|
No, I accused you of endorsing Nazi crimes by opposing opposition to their policies. You like belittling other people's intellect so I'm not surprised that you wouldn't see the nuance. The crux of the issue is that you have liberal-minded Muslim women who want not to wear the veil, but are forced to do so, and they want the veil to be banned so that they can get the force of the state on their side; and you have fundie women who want to wear the veil. You take the side of the latter because it's more liberal in your opinion to support fundamentalism. Then you construe a scenario where fundie women will disobey the ban until police intervention is necessary against them. You know what? As long as the police doesn't rape them and then burn them to death, police intervention against veiled women is preferable to mob intervention against bareheaded women. Banning fundamentalism isn't possible. You can ban objects easily, but you can't ban ideas. If forcing a woman to wear a veil was criminalized while wearing a veil was allowed, then how would you ever know if a woman is wearing a veil out of her own free will or because she was forced to? How are you going to find out? Maybe by arresting her and making her talk? Do you think she'd tell the truth? Or maybe you'd have the police follow her home then raid her house and arrest her whole family? What you say belies that you are entirely disconnected from how the real world works. Banning the veil is the solution that has been suggested and pushed for by Muslim women. They have not suggested putting their husbands in concentration camps; and I doubt that if they had, they would have had much legal success. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Sep 17, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:28 |
|
Cat Mattress posted:No, I accused you of endorsing Nazi crimes by opposing opposition to their policies. You like belittling other people's intellect so I'm not surprised that you wouldn't see the nuance. A suggestion: stop saying things that indicate you don't think and only parrot, because it makes it really hard to give you even a modicum of respect. Note that I am giving you this modicum of respect by refusing, up until now, to point out how your arguments are built around using people as shields. It's not me, it's someone else, I'm just the messenger, you say implicitly. Well, I'm all for shooting messengers. You can exterminate ideas, by exterminating the people who hold them. This is an evil thing to do, not an impossible thing. Now, you take the position that wearing the veil is determinant. If you wear it of your own free will, you hate gays, democracy, and yourself. This basically sums up why the niqab bans will only make the situation worse, besides their grotesque immorality. Because they take the jihadi view that the West is incompatible with Islam, and seeks to dictate what Islam is and is not, what is allowable and what is not, and says that it's all true.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:However, enlightened people know that slippery slope arguments are fallacious. Enlightenment was once used to justify genocide so good choice of words there. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Enlightenment was once used to justify genocide so good choice of words there. What the gently caress point is this even making?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:What the gently caress point is this even making? You response was implying enlightened people are smarter and know better than an unenlightened person. I'm saying that an enlightened person is just as despicable as an unenlightened person. Smart does not make you better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Now, you take the position that wearing the veil is determinant. If you wear it of your own free will, you hate gays, democracy, and yourself. This basically sums up why the niqab bans will only make the situation worse, besides their grotesque immorality. Because they take the jihadi view that the West is incompatible with Islam, and seeks to dictate what Islam is and is not, what is allowable and what is not, and says that it's all true. And? Is there any civilization in the Earth's entire history that did not seek to dictate what is allowable and what is not? The flavor of Islam propagated by jihadists is incompatible with the West since it is built as a rejection of all perceived Western values. It's not the case for all flavors of Islam, though. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The flavor of Islam propagated by jihadists is incompatible with the West since it is built as a rejection of all perceived Western values. It's not the case for all flavors of Islam, though. This I can agree with. But change can only truly happen from within. Forcing Western values on Islam as a whole from an outside source is going to have a negative effect regardless of how progressive it is. If Islam itself would be able to have some sort of Reformation like Christianity did during the Colonial era where more everyday practitioners (or at least more major figures in the religion) could ask "Why am I doing this?" and "Who is really benefiting from my faith?" maybe we'd see a more liberal Islam.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:You response was implying enlightened people are smarter and know better than an unenlightened person. I'm saying that an enlightened person is just as despicable as an unenlightened person. No, I was specifically commenting on the stupidity of SedanChair unironically endorsing someone's over the top exaggeration of his already dumb slippery slope argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:No, I was specifically commenting on the stupidity of SedanChair unironically endorsing someone's over the top exaggeration of his already dumb slippery slope argument. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 20:08
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:And? Is there any civilization in the Earth's entire history that did not seek to dictate what is allowable and what is not? There's a difference between believers stating what their beliefs are, and nonbelievers dictating them. You declaring that there are no liberal or centrist Muslims who would want to wear the niqab, nor any conservative Muslims who are coerced into wearing it, constitutes the latter, no matter how many bloggers you use as human shields.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Sethex posted:To spell it out to the unimaginative person that you are, if you are interacting with people less and treated as an 'other' by everyone, you are going to encounter less ideas, hindering your personal growth as an individual. What about Western converts to Islam who want to wear the niqab? Liberal_L33t posted:In the context of a modern western nation, the state is virtually always a lesser threat to individual liberties than intrusive communities. If I had been born on a Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints compound (the nearest American analogue to the kind of hyper-conservative communities springing up in Europe) I would be a lot less worried about CIA wiretapping or whatever than my sociopathic pedophile neighbors and family members. Yeah, everyone knows that the state isn't a threat to minorities - the real threat to those minorities is their own friends and family! Especially in modern Western nations like Canada and New Zealand! Liberal_L33t posted:If there were, say, a woman who worked at the local pre-school and made a point of wearing tee-shirt with "THE RIGHTFUL PLACE OF ALL WOMEN IS AS MALE PROPERTY", or "KILL HOMOSEXUALS" or something equivalent, I would be feel pretty justified in saying those exact words, minus the 'bitch' part. Do you believe that such shirts should be illegal to wear in public? Cat Mattress posted:The crux of the issue is that you have liberal-minded Muslim women who want not to wear the veil, but are forced to do so, and they want the veil to be banned so that they can get the force of the state on their side; and you have fundie women who want to wear the veil. Forcing somebody to wear a specific garment is already illegal - just as forcing somebody to remove a garment is already illegal! The state is already on the side of women who are forced by violence or oppression to wear any garment against their consent, regardless of what culture that garment happens to be associated with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Forcing somebody to wear a specific garment is already illegal - just as forcing somebody to remove a garment is already illegal! The state is already on the side of women who are forced by violence or oppression to wear any garment against their consent, regardless of what culture that garment happens to be associated with. Yes, why don't women in oppressive communities come forward about being forced to wear clothing under duress. Also, why don't women come forward after being raped? I mean, rape is illegal! There's more to consider than just what the law is, there are other factors in society that matter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:No, I was specifically commenting on the stupidity of SedanChair unironically endorsing someone's over the top exaggeration of his already dumb slippery slope argument. Enlightened people understand the difference between a slippery slope argument and a deliberately incrementalist set of policies designed to eradicate a culture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Enlightened people understand the difference between a slippery slope argument and a deliberately incrementalist set of policies designed to eradicate a culture. Provide one shred of evidence that that is the position of anyone in this thread, based on a genuine reading of their posts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:Provide one shred of evidence that that is the position of anyone in this thread, based on a genuine reading of their posts. It's all about never giving the evidence, isn't it? I mean if you gave evidence that you wanted to wipe out the Islamic faith, that would give the game away. The idea is to appear very Western, progressive and concerned with women's rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's all about never giving the evidence, isn't it? I mean if you gave evidence that you wanted to wipe out the Islamic faith, that would give the game away. The idea is to appear very Western, progressive and concerned with women's rights. Are you trolling? There is no point to even engage with someone who argues based on what opinions their opponents are secretly hiding. You secretly believe that any who is left-handed should be gunned down in the street. I mean, if you gave evidence of that, it would give the game away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:36
|
|
Sinestro posted:Are you trolling? There is no point to even engage with someone who argues based on what opinions their opponents are secretly hiding. If you really cared about women's rights, you wouldn't be focused on restricting them, or on persecuting the people you believe to be victims. Your words do not match your beliefs.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:Are you trolling? There is no point to even engage with someone who argues based on what opinions their opponents are secretly hiding. Really? After all, most Republicans discussing immigration policy manage to cover themselves with at least a fig leaf of being concerned with something other than having too many nonwhites in America. Yet we all, not being deaf and blind, manage to understand their true intentions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If you really cared about women's rights, you wouldn't be focused on restricting them, or on persecuting the people you believe to be victims. Your words do not match your beliefs. The persecution is not to punish the women, but to change the narrative from "As a liberal, westernized muslim woman, I refuse to wear this" to "I do not wear this because it is illegal." In a culture where the hardline elements, the ones who care the most about "modesty" kill and disfigure and rape women as punishment for violating their rules, can you not see why the latter is preferable and beneficial to the safety of those who would choose to not wear a niqab, not to mention those who only choose to due to their own internalized misogyny? SedanChair posted:Really? After all, most Republicans discussing immigration policy manage to cover themselves with at least a fig leaf of being concerned with something other than having too many nonwhites in America. Yet we all, not being deaf and blind, manage to understand their true intentions. Leaving aside that I don't agree that anything but full amnesty and open immigration is about there being "too many non-whites in America", that is still not a useful thing to say if you're trying to debate with people who are conservative on immigration policy rather than score self-righteousness points. Okay, even if they aren't putting it out in the clear, you should at least be able to point to something specific that you feel, with (explained) context, means that I want to wipe out the Islamic faith.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:I want to wipe out the Islamic faith. Done. Checkmate, atheists. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:The persecution is not to punish the women, but to change the narrative from "As a liberal, westernized muslim woman, I refuse to wear this" to "I do not wear this because it is illegal." In a culture where the hardline elements, the ones who care the most about "modesty" kill and disfigure and rape women as punishment for violating their rules, can you not see why the latter is preferable and beneficial to the safety of those who would choose to not wear a niqab, not to mention those who only choose to due to their own internalized misogyny? If someone is going to kill, disfigure, and/or rape someone to enforce the wearing of this, I do not think the fact that it is illegal to wear it in the first place is going to be of much protection. All of the previous things are already illegal, very illegal. And conservative and reactionary elements are a far greater threat to the majority of the population than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:The persecution is not to punish the women, but to change the narrative from "As a liberal, westernized muslim woman, I refuse to wear this" to "I do not wear this because it is illegal." In a culture where the hardline elements, the ones who care the most about "modesty" kill and disfigure and rape women as punishment for violating their rules, can you not see why the latter is preferable and beneficial to the safety of those who would choose to not wear a niqab, not to mention those who only choose to due to their own internalized misogyny? 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.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:10
|
|
Sinestro posted:The persecution is not to punish the women, but to change the narrative from "As a liberal, westernized muslim woman, I refuse to wear this" to "I do not wear this because it is illegal." In a culture where the hardline elements, the ones who care the most about "modesty" kill and disfigure and rape women as punishment for violating their rules, can you not see why the latter is preferable and beneficial to the safety of those who would choose to not wear a niqab, not to mention those who only choose to due to their own internalized misogyny? However, given that the number of niqabiah is tiny in Western countries compared to Muslim communities as a whole in those countries, this entire statement is farcical. The number of niqabiah who are converts makes it doubly farcical. This is transparently about attacking Islam by picking out a tiny handful of people who can be easily harassed and mistreated without a lot of police work, and whether you are conscious of this fact or not, it still is true that you are in loyal and faithful service to terrorism.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
The thing is is that, if niqabs are banned, then the ones who are being forced to wear them under threat of mutilation or death by their misogynistic family/husband/community would just be forbidden from leaving their homes. Such a ban would not improve things for them. If anything, it would make their lives worse, and it would make it much, much, much less likely that they would ever be able to improve their lives and escape their family/husband/community since they would be isolated completely from the rest of society.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Hammurabi posted:The thing is is that, if niqabs are banned, then the ones who are being forced to wear them under threat of mutilation or death by their misogynistic family/husband/community would just be forbidden from leaving their homes. Such a ban would not improve things for them. If anything, it would make their lives worse, and it would make it much, much, much less likely that they would ever be able to improve their lives and escape their family/husband/community since they would be isolated completely from the rest of society. Them not going to school anymore would be remarked, sending the social services to investigate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Unless, of course, the parents opt to then homeschool the child.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:53
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Unless, of course, the parents opt to then homeschool the child. Well, then, just ban homeschooling, with proper grandfather clauses and letter-but-not-the-spirit stuff to ensure that nobody other than Muslims actually is affected. Bazinga!
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
way to misspell benghazi
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
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
|
|
rudatron posted: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. What, the woman is locked in the house, so the police come in and shoot her? I don't see where the "hammer" (obviously your dick, since you told me to psychoanalyze you earlier) comes down on the people holding her captive, if this is derived from a niqab ban. So I guess you just want to figuratively cockslap Muslim women that have been abused by their families and associates. Maybe you want to literally do it too.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Hammurabi posted:The thing is is that, if niqabs are banned, then the ones who are being forced to wear them under threat of mutilation or death by their misogynistic family/husband/community would just be forbidden from leaving their homes. Such a ban would not improve things for them. If anything, it would make their lives worse, and it would make it much, much, much less likely that they would ever be able to improve their lives and escape their family/husband/community since they would be isolated completely from the rest of society.  This is literally your argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:31
|
|
Sinestro posted:
You're really loving stupid, and I'll throw a party when you die.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
rudatron posted: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. Eh, fair enough, though I'm not really sure how that's a slippery slope argument since that is legit a thing that apparently happens in France - well, restriction to home or neighborhood, the latter of which would be very difficult to prove. I guess a bigger thing is that, while it might possibly eventually have some sort of an effect, I don't think it would be effective enough to justify A) throwing those who wear it voluntarily (which would be most of them) under the bus, and B) giving fuel to the "West vs. Islam" narrative that radicals rely on. And that's not mentioning that, even if these few who force women to wear niqabs were made to stop, they would eventually probably just move onto some other forced modesty garment. Sinestro posted:
Eh, I dunno about that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I'm still wondering why indirectly punishing domestic abusers by making their targets wear different clothing is the ideal strategy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm still wondering why indirectly punishing domestic abusers by making their targets wear different clothing is the ideal strategy. Because it punishes women.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
didnt sedanchair pretend to be black or whatever lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:didnt sedanchair pretend to be black or whatever lmao Yep.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:No, I accused you of endorsing Nazi crimes by opposing opposition to their policies. You like belittling other people's intellect so I'm not surprised that you wouldn't see the nuance. Effectronica posted:A suggestion: stop saying things that indicate you don't think and only parrot, because it makes it really hard to give you even a modicum of respect. Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Enlightenment was once used to justify genocide so good choice of words there. Sinestro posted:What the gently caress point is this even making? Sinestro posted:No, I was specifically commenting on the stupidity of SedanChair unironically endorsing someone's over the top exaggeration of his already dumb slippery slope argument. Hitlers Gay Secret posted:My bad. SedanChair posted:It's all about never giving the evidence, isn't it? I mean if you gave evidence that you wanted to wipe out the Islamic faith, that would give the game away. The idea is to appear very Western, progressive and concerned with women's rights. Sinestro posted:Are you trolling? There is no point to even engage with someone who argues based on what opinions their opponents are secretly hiding. Effectronica posted:If you really cared about women's rights, you wouldn't be focused on restricting them, or on persecuting the people you believe to be victims. Your words do not match your beliefs. SedanChair posted:Really? After all, most Republicans discussing immigration policy manage to cover themselves with at least a fig leaf of being concerned with something other than having too many nonwhites in America. Yet we all, not being deaf and blind, manage to understand their true intentions. Tesseraction posted:Done. Checkmate, atheists. Tesseraction posted:Don't be ridiculous. Remember when we started the War on Drugs? Solved that poo poo forever. Effectronica posted:Well, then, just ban homeschooling, with proper grandfather clauses and letter-but-not-the-spirit stuff to ensure that nobody other than Muslims actually is affected. Bazinga! Tesseraction posted:way to misspell benghazi Effectronica posted:What, the woman is locked in the house, so the police come in and shoot her? I don't see where the "hammer" (obviously your dick, since you told me to psychoanalyze you earlier) comes down on the people holding her captive, if this is derived from a niqab ban. So I guess you just want to figuratively cockslap Muslim women that have been abused by their families and associates. Maybe you want to literally do it too. Sinestro posted:
Effectronica posted:You're really loving stupid, and I'll throw a party when you die. TEAYCHES posted:didnt sedanchair pretend to be black or whatever lmao Sinestro posted:Yep. These are all terrible posts in their own special ways
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 06:06
|
|
