Angela Merkel wants to ban the burka?

[DrZoidberg]

The burka should be banned in all instances where wearing a ski mask would be prohibited. Otherwise, the state should not intrude in personal or religious choice of dress.

That's an excellent point. People actually use ski masks when they're skiing. Germany is right next to the alps. How are they planing on dealing with that issue? Muslim women could just start walking around with ski masks then. Which would make Merkel look like an idiot. Also the Muslim women. But not as much as Merkel.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The burka should be banned in all instances where wearing a ski mask would be prohibited. Otherwise, the state should not intrude in personal or religious choice of dress.

That's an excellent point. People actually use ski masks when they're skiing. Germany is right next to the alps. How are they planing on dealing with that issue? Muslim women could just start walking around with ski masks then. Which would make Merkel look like an idiot. Also the Muslim women. But not as much as Merkel.

If I were them, I'd rob a few banks while I was doing that. You know, just to confuse my supporters about whether or not they should be on my side.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fuck your sensationalist agitprop. The only people dismantling free society are people like you, and the others in this thread who think it's their prerogative to take away other peoples' right to free speech when they've decided it's crossed the line.

I think your views on a number of issues are fucking repugnant, and that western society in general would be vastly improved if you and those who think like you do fucked off and created your own little bantustan of bigotry. But I would never support the government forcing you to do so, because I'm not an authoritarian asshat, and I understand how free society functions.

The problem is we are in a de-facto state of war with radical Islam. The free speech you support is in support of the enemy. In other words, a low-grade treason.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At certain times the Islamic world has been the height of civilization, Christendom the depths of barbarism. Colonialism and the like have bad effects on people, as do ludicrous bully-boy rulers. Trump should see America out of the civilized world in double-quick time, since he has never heard of civilization, the thick bugger.

At times Islam has been the height of civilization but not these days.

At times Christianity has been as vile as Islam is now.

However, we live now, not in the past. I judge them on their current behavior.

 

[RavenSky]

The free speech you support is in support of the enemy. In other words, a low-grade treason.

Bullshit.

And I judge you on your current behavior.

Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of banning the burqa without either one being a traitor. This is one topic where there is a lot of nuance, and a lot of principles to consider - not just free speech.

That you would attempt to use this sort of rhetoric to silence someone you disagree with says a lot about you... all of it bad.

 

[laughing dog]

The free speech you support is in support of the enemy. In other words, a low-grade treason.

Bullshit.

And I judge you on your current behavior.

Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of banning the burqa without either one being a traitor. This is one topic where there is a lot of nuance, and a lot of principles to consider - not just free speech.

That you would attempt to use this sort of rhetoric to silence someone you disagree with says a lot about you... all of it bad.

Yeah, that response is truly revealing. 1st, for an self-proclaimed "moderate libertarian" to advocate limiting speech is fascinating. 2nd, the burka ban is overkill - making it illegal to force anyone to wear clothes in the personal life (not professional life)should be sufficient. 3rd, if LP is serious, then by his own "logic" he is also guilty of low grade treason, since our enemies are also against free speech and he is supporting their agenda.

The real problem is fear which makes people say and do incredibly stupid things.

 

[whichphilosophy]

At certain times the Islamic world has been the height of civilization, Christendom the depths of barbarism. Colonialism and the like have bad effects on people, as do ludicrous bully-boy rulers. Trump should see America out of the civilized world in double-quick time, since he has never heard of civilization, the thick bugger.

At times Islam has been the height of civilization but not these days.

At times Christianity has been as vile as Islam is now.

However, we live now, not in the past. I judge them on their current behavior.

Most are very well behaved so we can judge that they are generally peaceful apart from a few noisy ones.

 

[J842P]

Fuck your sensationalist agitprop. The only people dismantling free society are people like you, and the others in this thread who think it's their prerogative to take away other peoples' right to free speech when they've decided it's crossed the line.

I think your views on a number of issues are fucking repugnant, and that western society in general would be vastly improved if you and those who think like you do fucked off and created your own little bantustan of bigotry. But I would never support the government forcing you to do so, because I'm not an authoritarian asshat, and I understand how free society functions.

The problem is we are in a de-facto state of war with radical Islam. The free speech you support is in support of the enemy. In other words, a low-grade treason.

This is a load of nonsense.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Fuck your sensationalist agitprop. The only people dismantling free society are people like you, and the others in this thread who think it's their prerogative to take away other peoples' right to free speech when they've decided it's crossed the line.

I think your views on a number of issues are fucking repugnant, and that western society in general would be vastly improved if you and those who think like you do fucked off and created your own little bantustan of bigotry. But I would never support the government forcing you to do so, because I'm not an authoritarian asshat, and I understand how free society functions.

The problem is we are in a de-facto state of war with radical Islam. The free speech you support is in support of the enemy. In other words, a low-grade treason.

That's ridiculous. Islam is abused in a couple of corners of the world to facilitate fascist dictators to cling to power. That's all that is happening.

Most Muslims are of course NOT at war with the west. How about taking off your time foil hat. A handful of terrorists now and again does not make a war.

 

[Bomb#20]

I responded to
“Hey what if their families decide to move back to Saudi Arabia or wherever they came from as a result of this? I mean if we've already established that the state has an interest in protecting people from their own decisions then does the state have a right to make sure the woman stays here?”
The “why stop there” was obviously in reference to the quote I was referring to (which was not from LP). So that had nothing to do whatsoever with LP at all.
As to the state putting down animals for their misbehavior quote - that is a logical extension from the sentiment in the statement I quoted.

Oh for the love of god. You're not fooling anyone.

The "why stop there" was obviously in reference to the LK quote you were referring to, which was itself referring to a quote from LP. LK proposed that restricting people from moving back to Saudi Arabia was a logical extension of LP's argument. When B is a logical extension of A, and C is a logical extension of B, that means C is a logical extension of A. Duh! You were obviously not saying "why stop there" as a criticism of LK -- you knew as well as the rest of us that LK was not proposing banning emigration. LK was criticizing LP, and you were piling on. You were claiming putting down Muslim men was also a "logical extension" of the same idea LK had offered a logical extension of. So for you to now claim your post "had nothing to do whatsoever with LP at all" is beyond ludicrous. Only an idiot would take your word for that. You acted like a jerk, and now you're trying to cover it up.

I did not say that was Loren’s position that Muslims should be put down. If I had meant that, I would have written it.

Nobody said you said his position was that they should be put down. What you implied was that that was a logical extension of his position. But, unlike the logical extension LK proposed, the one you proposed was not in fact a logical extension of LP's position. (Or of LK's, for that matter.) The extension you proposed was an illogical extension. For it to have been a logical extension, LP's position would have to have been that Muslim men are animals. So that is what you were implying LP's position was. You did that with malice and with reckless disregard for the truth. Go crawl back under your rock.

 

[Bomb#20]

As an ex Muslim who hates Islam more than any other religion, I find the idea of banning the burqa, or any otherpiece of clothing, to be pretty reprehensible. Wearing the burqa doesn't harm anyone so why ban it?

Earlier in the thread, the user Bomb #20 brought up the idea that objecting to a burqa ban means you have to object to a minimum wage. (Sorry, I'm a newbie at this stuff so I don't know the proper procedure for quoting and all that.)

Hi, welcome to the forum, and congratulations on being independent-thinking enough -- and courageous enough -- to walk away from that police-state of the mind.

You can quote people by simply clicking the "Reply With Quote" button instead of the "Reply" button. Then you can delete part of the quoted text if it's long and you only want to quote a piece of it.

Alternately, you can cut-and-paste from the post you're quoting, and then you write [ quote = person's name ] in front and [ / quote ] at the end of the quoted text. And do it without all the space characters I put in there to keep the software from thinking I was writing a quote, as opposed to showing you how to do one.

Anyway, back to the topic. No, I'm not saying objecting to a burqa ban means you have to object to a minimum wage. People can object to whatever they want in whatever combinations they want. I'm saying that if your argument for objecting to the burqa ban is that we have to respect people's decisions and the state has no right to tell people how to live their lives, well, that argument is an equally good argument against the minimum wage. So if you make that argument against a burqa ban but you aren't against the minimum wage, then either you really haven't thought through your opinions about other people's freedom, or else respecting people's decisions is just a rationalization and it isn't your real reason for objecting to the burqa ban.

But of course it's entirely consistent to object to a burqa ban but not object to the minimum wage if you have a different argument for not banning the burqa. For instance, if you think it shouldn't be banned because it's necessary for female modesty, or it shouldn't be banned because that would be giving your political enemies a victory, those reasons are perfectly compatible with supporting the minimum wage.

But anyways, the reason why we can prohibit working for under the minimum wage is because it does hurt other people ( businesses start expecting people to work for less and many can't afford to work for that little.) Wearing the burqa doesnt.

But it does. It hurts others for exactly the same reason working for under the minimum wage hurts others. Men who are conservative and misogynistic and are in positions of power within Muslim families are likely to react to seeing a lot of Muslim women in burqas exactly the same way self-interested employers react to seeing a lot of unskilled workers working for $3.00 an hour -- they'll start expecting the people they have power over to do the same. A woman who wears a burqa as a fashion statement or because she doesn't like men looking at her is helping to create a cultural environment in which some other woman will be pressured into wearing one, every bit as much as a guy who takes a sub-minimum-wage job is helping create a cultural environment in which some other worker will be pressured into working as cheaply.

But you have to respect people's decisions to wear what they want (again, as long as it doesn't bring harm to anyone else.) Even if you think they're making the wrong decision or hurting themselves. Because otherwise you start banning people for smoking weed, or playing too many video games. All because "it's for their own good."

It is way, way too late to start banning people for their own good from doing things. We've been doing that for, well, pretty much forever. Heck, we even ban people from riding motorcycles without helmets when they're doing a great service for all the people on transplant waiting lists. Governments don't have to respect anything the public chooses not to make them respect. That's democracy.

 

[Warpoet]

The problem is we are in a de-facto state of war with radical Islam.

No we aren't. That's a delusion propagated by ideologues and xenophobes.

The free speech you support is in support of the enemy. In other words, a low-grade treason.

My inclination is to respond to this in a way that would surely lead to me being infracted. And you'd deserve it - but why should I bother? You so thoroughly discredit yourself by saying something this unimaginably stupid and hypocritical that any rebuttal on my part is overkill.

 

[iolo]

People always do this trick of assuming minorities never change, especially when it comes to the size of families: we all used to be horrified at the prospect of being swamped by Roman Catholic peasants from Ireland, ignorant and superstitious, but their descendants are not in any evident way different from the rest of the population, and they use birth control like everyone else. Advanced capitalism assimilates except when it is colonizing and driving into ignorant barbarism.

The cultural difference between Ireland and US are minuscule compared to the cultural differences between Europe and third world Islamic shitholes these mass migrants are coming from. Also, this is not regular migration but mass migration, and continuous mass migration because there is no indication it will ever stop unless Europe grows a pair and stops it. And mass migration has different dynamics in that the migrant population has no incentive to change if there is a constant and large influx of fresh migrants.

Irish migration was never sustained and never amounted to anything close to 1% of host countries' population per year. There was one million Islamic migrants in 2015 alone in Germany alone. That is more than 1% of the German population. Extrapolate that over a few years and count in huge Islamic birth rates and pretty soon there will be more Arabs, Pakistanis, Afghans and Africans in Germany than actual Germans. Even if these migrants were not coming from such backward cultures, it should be clear that these numbers of mass migrants make the native population into a minority. Taking in many millions of Asians and Africans each year means an end of Europe over the long run. Why is Europe allowing that in the name of political correctness?

Speaking of Africans, a number of them just violently broke into Spain.
Migrants break in to Spain's Ceuta enclave in North Africa

This Muslim woman on German state TV is saying openly that to be German now means having dark skin, wearing a hijab and being decedent from Islamic migrants and that being "blue eyed and blond" belongs to the past.

This is Islamic/Arab triumphalism already. And if anybody complains and wants to reduce the number of Islamic migrants, they are being prosecuted.

I wasn't talking about the USA, in which whole areas are below almost anywhere in civilization, but the UK, where certain areas were, during the Famine, swamped by very sick masses who didn't speak English and negotiated through priests in a Country that was then deeply anti-Roman-Catholic. That is why you still get orange organisations in Glasgow and Liverpool. Muslims, on the other hand, tend to be universally above the cultural level of American fundamentalists, who are totally backward peasants with no knowledge of the outside world at all. The Irish immigration to this country was very long sustained, and still goes on. I see little purpose, to be frank, in conducting discussions with people like you, who seem to speak out of total ignorance, though with obsessive spite and hate.

 

[iolo]

I think it was a lot worse - for the tiny, very rich minority who had benefitted from the free trade area. For the majority, it was almost certainly better, though you have to allow for the problems caused by plague, disruption, war (in some areas), and climate change, which probably caused a pretty big population-slump. The main point is that we lose the written record in most of the West, particularly in Britain, where confusion was hugely worse confounded in the racist Nineteenth Century reconstruction of 'the Dark Ages', and which, as bad luck would have it, was the great centre for history. What we had previously wasn't much better, however: it certainly didn't give a notion of what was happening for the majority.

We lost written records because written records are important to have if you have an empire to run. It's not as important if you don't. Which is why they stopped.

What happened in Britain was that the Vikings took over. And that was a highly civilized and organised group of people. They didn't write things down because they couldn't. The runic alphabet was sacred to them, and was only used for magical spells. Which was one of the reasons they Christianized. It was certainly handy to be able to keep records. So that explains why the records first started after Christianization. Doesn't make it a Dark Age. Viking culture was heavily consensus based. Similar to Greek democracy. Their kings were all elected. With non-hereditary kings. They had institutions to check their rulers and ineffective and weak kings were deposed. It happened many times. So we know the system worked. That led to dynamic and well run kingdoms. Something which the Roman British province certainly wasn't.

The Vikings took over only a part of England, and that after several centuries of pagan barbarian dominance, of which we know incredibly little, except that at least a hundred years of it was taken up in steady civil war, and the language changed, though Anglo-Saxon contains about thirty British forms which don't exist in other German dialects, indicating a British-speaking population (Latin was only a Sunday-best language in the provinces of Britannia). Literacy didn't die out in Britannia Prima but, alas, we have only random and not-very-relevant documentation such as Gildas. I don't doubt that things were better for the majority, since the British aristocracy almost certainly kept up Roman levels of exploitation, and 'barbarism' would have been hugely more attractive.

 

[iolo]

Your anecdotal examples are just anecdotal examples. I too had known some Middle East "muslim", he drank beer and stuff.

What's more, Syria before the West started supporting terrorists there, was a pretty forward-looking country, and no Saudi-Arabia.

Not quite so anymore, thanks to great foreign policy of US and EU.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't need to assume anything, I was asked to look at the past and make a prediction based on that. I did exactly that and I saw Dark fucking Ages after Roman Empire fell.

So, don't introduce slavery or pass laws forcing people to follow their father's trade; don't demand very big taxes that don't in any way benefit the taxpayer and, above all, don't have a military that is very well paid and able to set up whomever it chooses in government. mostof all, don't have an Empire that disarms vast numbers of people and prevents them fighting invaders. You are welcome to those lessons, but I fear they are not very relevant, and nor is an obsession with other people's religions, about which you know next to nothing. The Muslims I know are extremely British (other than those in Bradford who insist in sending 'home' for wives), and everything I read suggests that those in the States are even further forward.

Your anecdotal examples are just anecdotal examples. I too had known some Middle East "muslim", he drank beer and stuff.

What's more, Syria before the West started supporting terrorists there, was a pretty forward-looking country, and no Saudi-Arabia.

Not quite so anymore, thanks to great foreign policy of US and EU.

I suppose that experience and anecdote are different: yes, I have anecdotes about drinking with Muslims, but I have experience of Muslim students, even from Bradford, rather a lot of them, who were already pretty much where I stood on most issues, and I can't see that is just anecdote, because it continued over a number of years. Inevitably you get a reaction, often in the third generation, against assimilation (I had 'Irish' students whose father's were big deal officers in the British Army who learned Irish and went out to the West, but this has always been so - read up on Erskine Childers). In my own case, my parents were quite happy to give up our language, and I have devoted a great part of my life to learning to be a decent patriot). I found that the women Muslim students, in particular, were a great deal more forward-looking and feminist than most of their English contemporaries. I think any personal experience is inevitably limited, but most racist-type opinion is based on prejudice only. And incidentally, in Sarajevo, I have discussed alcohol with a Muslim waiter who was a lot more on the ball than my temperance great-aunts in their formidable Congregationalist masses.

France/Belgium has had few generations of muslims who now in a state of full de-integration, some of which went to Syria to join ISIS. I know french did a piss poor job of integrating them but even with that I still think it's ridiculous. Problem I think are shitholes like Saudi Arabia who send their mullahs everywhere. It's not that I am against of people migrating it's just this migration is so unnatural. People who move to other country should be willing to accept new culture at least to some degrees. Instead we see these assholes who were born in Europe and who openly harass natives. Oppressing women and treating them like baby making machines is not helping Europe in a long run at all.

Belgium, as you know, is an artificial state, and the antics of its politicians are hardly important. France is a country that has bullied its minorities since the Revolution, bullied them stupidly and unfailingly, and, like the 'States, kept them in poorly-paid employment and living in ghettoes. What has this to do with anything?

 

[laughing dog]

Oh for the love of god. You're not fooling anyone....

I know. You are fooling yourself. You drew an incorrect inference and had a meltdown. Even after being shown your inference is unjustified, you feel the need to continue to justify your meltdown with yet another meltdown. There is nothing shameful about making a mistake. But continually pointing it out with yet another meltdown is not recipe for success.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No we aren't. That's a delusion propagated by ideologues and xenophobes.

The free speech you support is in support of the enemy. In other words, a low-grade treason.

My inclination is to respond to this in a way that would surely lead to me being infracted. And you'd deserve it - but why should I bother? You so thoroughly discredit yourself by saying something this unimaginably stupid and hypocritical that any rebuttal on my part is overkill.

It's aiding the enemy in time of war.

 

[LordKiran]

No we aren't. That's a delusion propagated by ideologues and xenophobes.



My inclination is to respond to this in a way that would surely lead to me being infracted. And you'd deserve it - but why should I bother? You so thoroughly discredit yourself by saying something this unimaginably stupid and hypocritical that any rebuttal on my part is overkill.

It's aiding the enemy in time of war.

To my mind, the only enemy of liberty and democracy is authoritarianism and oppression.

 

[Warpoet]

To my mind, the only enemy of liberty and democracy is authoritarianism and oppression.

As it is in the view of all rational, intellectually honest observers who actually care about liberty, rather than just talking about it a lot. And the difference is that while such people find the views of Loren, and various other authoritarians in this thread and elsewhere who want to ban free speech because they've decided it serves the greater good to be abhorrent, we don't advocate depriving them of their right to voice said views, as vile and dangerous as they may be.

 

[RavenSky]

No we aren't. That's a delusion propagated by ideologues and xenophobes.



My inclination is to respond to this in a way that would surely lead to me being infracted. And you'd deserve it - but why should I bother? You so thoroughly discredit yourself by saying something this unimaginably stupid and hypocritical that any rebuttal on my part is overkill.

It's aiding the enemy in time of war.

Bullshit, and you are walking perilously close to name-calling another member, in my opinion. I suggest you drop this hyperbolic rhetoric you are directing at a specific member of this board, or I will be reporting your posts for review as to the board's TOU.

Keep in mind, this is a private board, not a governmental entity. "Freedom of Speech" doesn't apply if you are violating TOU.