time of it. Like, granted, there is a marked difference between catholics and protestants in the US, with catholics being more progressive, but there's a problem with interpreting it this way: the more conservative protestant churches tend to retain members much better. So liberal protestants are more likely to become atheists, which are more liberal than both (which lacks an authority). I don't think imposing an authority would necessarily change the political balance either way, thought it may reduce the deviation. rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:53 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
I'm not confusing those goals, because they're actually the same. ISIS daesh are reactionary forces, reacting to social reform both in the muslim and wider world. The scholar you quoted doesn't acknowledge the conflict as a fundamentally political one, but rather as a rather minor technical problem of authority on scripture. "Well if there was a real Islamic authority to tell them to stop, then they would" Okay, but not every religion out there has a single body like that. There's no successful politicized protestantism that has the same pull as islamism does. That's not because 'they wouldnt do that', nor does that demonstrate any kind of 'inherent' superiority between the two, there are loving people of any faith out there who would try and pull that poo poo, if they could get away it. But they can't. Guess why? The 'radicalism' (actually a raise of reactionary militantism) would have happened, regardless of the dismantling of legal guilds. A single authority would be no stronger against the pull of corruption to authoritarian states than the structures that exist today (All it means is that, like the medieval papacy, it would play them off each for its own gain - but it would never, ever be free from corruption). This isn't a problem that can be solved with small technical solutions. The only thing that can save Islam, from being used in the way it is being used, is liberal secularism accepted broadly. Either secular politics subsumes all political activity within Islam, or it keeps suffering the same dysfunction over and over again. rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
You position the rise of reaction as due to a 'normative vacuum' - but why was it reaction that managed to occupy that vacuum, over anything else? Why did they believe a 'back to basics' approach was the best? The answer is because it had nothing to do with a 'normative vacuum', but because of the already existing, and deeply entrenched, conservative attitudes about politics and religion (and arguably gender & sexuality - see Qutb) in relation to the west (as expressed in its power structures). When a crisis occurs, the solutions to that crisis are always constrained and guided by the dominant ideology. But to tackle a deeper point: any serious historiography cannot assume that things such as 'normative vacuums' exist. History is based on raw political factors: production, control, interests, ideology. To claim that the problem is the lack of a paternal figures in the religious community has just as much substance as the claims that the roman empire fell due to decadence. It's all idealist bullshit. The infantilizing of groups like ISIS, "they're people who just need Proper Guidance in interpretation", is just a moralizing tale. Daesh knows what they're doing, they're a political actor, and they'd do it regardless of guilds - that is if they don't intimidate/horse-trade some of them into supporting them, in which case all your assumptions fall apart. Like I can't see these assumptions of yours as anything but special pleading to the uniqueness of Islam (which is not going to fly here). Mixing religion and politics didn't work before, it ain't gonna work now, doesn't matter which religion you choose. Ergo, secularism. rudatron fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Jul 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Where were these so-called "moderate" Nazis? Though I'm a little disappointed Wez buggered off, because I suspect he was in the later rather than the former. More generally I say there are actually plenty of people who believe that islamism has some sort of emancipatory potential and that 'those drat ISIS guys are ruining it'. Except Daesh aren't ruining it, they're the pure expression of it, any political ideology that prioritizes the viewpoint or value of any one imagined-community (ie - any 'nationalism' for a fairly broad definition of nation {which religions count}) will inevitably generate imagined-community-supremacists.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:I have never seen anyone on these forums defend mistreatment of women, gender inequality, fundamentalist religion of any kind or any of the other things you talk about. Maybe you can point me to it. I don't know who's "liberal" or not either. A lot of people come here just to piss on Islam, the third-world defect á la mode, and I think it rubs people the wrong way when the incredibly spoiled members of Western culture, with its whopping 12 year record of not committing enormous crimes and mass murder, invest so much holy moral energy into condemning the practices and beliefs of people from some of the most miserable places on earth. The key is to be consistent and reframe it in such a way that it serves progressive forces rather than reactionary forces, which is what an honest assessment will do. Part of that is a deconstruction of the monolithic other of 'muslims' into distinct power blocks and ideological superstructures, which you can compare and contrast with similar power-structures/ideologies both historical and contemporary, then react appropriately (which is what the post you are quoting is doing). Islamism is far-right, you undermine it the same way you do any other far-right groups. MrNemo posted:There's a reason I'm not a fan of anarchism in practice.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:No, you do not undermine Islamism at all. You have, presumably, nothing to do with it. Do you think that the Tea Party movement reasonably can be undermined the Chinese middle class? There are a plethora of Russian intellectuals and fancy middle-class debaters who a little too frequently complain about US transgressions of international law and democratic standards in the Russian media. What a loving joke they are, just like we are when we obsess about today's Islamic culture and all its many flaws. This thread is mostly just a wallowing in stereotypifications and neat little academic roundabout formulations disconnected from reality. People talk about Islam and Muslims as if they just arrived from Mars with tentacles and in a pool of sludge, and if I didn't personally think that the Islamic religion is dumb crock I'd be pretty offended and even seriously worried by the words being used. Absurd Alhazred posted:Oh, by the way, turns out that "Islamic" attack on women's right to sunbathe in parks was actually a gang fight. Like the point I'm trying to drive through: Islamism is a political ideology, treat it that way. Of course you're going to get people saying it's the true expression of some inherent islamic religion, it's not, it's supremacist ideology that's implanted itself in Islam. You have to confront it, don't downplay it, don't excuse it. Protect Muslims as a group, but suppress fascists who are also muslims, just as you would suppress fascists who are also christian. rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Get hosed, fascism isn't strong, it's incredibly insecure and weak, no matter whether it comes from Islam or the west. Both are pretty easy to crush if you put your mind to it, in no small part due to fascists being anti-intellectual, and therefore stupid.SedanChair posted:The only emotion you are projecting is fear. Your weakness is jumping off the screen. You wouldn't be so concerned with controlling Islam if you didn't secretly think it was stronger than your own Western liberal traditions. Please accept my apologies that your parents didn't condition you like a Spartan, instead purchasing gifts for you and answering your every need.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I guess the crux of the matter is whether you think Muslims should have access to a non-religious court to appeal to in case they feel that Sharia court is treating them unfairly, and whether there should be support mechanisms in place in case Sharia or extra-judicial authorities start persecuting them for doing so. It's when things go wrong that you test what the nature is of your legal framework, not when everybody's happy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:But you're only giving them "power" in the sense that you're allowing people to contract through them. Are you going to ban all types of private organizations with their own arbitration systems? Are you going to ban Jews from using Rabbinical courts? And sure, the same standard should apply to all communities. But I'll grant you that most people raging about sharia couldn't care less about ^^^any of that poo poo^^^, and are doing it purely on the basis of the whole 'judeo-christian' schtick that western conservatives love to throw around. Effectronica posted:You don't need to have a specifically shari'a court to oversee a marriage in Islam, but marriage is part of shari'a and allowing Muslims to marry according to shari'a thus allows shari'a legitimacy, just like allowing for halal food to be prepared or for Muslims to define their inheritance according to fiqh. In order to reject shari'a as legitimate, you cannot allow Muslims to marry, eat, or inherit as they please.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
Ah, clever, well played. But you're still wrong. All legal codes are expressions of social morality, that you may not believe them doesn't make them not a moral system. If they think that's right for them, and want to act in that way personally, then sure, but I draw the line at courts, even if they're religiously-motivated arbitration tribunals. I've laid out my reasons why, take them up or don't.Cake Smashing Boob posted:How? And how do you limit Saudi/Salafi influence without curtailing religious freedoms?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
Going through some sharia-marriage cases in the US, the biggest issues brought forward seems to be the dowry and arguments over that (big loving surprise). The biggest issue from a western perspective to all of them is the lack of no-fault divorce for women which, while not enforceable, when you bring in the dowry contracts or some kind of fee structure, is a massive problem. Best solution is to do is 1) rule that any religious law is completely irrelevant, and does not have to be considered 2) pre or post-nuptial written agreement, that lay out terms without reference to islamic law, must exist and be signed to be enforced 3) remove the ability of any marriage contract to waive the right of no fault divorce (no divorce fees, dowries are considered gifts). Maybe to make the whole thing easier, get the government to publish a bunch of already drafted agreements with some blanks to be filled in. I feel a similar approach to other sharia ares would probably be the best way to get some consistent rulings. The big issue are laws of foreign states that do follow islamic law, and people possibly both agreeing to follow that law as a work-around using comity. My take is that that's kind of abusing a principle for different states to try and get along (by not voiding each other all the time), so that sort of business shouldn't be respected. Volkerball posted:Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz are live at Harvard discussing "Islam and the future of tolerance." Stream is here if anyone is interested. rudatron fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Why does this poo poo always turn into arguments over the burqa/niqab? People go to arbitration because it's cheaper than courts, which is fine. If disputes can be resolved fairly for less, good. What I don't like is having either courts or arbitration having to deal with a legal systems that are not ours. Shits needs to be done properly under our system, not another system. SurrealityCheck posted:Surely this is an argument for making Islam more radical? rudatron fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Luckily, mathematics isn't complete, so it's okay for it to be consistent.Rigged Death Trap posted:No True Adherent. That's kind of why I don't want religious arbitration. Really my ideal is 1) grab a bunch of muslim jurists 2) get them to list their interpretations of sharia 3) go through that list with a red marker "fine, fine, fine, bullshit, fine fine, bullshit, etc." 3) create a bunch of contracts based on that, written in such a way as outsiders of islam could understand them fully 4) publish. Why? Because I want the arbiters to be people outside the Islamic community, who won't necessarily understand the intricacies of Islamic law. Why? Because clerics have a vested interest in certain outcomes over others, (in particular, ones that preserve the power structures/seniority/traditions already existing in that community), and therefore make bad arbiters. rudatron fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Criminal law is a different matter, obviously, but in matters of civil law the state doesn't care whether you have the case judged by a rabbi or even Judge Judy, as long as you agree not to run crying to the state if it doesn't go your way. Rigged Death Trap posted:Theyre only an other to you due to the cultural disimmilarity. Now you can say 'they've internalized this and believe it themselves, we cannot ban it because it is their choice'. 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. Or you could make a pragmatic argument 'well it'd be hard to do and really all the ban does is force these women to stay indoors', which might be true? But lacking data on exactly how much that will actually happen means it's only guesswork. That and if something should be illegal, then the problem of 'we can't enforce it' should be better answered with 'why not/how can we overcome the obstacles to enforcement', not 'let's not bother then' (the keyphrase being whether it should be illegal, which leads into philosophy of law). What I don't think flies is saying that it's just something different, beyond judgement, you don't 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. rudatron fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
My concern with burqa banning is the payoff. So you've taken a risk, accepted a cost, both in terms of manpower and diplomatic capital: what's the benefit here? The obvious response is mutual identification, but how far do you take that? I feel like a big reason France did it was a kind of symbolic imposition, as a kind of ritual to declare that the broader ethical values associated with 'France' are not subject to change, and immigrants must adopt them...but as a symbolic measure, it doesn't actually deal with the underlying concerns, so even assuming the ban passes, that only leads to more and more demands, that must be continually satisfied in order to keep the symbolism working..I've got to think about this some more, actually thinking of making a thread about it.Smudgie Buggler posted:but why would I be arguing at all if I didn't want to (a) improve other people's understanding of what I think and why I think it; (b) get them to agree with me; or (c) update my own beliefs in light of new evidence or better reasoning? I think that has to be true to some extent of everybody here, regardless of how caustic and recalcitrant they seem. Effectronica and Liberal_leet (and let's not kid around: you) are here for the same thing, the rush of Adrenalin that accompanies self-righteous anger, the freedom to express your passion to a space where you know people are listening and you are personally safe from reprisal, and pride achieved asserting dominance over another person through words alone - THIS is the spirit of D&D. Not just D&D either - dipshits in GBS/GiP complaining about D&D/SA hivemind are riding the same rhetorical carousel, as are SS fuckheads calling mods pedos because they got banned using the n word, or the same 20 people posting the same dumb political cartoon authors, then taking turns to feign outrage. The drama! The clash of personalities! Oh my, what fun! Trash, but fun trash, so sit back and at least enjoy it, because it is not going anywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
That argument is identical to libertarian arguments about taxation as inherent violence. In fact, all law is violence, even civil law (just try and stop paying a fine for long enough, and you'll feel that very real violence). Do you feel comfortable about that? What exactly is the point you're making w.r.t. burqa bans?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Additionally social violence and economic violence are two spheres which interact but don't overlap, IMO. And to the contrary, I don't think you're insane! You're a normal human being, that's the point.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
You're not attacking ideology, you're flailing around make dumb analogies/hurling invectives. Attacking ideology would mean psychoanalyzing why liberal_leet or whoever acts the way they do. You respond with 'they're a bigot', then underline that several hundred times. Ah, but why? Would you go further? No, that's not you, at least not here. A pity. Instead you just melt down, which hurts yourself more than others.Smudgie Buggler posted:Which is exactly nobody today. edit: ah, but of course I didn't answer your question: I feel the second example is definitely true. There's no such thing as perfect consent, people can believe dumb things to rationalize trauma. I feel I can fairly accurately say that someone would not want to commit that kind of action unless they were placed in a position where other factors came in to play - they can't get married if they don't, they get thrown out of the household if they don't, etc. As such, it is never a simple choice between a) do dumb thing b) don't do dumb thing, so we're justified in destroying the social conditions that push women/anyone into ultimately self-destructive behavior, irregardless of whatever stockholm syndrome stuff they dream up for it. So by 'defending her right', you are ignoring those social conditions and are, in fact, devaluing the actual lived horrors of that social practice. rudatron fucked around with this message at 13:23 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
Wearing long sleeved shirts isn't in the same category, and indeed there are valid reason you would wear them. It's still coercive that women felt they had to, but it's not extreme enough to warrant intervention (the nature of that intervention itself would have to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate cases, ie- it's automatically too much work for too little a payoff). A corset- it depends on the corset, I'd have no difficulty banning egregious cases. Also I'm not actually arguing for a burqa ban, but since I'm not a liberal I'll take your liberalism on here: adornment isn't just expression, it can also aid/deny identification, obviously can have a practical purpose and acts as a signifier for group membership. You can't really deny reasonable practical use, but the other 2 are grounds for banning. Muslim women aren't spontaneously all agreeing to wear the same kind of clothing, it's a signifier of ideological commitment to fundamentalist islam, which may or may not be compatible with the society they're living in. I also think it's reasonable to, in a society that places value on names & faces, to deny people the right to anonymity in casual situations. And color me skeptical that ultra-conservative women are all doing the same thing because they just want to be 'weird'. Though even if you do want to be weird, I'd have no problem calling that as bullshit if the 'weirdness' is especially dangerous or self-harming. As an example, someone who is suicidal needs help, they're never just being 'weird' and it's okay to recognize that. It's okay to make judgements like that, super liberalism gets you nowhere. rudatron fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
No, it's a claim that group signification is valid grounds for banning, the qualification being whether it's valid to target that group. Targeting the group 'muslim' would not be justified. But there are groups you may want to do that to (KKK robes would fit). The non-racist argument for the burqa would be that it fits, not islam as a whole, but a certain strain of fundamentalist islam, which...I'm not sure is true? I'd like more statistics to be sure.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
The point with self-harm/suicide is to get you to concede that consent is not the only metric that we judge the actions of others, that it's okay to move beyond that and deem some behaviors as something a normal person wouldn't do. Having got you to concede that, the argument turns from one of a kind into one of degree, upon which it's easier to reach consensus, since that's what you're all about. The comparisons to speech don't work because the key word is 'group identification', you personally identifying as *whatever* is irrelevant, but a group of people together identifying is a categorically different matter - you express membership in a visible, permanent way that's harder to hide, and you express solidarity with other members of your group. Practical constraints are also important - failing to achieve a goal makes bad policy, as does policy that's too costly for a good payoff, but the concerns you raise are up for debate - there are definitely places where there's no practical reason for face coverings, so most public places do in fact count (you only need to wear your bike helmet on your actual bike, for example). Smudgie Buggler posted:I'm definitely no libertarian, but I do think it gets you a lot of places worth being. But there's not much for you and me to actually have an argument over way down here, and I don't think getting quite this abstract is going to improve the quality of discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
You'd be banned were it not for the levity lobby, so I can understand your actions.TomViolence posted:I think what we should do is level the field by banning all garments other than identical grey jumpsuits.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Trapping someone in a house is more serious and is much easier to prove, so if they resort to that then the hammer comes down harder. Also, law should not be driven by slippery slope arguments.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
Moving on to other garments is a fair criticism, though that depends on if they can reach internal consensus, which isn`t a given. I`ve already talked about how it being voluntary doesn't absolve its issues, though there is definitely a valid debate to be had on degree there. A minimal payoff is my real concern, but I still don't find the typical arguments against the ban compelling. What you wear in public is already regulated (you can't be naked) and society needs common standards. The fantasy of perfect non-interference will remain as a fantasy. 2-points for the Freud jab, but minus 2 for stretching the joke too far.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 02:00
|
|