Angela Merkel wants to ban the burka?

[Jayjay]

Islamic brainwashing starts at childhood too.

Ok, I'm listening. Where are you going with this?

Remember that I'm a liberal. I'm for radical free expression. I don't want limits to free speech. So I'd be against preventing parents teaching their kids Islam. As long as they stay away from chopping bits off their cocks, I'm good.

I think the footbinding analogy was great. People's personalities and intellectual capabilities form in childhood, and parents who neglect their children can ruin their lives as much as mauling their bodies. I don't think freedom of speech applies to children any more than the right to decide about one's body does.

 

[Jayjay]

Blah fucking blah

You do bring up a few reasonable points, and if it weren't for the personal insults and misrepresentations you keep littering about, I might bother responding. But when you again bring up inane accusations of my being anti-muslim because I have criticized some "backwards muslim congregations" or oppose wahhabist mosques being built, it's clear that you are not interested in debating the topic but just mental masturbation over some personal vendetta.

Rewrite your post, clean out the insults and swear words, and I will reply. When you learn to make your points in a concise manner that discuss the topic and not the person, you will have better luck engaging with other people.

 

[barbos]

Islamic brainwashing starts at childhood too.

Ok, I'm listening. Where are you going with this?

What exactly you want to hear?

Remember that I'm a liberal. I'm for radical free expression. I don't want limits to free speech. So I'd be against preventing parents teaching their kids Islam. As long as they stay away from chopping bits off their cocks, I'm good.

What does brainwashing have to do with free speech?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Even if we were to accept the premise that most women who wear burkas have them forced upon them (Which you never even tried to prove by the way,) that is a familial concern and is no different than a conservative christian father forcing his daughter to wear her skirts at a certain length. Not only is it not the government's business, but given the egalitarian empowerment that a western education and western opportunity brings to immigrant women, there's no reason to say that I am unfair in saying that the expectation is on the girl to move out and make her own way in the world, away from her husband or father should she find their demands untenable. This isn't Saudi Arabia where she can't leave home because where else would she go. Women's shelters, Various help hotlines, comprehensive social welfare, as well as an omnipresent culture of sexual equality where people are expected to respect one another and treat each other fairly all work in their favor.

So it all sounds to me like your problem is one of domestic 'abuse' which isn't solved just by banning a damned hat. Not that it matters since this is all just a pretext for taking someone's rights away.

Of course banning a hat won't solve the entire problem, but if it has a chance of helping even a little bit or sending a message as to what is acceptable in a civilized society, then it might be worth trying. Along with a lot of other small things that nudge the society into the right direction. What am saying here is to keep some common sense perspective when tossing around hyperbole like "taking someone's rights away".

War, overpopulation, climate change = Huge global problems.
Crime, inequality, poverty = Big problems in some parts of the world.
Mysogynistic religions oppressing women = Significant problems for some sub-cultures and countries.
Banning a hat = A "problem" so fucking irrelevant that I don't see why I'm even bothering to argue about it.

Fuck I hate this attitude. Why do you need the help of cops and lawyers to "send a message"? Can't you do that in a blog or something? Laws and an extremely blunt instrument with which to control people.

And it opens the door to fascism. Ie the majority trying to bash their views and values into the heads of any minority. If your arguments aren't working something is wrong with the arguments. Work on them instead. Instead of ramming down your views in other people's throats violently (with the help of the cops).

And there's also the issue of gender here. Why is the first cause of action against any group to condemn the women? Why not ban beards? Don't they "hide the face" of men?

But you have excellently high-lighted why this is so pathetic. We should have something better to do with our days that banning hats.

 

[barbos]

Ok, I'm listening. Where are you going with this?

Remember that I'm a liberal. I'm for radical free expression. I don't want limits to free speech. So I'd be against preventing parents teaching their kids Islam. As long as they stay away from chopping bits off their cocks, I'm good.

I think the footbinding analogy was great. People's personalities and intellectual capabilities form in childhood, and parents who neglect their children can ruin their lives as much as mauling their bodies. I don't think freedom of speech applies to children any more than the right to decide about one's body does.

Yes, brain is an organ too.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ok, I'm listening. Where are you going with this?

Remember that I'm a liberal. I'm for radical free expression. I don't want limits to free speech. So I'd be against preventing parents teaching their kids Islam. As long as they stay away from chopping bits off their cocks, I'm good.

I think the footbinding analogy was great. People's personalities and intellectual capabilities form in childhood, and parents who neglect their children can ruin their lives as much as mauling their bodies. I don't think freedom of speech applies to children any more than the right to decide about one's body does.

So your solution is what? Taking children away from all parents and raising them in secular orphanages where they're taught to think critically? It's not an option taking children away from these parents. Instead of starting a war against them, how about inviting them in? That's how you change people and that will be the only way we'll ever reach these children.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, I'm listening. Where are you going with this?

What exactly you want to hear?

Remember that I'm a liberal. I'm for radical free expression. I don't want limits to free speech. So I'd be against preventing parents teaching their kids Islam. As long as they stay away from chopping bits off their cocks, I'm good.

What does brainwashing have to do with free speech?

Who gets to decide when it's education and when it's brainwashing?

 

[Jayjay]

Right, see, this is exactly what I mean. Considering Germany to be a group of "diverse" cultures. The narcism of small differences. I'm sure there are regional cultural differences in Germany, but it is madness to say that South Germany and North Germany "do no have that much in common culturally."

Aha... ok... yeah get it. I agree. I was talking about that they aren't exactly the same culture. Yes, small differences.

I've worked with managing diverse teams from all over the world. My experiences is that cultural differences between all cultures aren't that big. Once you figure out how they work.

I think that European cultures being more insular among themselves has led to this. There isn't (yet) any European identity the same way there is an American identity for example. It's little fiefdoms fighting among each other and each thinking they are the best. In recent years this has manifested more as friendly competition rather than outright war. When minute differences between the Germans and the French or Swedes and Finns is exaggerated due to national pride, dropping in a few people from cultures that share none of the common history is like an atom bomb to many. This has led to a guttural reaction of extreme nationalism for some, and extreme multiculturalism in others. Both are harmful, what I think is best is just pragmatic measures and incentives that help everyone get along and meld into a bigger "European/Western" cultural sphere.

Europe is a few hundred years or so behing USA in this.

 

[barbos]

I think the footbinding analogy was great. People's personalities and intellectual capabilities form in childhood, and parents who neglect their children can ruin their lives as much as mauling their bodies. I don't think freedom of speech applies to children any more than the right to decide about one's body does.

So your solution is what? Taking children away from all parents and raising them in secular orphanages where they're taught to think critically? It's not an option taking children away from these parents. Instead of starting a war against them, how about inviting them in? That's how you change people and that will be the only way we'll ever reach these children.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, I'm listening. Where are you going with this?

What exactly you want to hear?

Remember that I'm a liberal. I'm for radical free expression. I don't want limits to free speech. So I'd be against preventing parents teaching their kids Islam. As long as they stay away from chopping bits off their cocks, I'm good.

What does brainwashing have to do with free speech?

Who gets to decide when it's education and when it's brainwashing?

Accredited services.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think that European cultures being more insular among themselves has led to this. There isn't (yet) any European identity the same way there is an American identity for example. It's little fiefdoms fighting among each other and each thinking they are the best. In recent years this has manifested more as friendly competition rather than outright war. When minute differences between the Germans and the French or Swedes and Finns is exaggerated due to national pride, dropping in a few people from cultures that share none of the common history is like an atom bomb to many. This has led to a guttural reaction of extreme nationalism for some, and extreme multiculturalism in others. Both are harmful, what I think is best is just pragmatic measures and incentives that help everyone get along and meld into a bigger "European/Western" cultural sphere.

Europe is a few hundred years or so behing USA in this.

I think you're absurdly simplistic. The last 500 years any social change has originated in Amsterdam, London or Paris and has then spread outward (to the rest of the world). USA has been behind the curve since always. Just look at when various liberal laws get passed. USA is always way behind the progressive trailblazers. The latest one being gay marriage. To a European that American debate looked stupid because it was out of date. We in Europe had already moved on quite a bit from that. Just pick anything and look at which countries it was instituted first. USA has never been the first for anything. At best they've been early adapters of things that happened elsewhere. Or you can look up European philosophers who gave a shit about the American revolution. At most a mention. Why? Because philosophers focus on the new trends. Not the guys catching up.

It's the same deal with nationalism. Like it or not, nationalism has been on the decline in Europe for the last hundred years. Ie European identity. It peaked just before the First world war and then has lived a fading existence. I'm not saying Europe isn't nationalistic. But it's nowhere near as nationalistic today as it used to be. Identity is a lot more complicated today in Europe. I'm sure USA will catch on eventually....as they do with everything else out of Western Europe.

 

[Jayjay]

Of course banning a hat won't solve the entire problem, but if it has a chance of helping even a little bit or sending a message as to what is acceptable in a civilized society, then it might be worth trying. Along with a lot of other small things that nudge the society into the right direction. What am saying here is to keep some common sense perspective when tossing around hyperbole like "taking someone's rights away".

War, overpopulation, climate change = Huge global problems.
Crime, inequality, poverty = Big problems in some parts of the world.
Mysogynistic religions oppressing women = Significant problems for some sub-cultures and countries.
Banning a hat = A "problem" so fucking irrelevant that I don't see why I'm even bothering to argue about it.

Fuck I hate this attitude. Why do you need the help of cops and lawyers to "send a message"? Can't you do that in a blog or something? Laws and an extremely blunt instrument with which to control people.

And it opens the door to fascism. Ie the majority trying to bash their views and values into the heads of any minority. If your arguments aren't working something is wrong with the arguments. Work on them instead. Instead of ramming down your views in other people's throats violently (with the help of the cops).

And there's also the issue of gender here. Why is the first cause of action against any group to condemn the women? Why not ban beards? Don't they "hide the face" of men?

But you have excellently high-lighted why this is so pathetic. We should have something better to do with our days that banning hats.

Again, it's not about condemning women, but condemning a practice that involves more than just the individual. Why is it hard to see that an apparent "ban" on a repressive practice can have ultimately good consequences? We ban people from selling their votes in elections, because overall it is better to have everyone vote for themselves rather than let them exercise their freedom of enterprise. We also ban selling toys made of poisonous materials even if they were accurately labeled and cheaper. We ban consensual sexual relations between adults and teenagers at arbitrary age boundaries.

Modern society is all about millions of little compromises so that humans who are biologically and psychologically ill-equipped to live in groups of millions can get along somewhat acceptably - not perfectly.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Again, it's not about condemning women, but condemning a practice that involves more than just the individual. Why is it hard to see that an apparent "ban" on a repressive practice can have ultimately good consequences?

So women who freely chose to wear a burkha are oppressing themselves somehow? Why not ban all clothes for women completely while we're at it? Can't be more free than that now can they?

We ban people from selling their votes in elections, because overall it is better to have everyone vote for themselves rather than let them exercise their freedom of enterprise.

Because democracy. I fail to see how democracy breaks if we refrain from instituting a fashion police.

We also ban selling toys made of poisonous materials even if they were accurately labeled and cheaper.

A way easier domain to regulate.

We ban consensual sexual relations between adults and teenagers at arbitrary age boundaries.

Not remotely analogous.

Modern society is all about millions of little compromises so that humans who are biologically and psychologically ill-equipped to live in groups of millions can get along somewhat acceptably - not perfectly.

Did you just say that grown women are a biologically and psychologically ill-equipped to make adult decisions about what to wear?

 

[RavenSky]

...Some women do embrace the burqa or hijab or a host of other culturally or religiously dictated articles of clothing. I actually see the utility: it is truly obnoxious to have men ogle you, cat call you, and much, much worse. Being anonymous has its charms.

I think a much better idea would be to force men to behave decently and respectfully in public so that women do not feel they need to hide themselves to try to avoid the abuse. And it is abuse. It's intended to objectify, to remind women that they are vulnerable, to control.

You comment reminded me of this from a recent article in the Miami NewTimes. The author wore a hijab to Art Basel:

Meanwhile, men ignored me — not in a rude way; it was more like the presence of the hijab took me off the radar of men who size up every woman they see according to whether they'd hit that or not.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/arts/i...and-you-should-wear-one-this-saturday-8978026

 

[RavenSky]

The problem I have is that the logical conclusion here is to ban any kind of headware that conceals one's identity. Scarves? You're out. Sunglasses? Gone. Hoods of any kind? See yah.

What is specific to burkas that makes it necessary to legislate them so strictly that isn't specific to other forms of apparel which could be just as effective at hiding your face? (Other than burkas being predominantly worn by muslims of course. Because that would be rather prejudiced I must say.)

At the end of the day, the needless harm this does to a minority group is just a tertiary concern for me. The bigger concern is how this sort of thinking can serve as a vector that allows the state superfluous control over what I can and cannot wear.

well said

 

[barbos]

You comment reminded me of this from a recent article in the Miami NewTimes. The author wore a hijab to Art Basel:

Meanwhile, men ignored me — not in a rude way; it was more like the presence of the hijab took me off the radar of men who size up every woman they see according to whether they'd hit that or not.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/arts/i...and-you-should-wear-one-this-saturday-8978026

Wearing makeup kinda defeat the whole intent, don't you think?

 

[barbos]

The problem I have is that the logical conclusion here is to ban any kind of headware that conceals one's identity. Scarves? You're out. Sunglasses? Gone. Hoods of any kind? See yah.

What is specific to burkas that makes it necessary to legislate them so strictly that isn't specific to other forms of apparel which could be just as effective at hiding your face? (Other than burkas being predominantly worn by muslims of course. Because that would be rather prejudiced I must say.)

At the end of the day, the needless harm this does to a minority group is just a tertiary concern for me. The bigger concern is how this sort of thinking can serve as a vector that allows the state superfluous control over what I can and cannot wear.

well said

Do you even know what burka is?

 

[iolo]

Folk customs are just different in the Middle East. I recall going on an anti-invade-Iraq demo, and we were held up for hours because most of the Muslim men were far too 'modest' to use the urinals (so none of us could comment on whether they had reason to be modest as they queued up in vast numbers for the sit-me-downs). Here, people wear dark sun-glasses when there is no sun and nuns dress up rather like Middle-Eastern women, many of them, because they prefer to see without being seen. Apart from headscarves (and when I was a kid all women wore those, the protect their 'perms' for Saturday night} most of the women-dressing-up to hide their faces has dropped out, except amongst those who are new to the religion, who, like supporters of the Oxford Movement in Nineteenth Century Britain, heavily over-do the 'shocking' element because it gives them a kick. I think 'the West' should grow up and just get on with living normally without reacting like Pavlov dogs to the sight of something a bit different.

 

[Jayjay]

So women who freely chose to wear a burkha are oppressing themselves somehow? Why not ban all clothes for women completely while we're at it? Can't be more free than that now can they?

Why do you keep bringing up women? I already said that any such dress code or restriction should apply equally to both sexes, nobody is saying that only women should dress a certain way.

You probably meant banning clothes is some sort of reductio ad absurdum, there are situations where being complete naked is expected. The showers and saunas in public swimming pools for example. But as long as everyone is going naked, nobody is blamed for immodesty, and it works out just fine.

We ban people from selling their votes in elections, because overall it is better to have everyone vote for themselves rather than let them exercise their freedom of enterprise.

Because democracy. I fail to see how democracy breaks if we refrain from instituting a fashion police.

Democracy is just one value out of many. When we start thnking in terms of absolutes and forget that the world is in fact a sea of competing interests and values, it becomes clear that we can't help but make compromises between various freedoms and responsibilities.

We also ban selling toys made of poisonous materials even if they were accurately labeled and cheaper.

A way easier domain to regulate.

We ban consensual sexual relations between adults and teenagers at arbitrary age boundaries.

Not remotely analogous.

Some domains are easier to regulate than others. And the statutory rape analogy was to highlight, that rules that society have do not necessarily take into account individual capabilities. We have set an arbitrary age limit for sex, drinking, and driving, even if biologically one's brains don't change one bit when you turn 16 or 17 or 18. As a society we just thought that it is better to have some arbitray boundary, than no boundary at all. The minor harm of 17 and a half year old dating an 18 year olds is ignored in favor of avoiding the bigger harm of systemic abuse of minors for sex. This is very much indeed analogous to banning burqas or niqabs for some in order to avoid the bigger harm of systemic oppression in cultures where these clothes are used as means to dehumanize women.

Modern society is all about millions of little compromises so that humans who are biologically and psychologically ill-equipped to live in groups of millions can get along somewhat acceptably - not perfectly.

Did you just say that grown women are a biologically and psychologically ill-equipped to make adult decisions about what to wear?

No.

 

[LordKiran]

Even if we were to accept the premise that most women who wear burkas have them forced upon them (Which you never even tried to prove by the way,) that is a familial concern and is no different than a conservative christian father forcing his daughter to wear her skirts at a certain length. Not only is it not the government's business, but given the egalitarian empowerment that a western education and western opportunity brings to immigrant women, there's no reason to say that I am unfair in saying that the expectation is on the girl to move out and make her own way in the world, away from her husband or father should she find their demands untenable. This isn't Saudi Arabia where she can't leave home because where else would she go. Women's shelters, Various help hotlines, comprehensive social welfare, as well as an omnipresent culture of sexual equality where people are expected to respect one another and treat each other fairly all work in their favor.

So it all sounds to me like your problem is one of domestic 'abuse' which isn't solved just by banning a damned hat. Not that it matters since this is all just a pretext for taking someone's rights away.

Of course banning a hat won't solve the entire problem, but if it has a chance of helping even a little bit or sending a message as to what is acceptable in a civilized society, then it might be worth trying. Along with a lot of other small things that nudge the society into the right direction. What am saying here is to keep some common sense perspective when tossing around hyperbole like "taking someone's rights away".

War, overpopulation, climate change = Huge global problems.
Crime, inequality, poverty = Big problems in some parts of the world.
Mysogynistic religions oppressing women = Significant problems for some sub-cultures and countries.
Banning a hat = A "problem" so fucking irrelevant that I don't see why I'm even bothering to argue about it.

Because it sets a precedent that the gov can ban articles of clothing. A precedent that should be headed off at every turn.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why do you keep bringing up women? I already said that any such dress code or restriction should apply equally to both sexes, nobody is saying that only women should dress a certain way.

I don't follow you? How would banning burkhas impact how men dress?

You probably meant banning clothes is some sort of reductio ad absurdum.

My point is that trying to increase freedom by banning stuff you can wear isn't increasing freedom.

This is very much indeed analogous to banning burqas or niqabs for some in order to avoid the bigger harm of systemic oppression in cultures where these clothes are used as means to dehumanize women.

So allowing women to dress themselves dehumanizes them?

Modern society is all about millions of little compromises so that humans who are biologically and psychologically ill-equipped to live in groups of millions can get along somewhat acceptably - not perfectly.

Did you just say that grown women are a biologically and psychologically ill-equipped to make adult decisions about what to wear?

No.

Ok. I'm listening. Why does that not follow from what you're saying?

 

[LordKiran]

Fuck I hate this attitude. Why do you need the help of cops and lawyers to "send a message"? Can't you do that in a blog or something? Laws and an extremely blunt instrument with which to control people.

And it opens the door to fascism. Ie the majority trying to bash their views and values into the heads of any minority. If your arguments aren't working something is wrong with the arguments. Work on them instead. Instead of ramming down your views in other people's throats violently (with the help of the cops).

And there's also the issue of gender here. Why is the first cause of action against any group to condemn the women? Why not ban beards? Don't they "hide the face" of men?

But you have excellently high-lighted why this is so pathetic. We should have something better to do with our days that banning hats.

Again, it's not about condemning women, but condemning a practice that involves more than just the individual. Why is it hard to see that an apparent "ban" on a repressive practice can have ultimately good consequences? We ban people from selling their votes in elections, because overall it is better to have everyone vote for themselves rather than let them exercise their freedom of enterprise. We also ban selling toys made of poisonous materials even if they were accurately labeled and cheaper. We ban consensual sexual relations between adults and teenagers at arbitrary age boundaries.

Modern society is all about millions of little compromises so that humans who are biologically and psychologically ill-equipped to live in groups of millions can get along somewhat acceptably - not perfectly.

And you base this sweeping generalization with wide and far reaching implications onnnnnn...?

Also we don't 'ban' people selling their votes. They just can't because bribery in general is illegal.