Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then the best that you can do is to convince them that it is not. If they choose to ignore you, then you have done all you can, but to enforce a policy of conformity to your position regardless if you believe yourself to be right or not is to act no different than those you accuse.
No, you're engaging in a form of relativism which doesn't hold here.
Would you also take this position if it were men who were forced to wear this garment by "choice"?
Would you equally support the "choice" to genitally mutilate their children?
You are also ignoring the fact that the compromised vision and movement in the wearing of this garment potentially implicates others--and criminally so--if the wearer is injured by someone (in a car, for example).
It doesn't matter who, what, or why you disagree with its use. It isn't your choice to demand either way. Now your argument would be valid if they were being forced against their will to wear these. Then at least you would have a position that argues that their individual freedom is being oppressed. If they choose to wear them, for whatever reason, then your say in the matter ends. You don't have to agree with them wearing it, you just don't have any say on if they do or not.
They are "being forced" to wear the burqa. Precisely because their "will" has been perverted to acquiesce in their own debasement. The so-called "choice" is not a "choice" at all.
No, you're engaging in a form of relativism which doesn't hold here.
Would you also take this position if it were men who were forced to wear this garment by "choice"?
Would you equally support the "choice" to genitally mutilate their children?
You are also ignoring the fact that the compromised vision and movement in the wearing of this garment potentially implicates others--and criminally so--if the wearer is injured by someone (in a car, for example).
Your objection does not lend support to your position nor contest my claim.
The use of 'big words' does not lend your arguement more credibility. If anything it does the opposite.
The line? Well, it would start with "individual freedom of choice". If a person chooses to wear them, it doesn't matter why they do, only that they "choose" to do so. As I mentioned above before, if they were being forced to wear them against their own will, then you might have a case and only for those who are being forced. As it stands, you are merely injecting your personal opinion into the issue and demanding conformity to it.
Lets look at some facts.
The people who would be effected by this ban chose to live in France. If they choose to live in a country that has different cultural mores then they do, then they also chose to abide by the prevailing cultural mores of their new country.
For example, if I were to move to Iran I would be agreeing to wear the chador as that is the practice there - though it should be noted, that this is a recent practice. As is wearing the burqa. Did you know that wearing the burqa was customary only for rural women when they went to the 'big city'? It was not something that even all rural women had to do. Back then -- 1980s -- it really was a choice. Now it is a choice to wear the burqa or get beaten or killed. Hardly a choice, imo.
No. If France has determined that it is in the best interest for the nation and its newer immigrants to ban cultural practices that are inconsistant with a harmonious citizenry then so be it.
After all -- the immigrants themselves had the ultimate choice to make -- and they choose to live in France.
Expel all the Semites and you don't have the problem. Thing is, the Jews would have to go too.....sorry Sarky, you can't have it one-sided.
It's funny how Semite Hebrews can think they are so much better than Semite Arabs, yet neither are French, nor European, nor they never can be.
Now watch someone come along and try to tell us the Hebrews are European, while the Arabs are not. Can't be done ladies and fellas!
The only people who believe that it is impossible to be a citizen of an European country and jewish at the same time was the Nazis. And those sniveling baby killing rank b**tard cowards lost that war if you will recall. The only ones that elevate those putrid pos are the losers of any and all socities.
At anyrate, the difference between jews who have been in Europe for a thousand years and newly arrived muslim immigrants is that the immigrants of old have assimiliated and the muslim immigrants of France are not.
Lets look at some facts.
The people who would be effected by this ban chose to live in France. If they choose to live in a country that has different cultural mores then they do, then they also chose to abide by the prevailing cultural mores of their new country.
For example, if I were to move to Iran I would be agreeing to wear the chador as that is the practice there - though it should be noted, that this is a recent practice. As is wearing the burqa. Did you know that wearing the burqa was customary only for rural women when they went to the 'big city'? It was not something that even all rural women had to do. Back then -- 1980s -- it really was a choice. Now it is a choice to wear the burqa or get beaten or killed. Hardly a choice, imo.
Don't forget the Taliban favorite of throwing acid on the women not in Burqas too.
No, you're engaging in a form of relativism which doesn't hold here.
So you believe that not all cultures are equally valid? That their society is better or worse according to your position. Can you point me to that list so I can look up cultures who paint their houses bright colors so I can show them evidence of how they are beneath me? Thanks.
Seriously though, you argue a subjective position. You attempt to insert a moralistic position on it, but your moralistic position is biased. That is, you think them wearing clothing as such is demeaning so you make an ethnocentric judgement. Do you also think women in western religous cultures that wear full dresses also demaning?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward
Would you also take this position if it were men who were forced to wear this garment by "choice"?
So are they forced or are they not forced? Which is it? You can't be going left and right at the same time. Make up your mind. As I stated, in a previous posting, if they are forced against their free will, that is they choose not to wear them and are forced to do so, then you have a violation of individual freedom. So, It would be acceptable to deal with those cases as such. It also falls to the responsibilty of the family in question.
This isn't an issue of this topic though. The article specifically states a personal subjective opinoin on the wearing of them. It does not state they are forced, it states that those who dislike them believe them to be demeaning. You dislike them, get over it. Your opinoin is worthless when it comes to subjective views. It is only valid to you and those who are willing to accept its merit. Outside of that, if someone disagrees with that subjective view, then you are out of luck. Insisting people conform to your subjective view means you disregard individual choice. So which is it? You support freedom of choice or you support your oppinion to dictate freedom of choice? Can't have it both ways. Pick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward
Would you equally support the "choice" to genitally mutilate their children?
Logical fallacy (unsupported corelation, red herring)
Let me show you the invalid logic you are using.
P1. Some women who wear burqas have been abused.
P2. Jill wears a burqa.
C. Jill has been abused.
It is invalid. You attempt to conclude based on an association that does not support the conclusion.
As for the red herring, the result of my answer is irrevant to the argument. Stay on topic please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward
You are also ignoring the fact that the compromised vision and movement in the wearing of this garment potentially implicates others--and criminally so--if the wearer is injured by someone (in a car, for example).
Compromised? Look at the picture in the article. Perepherial vision is at its max capability. Motorcyle helments obscure more vision than such. Also, I notice you only support the ban of this, not a wide array of garments which are the same or worse.
This support is a grasping at straws in order to embolden a subjective personal opinoin on a topic. Your claim is unsubstanited and poorly supported.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
