Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smeeprocket]

It's not like the French went all anti-women, Smee. It's that they banned covering the face in public space as it hinders effective communication and facial recognition for security reasons.

America is hyper-obsessed with security and we don't even do that. We have a police state going on and we can still manage to let women conceal their faces if they want to.

It was a thinly veiled excuse to oppress Muslim women. Under the misguided belief that restrictive laws would force liberation on them.

[Sheb]

Well, Merkel was fecunded in murky circumstance about 25 years ago. She keeps the sperm in a special sack in her belly, and lays eggs under the Bundestag. The hatchlings are sorted, the fit ones are sent all over the country for adotptions while the others end up in currywurst.

And that's why they call her the Mutti.

[Sheb]

TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.

[Helgoland]

- Needless provocation -

Indeed, even our women are men!

Hey, where'd the post go?

aww, I wasn't even offended. I deserved it.

(how do germans breed, tho?)

The regular way. Our women have uteruses, they're just being manly about it.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

E: HOLY HELL SHEB! I'M LAUGHING MY ASS OFF AND CRAPPING MY PANTS AT THE SAME TIME!

[UXLZ]

TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.

It's interesting when people make an excuse that lies about their intention, but the excuse itself actually explains it logically and gives a good reason. Well, they probably shouldn't ban certain pieces of clothing anyway... Within reason, of course.

[Glowcat]

It's not even about intentions. People just rationalize things differently when they're being prejudiced, and accept ideas that would at best be weakly supported by evidence while in their heads minimizing the impact of harm they could do when going through with their actions.

[smeeprocket]

TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.

It's interesting when people make an excuse that lies about their intention, but the excuse itself actually explains it logically and gives a good reason. Well, they probably shouldn't ban certain pieces of clothing anyway... Within reason, of course.

it's not a good excuse, I seriously doubt any potential (obviously muslim oriented) threats would be prevented by harassing and oppressing muslim women.

I am aware that not every country has a right to free speech and religion written in its govt docs though.

The thing is, you don't liberate women by controlling them in a different direction. Control is Control. It's like women who talk about other women in a derogatory fashion because they choose to dress provocatively and be sexual. You should get to be able to do either of those if you want.

[UXLZ]

It's not even about intentions. People just rationalize things differently when they're being prejudiced, and accept ideas that would at best be weakly supported by evidence while in their heads minimizing the impact of harm they could do when going through with their actions.

Mmm... Seems likely enough. Unfortunately that also seems to be human nature. Quite hard to correct... Even I fall prey to it constantly, and I'm someone (who likes to believe) thinks about actions and repercussions more than most. At least, when I have the opportunity to. I can't remember what it was called, but I believe it's similar to the case where someone will rationalise things for themselves but not for others. If they're being rude, it's because 'they've had a bad day', but if someone else is being rude, it's because they're an asshole.

TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.

It's interesting when people make an excuse that lies about their intention, but the excuse itself actually explains it logically and gives a good reason. Well, they probably shouldn't ban certain pieces of clothing anyway... Within reason, of course.

it's not a good excuse, I seriously doubt any potential (obviously muslim oriented) threats would be prevented by harassing and oppressing muslim women.

I am aware that not every country has a right to free speech and religion written in its govt docs though.

The thing is, you don't liberate women by controlling them in a different direction. Control is Control. It's like women who talk about other women in a derogatory fashion because they choose to dress provocatively and be sexual. You should get to be able to do either of those if you want.

I'm not attempting to say I know what they're intention was, 'nor that I think that their actions were correct. I was merely noting that, under certain circumstances, allowing people to wear face-concealing clothing can be a security risk.

[Phmcw]

The other one asked me when black people were going to get over slavery.

Why'd the question floor you?

because at least some of the answers should be obvious. It's not like racism is never discussed. I mean, while I understand that as a white person,I can not fully grasp what a black person experiences day to day, but race has at least partly been talked about.

Things like higher rates of conviction, death penalty, much lower rate of employment for black men, institutionalized poverty...

It just blows my mind that he missed all of that during his entire life.

That's a pretty poor explaination, I'm not surprised that they are not convinced.

TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.

I won't complain about frobidding burka-style Islam. Moderate Islam no problem, but if your religion require women to cover up head to toe do that elsewhere.

[MonkeyHead]

IIRC, France has banned pretty much all forms of conspicuous religious clothing/symbols. You can criticize the law on a number of grounds, but lets not try and make out that it is about controlling anyone in particular.

[UXLZ]

I won't complain about frobidding burka-style Islam. Moderate Islam no problem, but if your religion require women to cover up head to toe do that elsewhere.

The unguided intention may be to 'liberate' these women but unfortunately it's not quite that simple. The fact of the matter that these women are freely choosing to wear that clothing of their own accord. Of course, if they're being coerced into it by other people it's another matter, but I don't think that's the case here. Changing things like this is done gently over time, not with a hamfisted shotgun blast to the knee caps.

[TD1]

Well, when a mommy's all alone, and the milkman visits when daddy isn't home...

Yeah, how do we breed?

I think somebody hasn't had the talk yet

It's not like the French went all anti-women, Smee. It's that they banned covering the face in public space as it hinders effective communication and facial recognition for security reasons.

America is hyper-obsessed with security and we don't even do that. We have a police state going on and we can still manage to let women conceal their faces if they want to.

It was a thinly veiled excuse to oppress Muslim women. Under the misguided belief that restrictive laws would force liberation on them.

TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.

And yet it does have practical uses, regardless of what you think the motive is. And it applies to the general public, not specifically to Muslims, though their head veil is obviously what was going to be effected most.

Still, it's a rather oppressive custom that separates Muslims from the French population. Given that the gain is improved relations and the cost is a bit of cloth held over your face, it's not like it's a terrible thing. What it boils down to is whether or not the veil is oppression, or taking the veil off is oppression- I, personally, think that the women involved benefit from not having to hide themselves permanently from the public, and thus separate themselves.

Of course, they didn't go about it in a sensitive fashion, but to put it bluntly it does the job.

I won't complain about frobidding burka-style Islam. Moderate Islam no problem, but if your religion require women to cover up head to toe do that elsewhere.

The unguided intention may be to 'liberate' these women but unfortunately it's not quite that simple. The fact of the matter that these women are freely choosing to wear that clothing of their own accord. Of course, if they're being coerced into it by other people it's another matter, but I don't think that's the case here. Changing things like this is done gently over time, not with a hamfisted shotgun blast to the knee caps.

Yes. It's a cultural thing, and they may choose to wear it- but it's because Allah tells them to hide themselves, IIRC. It separates women from men as it gives them separate rules, and then further generations of Muslim girls will also be forced into this custom from birth. It has a profound effect on the rest of their lives if they feel the need to hide away from men.

[smeeprocket]

The other one asked me when black people were going to get over slavery.

Why'd the question floor you?

because at least some of the answers should be obvious. It's not like racism is never discussed. I mean, while I understand that as a white person,I can not fully grasp what a black person experiences day to day, but race has at least partly been talked about.

Things like higher rates of conviction, death penalty, much lower rate of employment for black men, institutionalized poverty...

It just blows my mind that he missed all of that during his entire life.

That's a pretty poor explaination, I'm not surprised that they are not convinced.

TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.

I won't complain about frobidding burka-style Islam. Moderate Islam no problem, but if your religion require women to cover up head to toe do that elsewhere.

I went into more depth, I just assumed you guys were in the know. I'm not equipped to explain racism to another white person. Especially a conservative who believes black conviction rates are higher because of bad parenting.

[smeeprocket]

Well, when a mommy's all alone, and the milkman visits when daddy isn't home...

Yeah, how do we breed?

I think somebody hasn't had the talk yet

It's not like the French went all anti-women, Smee. It's that they banned covering the face in public space as it hinders effective communication and facial recognition for security reasons.

America is hyper-obsessed with security and we don't even do that. We have a police state going on and we can still manage to let women conceal their faces if they want to.

It was a thinly veiled excuse to oppress Muslim women. Under the misguided belief that restrictive laws would force liberation on them.

TheDwarfy, that's a bullshit excuse. It was Muslim-bashing all along. After all, they banned all veils in school earlier. So it's hardly about security.

And yet it does have practical uses, regardless of what you think the motive is. And it applies to the general public, not specifically to Muslims, though their head veil is obviously what was going to be effected most.

Still, it's a rather oppressive custom that separates Muslims from the French population. Given that the gain is improved relations and the cost is a bit of cloth held over your face, it's not like it's a terrible thing. What it boils down to is whether or not the veil is oppression, or taking the veil off is oppression- I, personally, think that the women involved benefit from not having to hide themselves permanently from the public, and thus separate themselves.

Of course, they didn't go about it in a sensitive fashion, but to put it bluntly it does the job.

I won't complain about frobidding burka-style Islam. Moderate Islam no problem, but if your religion require women to cover up head to toe do that elsewhere.

The unguided intention may be to 'liberate' these women but unfortunately it's not quite that simple. The fact of the matter that these women are freely choosing to wear that clothing of their own accord. Of course, if they're being coerced into it by other people it's another matter, but I don't think that's the case here. Changing things like this is done gently over time, not with a hamfisted shotgun blast to the knee caps.

Yes. It's a cultural thing, and they may choose to wear it- but it's because Allah tells them to hide themselves, IIRC. It separates women from men as it gives them separate rules, and then further generations of Muslim girls will also be forced into this custom from birth. It has a profound effect on the rest of their lives if they feel the need to hide away from men.

think about it this way, far right Muslim men force their women to wear Burqa, the French Govt forces them not to. Different master, same schtick.

And let's not pretend this wasn't entirely aimed at muslims.

Also, I'm pretty sure Allah doesn't say that at all.

[Sheb]

Well, the law was tailored to target principally the veil. I mean, why not ban ALL RELIGIOUS symbols? No, only the "conspicuous" symbols. A notion entirely unclear (actually, even less clear in the original French, the exact word ostentatoire imply intent of being conspicuous.), but it was clear it targeted mostly the veil.

It's a trend: for example that recent law in Quebec banning all religious symbols in public buildings - except for those of "historical interest". So the legislature can continue meeting under a crucifix.

Just because the law doesn't cite a particular group doesn't mean it does not target a particular group. If I make a law banning begging, you can't say it doesn't target the poor because it also ban rich people from begging.