Angela Merkel wants to ban the burka?

[barbos]

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

Duh, they would not be able to dress in burkhas.

 

[Toni]

So, you think that legislation telling women what they can and cannot wear....empowers them?

Seriously, dude.

It does not tell women what they can't wear, as much as it tells men what they can't force their wives or daughters to wear. And yes, that empowers women who are otherwise disadvantaged.

No, banning any article of clothing or symbol is telling the potential wearers of that clothing or symbol what they can or cannot wear. It is not limiting those who wish to force women to wear a burqa. It is forcing women to choose whether to be beaten or worse for not wearing a burqa or being arrested for wearing one.

 

[barbos]

It does not tell women what they can't wear, as much as it tells men what they can't force their wives or daughters to wear. And yes, that empowers women who are otherwise disadvantaged.

No, banning any article of clothing or symbol is telling the potential wearers of that clothing or symbol what they can or cannot wear. It is not limiting those who wish to force women to wear a burqa. It is forcing women to choose whether to be beaten or worse for not wearing a burqa or being arrested for wearing one.

At least you admit that women don't generally want to wear bags over their heads.
Women have a third choice - they can report these men.

 

[Toni]

No, banning any article of clothing or symbol is telling the potential wearers of that clothing or symbol what they can or cannot wear. It is not limiting those who wish to force women to wear a burqa. It is forcing women to choose whether to be beaten or worse for not wearing a burqa or being arrested for wearing one.

At least you admit that women don't generally want to wear bags over their heads.
Women have a third choice - they can report these men.

Well, no they can't. I suppose that the authorities would probably be called if a woman were beaten severely enough that she had to be hospitalized and perhaps she would be still able to speak and not too terrified of what would happen to her or her daughters at home if she did. And if she died, there would probably be an arrest and a trial and since he's muslim, probably a conviction. Seems a mighty high price to pay.

And yes, some women do wish to wear burqa or hijab. Why shouldn't they?

Again: WHY is it that women are being told what they can and cannot wear?

 

[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.

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

That's a  Slippery_slope fallacy. Besides some articles of clothing are already banned in Germany.

 

[Jayjay]

It does not tell women what they can't wear, as much as it tells men what they can't force their wives or daughters to wear. And yes, that empowers women who are otherwise disadvantaged.

No, banning any article of clothing or symbol is telling the potential wearers of that clothing or symbol what they can or cannot wear. It is not limiting those who wish to force women to wear a burqa. It is forcing women to choose whether to be beaten or worse for not wearing a burqa or being arrested for wearing one.

Why would they beat them up for merely observing the law? Or knowingly send them to be arrested? Who's going to take care of the kids and do the shopping and the housework for them then? It makes no sense. The whole idea is that by removing the choice, the women who would already not want to be confined in the damn things get an excuse not to wear them - because it's the law.

 

[laughing dog]

No, banning any article of clothing or symbol is telling the potential wearers of that clothing or symbol what they can or cannot wear. It is not limiting those who wish to force women to wear a burqa. It is forcing women to choose whether to be beaten or worse for not wearing a burqa or being arrested for wearing one.

At least you admit that women don't generally want to wear bags over their heads.

What does that have to do with telling women what they can and cannot wear? If forcing women to wear something is wrong so is forcing women who wish to wear something to not wear it is also wrong.

Women have a third choice - they can report these men.

Just like posters always have the choice to refrain from posting pointless or idiotic responses. But for some reason, they don't.

 

[barbos]

At least you admit that women don't generally want to wear bags over their heads.
Women have a third choice - they can report these men.

Well, no they can't. I suppose that the authorities would probably be called if a woman were beaten severely enough that she had to be hospitalized and perhaps she would be still able to speak and not too terrified of what would happen to her or her daughters at home if she did. And if she died, there would probably be an arrest and a trial and since he's muslim, probably a conviction. Seems a mighty high price to pay.

So your solution to the problem is to give up.

And yes, some women do wish to wear burqa or hijab. Why shouldn't they?

The ones who were brainwashed maybe.

Again: WHY is it that women are being told what they can and cannot wear?

Exactly, why are they being told to wear bag over their heads?

 

[LordKiran]

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

That's a  Slippery_slope fallacy. Besides some articles of clothing are already banned in Germany.

No, a fallacious use of a slippery slope would be if there was no clear logical reasoning between the action and my given consequence "If we let gays marry, next we'll have marriages between men and dogs!"

There is a clear rational that can be followed in "If we let you ban one article of clothing, that gives you or others the room and justification to ban other articles of clothing." It also acknowledges the possibility that it may not happen. I'm not saying you WILL start banning other articles of clothing, only that you create an environment where such bans are now possible where they wouldn't have been otherwise.

You should really read that wiki article because it clearly shows that my statement is not fallacious.

Also this is for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

 

[DrZoidberg]

We've already got laws that prevent force or threats against spouses or children. These laws protect against forceful burkha-wearing.

The only thing that a burkha ban adds is preventing women who freely want to wear them from wearing them. Which is idiotic.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

I was referring to the difficulty of proving who or what you voted for. It makes the transaction of vote buying unreliable and inefficient. The laws that explicity forbid vote buying are just an extra insurance. Besides the general laws against bribery have nothing to do with vote buying because an individual voter is not representing the government, only himself.

 

[laughing dog]

Well, no they can't. I suppose that the authorities would probably be called if a woman were beaten severely enough that she had to be hospitalized and perhaps she would be still able to speak and not too terrified of what would happen to her or her daughters at home if she did. And if she died, there would probably be an arrest and a trial and since he's muslim, probably a conviction. Seems a mighty high price to pay.

And yes, some women do wish to wear burqa or hijab. Why shouldn't they?

Again: WHY is it that women are being told what they can and cannot wear?

So your solution to the problem is to give up.

That is as idiotic as straw man as claiming your solution is to oppress women even more.

 

[LordKiran]

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.

I was referring to the difficulty of proving who or what you voted for. It makes the transaction of vote buying unreliable and inefficient. The laws that explicity forbid vote buying are just an extra insurance. Besides the general laws against bribery have nothing to do with vote buying because an individual voter is not representing the government, only himself.

I would argue that the consequence of living in a representative democracy means that anyone who votes is a member of the government by association but that's a topic for another day perhaps.

 

[Jayjay]

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?

We are ill-equipped to live in groups of millions when all our instincts come from time when we were living in small tribes where everyone knows each other and is likely related to each other. We are subject to social pressures from our own "tribes", and sometimes those pressures might victimize you into thinking you are a lesser human. Forcing one to wear distinctive and restrictive clothing is one such method of oppression, to be blunt a form of brainwashing. It's not that the women being victimized are any less mentally capable to decide what to wear, it's a situation where they have been forced into.

 

[Jayjay]

I was referring to the difficulty of proving who or what you voted for. It makes the transaction of vote buying unreliable and inefficient. The laws that explicity forbid vote buying are just an extra insurance. Besides the general laws against bribery have nothing to do with vote buying because an individual voter is not representing the government, only himself.

I would argue that the consequence of living in a representative democracy means that anyone who votes is a member of the government by association but that's a topic for another day perhaps.

Morally I tend to agree, my point was more a detail of legal technicality. Bribery laws are usually written explicitly to apply to people who have some official position of power and I just can't see them being applied to vote buying.

 

[Toni]

No, banning any article of clothing or symbol is telling the potential wearers of that clothing or symbol what they can or cannot wear. It is not limiting those who wish to force women to wear a burqa. It is forcing women to choose whether to be beaten or worse for not wearing a burqa or being arrested for wearing one.

Why would they beat them up for merely observing the law? Or knowingly send them to be arrested? Who's going to take care of the kids and do the shopping and the housework for them then? It makes no sense. The whole idea is that by removing the choice, the women who would already not want to be confined in the damn things get an excuse not to wear them - because it's the law.

Because it violates the religious law that some men believe compels women to cover themselves.

Plus it is a way to control women. Just like laws banning burqas, jihab, and other religious clothing or jewelry is.

 

[barbos]

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



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?

We are ill-equipped to live in groups of millions when all our instincts come from time when we were living in small tribes where everyone knows each other and is likely related to each other. We are subject to social pressures from our own "tribes", and sometimes those pressures might victimize you into thinking you are a lesser human. Forcing one to wear distinctive and restrictive clothing is one such method of oppression, to be blunt a form of brainwashing. It's not that the women being victimized are any less mentally capable to decide what to wear, it's a situation where they have been forced into.

I agree. And government should and actually does have a role in protecting people from their own tribe whether they like it or not. We can't let family size mini-caliphates with their own laws happen.

 

[barbos]

Why would they beat them up for merely observing the law? Or knowingly send them to be arrested? Who's going to take care of the kids and do the shopping and the housework for them then? It makes no sense. The whole idea is that by removing the choice, the women who would already not want to be confined in the damn things get an excuse not to wear them - because it's the law.

Because it violates the religious law that some men believe compels women to cover themselves.

Then these some men should be isolated from society, problem solved.

 

[Toni]

Because it violates the religious law that some men believe compels women to cover themselves.

Then these some men should be isolated from society, problem solved.

Why?

What problem does it solve?

Does it create other problems?

Why is outlawing the burqa a reasonable solution to anything? What problem does it try to alleviate? Does it create other problems? For whom? Are these problems worse than the ones the law is purportedly trying to solve?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Christian can only impose until she's 18. The Muslim culture imposes it for life.

Not in the west it doesn't. Now if a woman chooses to beholden herself to her cultural heritage then that is her business. It is not for the state to "Save her from her own choices."

In the areas with lots of radical Muslims she puts her safety at risk by not wearing the burqa.