Print

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

[TD1]

Heh, if I were here for DF, I'd stick to the Upper Boards.

[UXLZ]

Calling the lower boards a video game forum is a bit of a stretch... Most people come for DF, but stay for the community and the discussions, I think.

Eh, I found the forum because of DF, but I didn't really sign up because of it. It's almost always a forums community that people stay for, though. I think literally the only example I can think of where that isn't the case is League's forum, because it sucks much, much ass.

Yeah, the lower boards are a lot more interesting.

Also, is Bay12's time logged in: recorder fucked? Because I know for a fact I've only been logged out for about a day since I joined.

[Baffler]

Then you've got folks like me, who more often than not have a DF window open while I browse the forums, upper and lower. I've been down here more than up there these days, but I'm still there.

[smeeprocket]

well, first couple of days I was chilling on the lower boards, I got in an argument about calling intersex people hermaphrodites (as in I was saying you should really refer to them by the preferred term, intersex.)

This caused me to get flamed so bad that five or so threads got locked and the forum was shut down briefly over it.

And it's still the best community I have been in that isn't specifically feminist or rights oriented.

That doesn't mean it doesn't eat at my psyche. My last break was good. Admittedly I came back angrier, but I had been so stressed out my reproductive cycle didn't function this month.

[Phmcw]

Phmcw, I was talking about the French case, where they banned students from wearing the veil. I'm honestly split about the issue, but if you want religious symbols banned, you should ban them all, no sneaking in Christian ones because they're smaller.

Cross aren't woman only, and they banned any showy religious sign. I guess some may stretch the definition, but I don't see any reason to bother someone wearing a small religious symbol as a necklace (which is the only other scenario that may happen on a regular basis).

It's past time to get the crucifix out of the tribunals and other public edifices though, but I think most peoples will agree with that in Belgium and in France (though the conservative Christians will make a loud stand as usual, they are minoritar by far).

Furthermore, that law basically bans muslim women from having those jobs. You are oppressing them because of their religion. It is more institutionalized misogyny disguised as an attempt to educate the savages. White men don't get to lead the conversation about middle eastern women's liberation. You can help, but it's not your voices tha tneed to be heard.

I don't care all that much about them, my main concern is that the idea doesn't spread and become more prevalent. Yeah I'm willing to do that and more to peoples that try to spread those ideas. I've got sisters, a girlfriend and a niece, and I'm not as confident as you in the white man supremacy.

As I said if you're a moderate muslim you're a friend, but if you're a radical one you're a foe. And I knew more than a few at school, it wasn't pretty.

So when the government say that "symbol that make women inferior to men are banned" it's a good thing, and you're not the feminist one in this case.

[UXLZ]

my reproductive cycle didn't function this month.

There are other reasons for that, but I'll assume you know what you're talking about. >_>

Guys, what's the situation in Australia at the moment in regards to this thread's topic?

[Arcvasti]

RE: Muslim Women wearing Burquas/whateverthey'recalled:

I have no problems with it, as long as its a free choice and not forced on them, like it is in some places in the Middle East[And elsewhere]. Quebec... As far as I can tell, the whole point of Quebec right now is to make it as inconvenient as possible for everyone who isn't Francophone and Catholic. Which, considering they were an oppressed minority not that long ago, is sort of ironic. Banning religious symbols =/= good. Although you might be able to make a case for religions that have their members carry knives/swords around with them or something like that.

And Smee, please don't double post. In the bottom right corner of a post you've already made, there's a "modify" button which allows you to edit your posts. Its generally considered more polite to add an addendum to your previous post rather then posting twice in a row unless its a succession game or something.

EDIT: Like this.

[UXLZ]

Mmm... I usually just modify since the first forum I joined had strict anti double posting rules, but I can understand why some people may do it. If you go to modify, and then someone replies to you before you've finished the modifications... Well, the modifications might be missed, ne?

In regards to the religion rather than feminism side, I'm an Agnostic Nihilist and thus finding myself lacking cares to give. I do think all face-concealing stuff should be banned though, at least in banks, public parks, shopping malls, etc. If only for the security risks something like that actually poses. Do note that I think it's fine if Muslim women wear the head covering and body covering stuff, but the face-concealing part... Well, I just think all stuff like that should go. That includes balaclavas, ski-masks, everything. (Except at special events like fairs, in which case party masks and the like should be allowed. The festive things.)
I dunno... I hate the paranoia, but the fact remains that face-concealing clothing is a security risk in some areas.

[smeeprocket]

RE: Muslim Women wearing Burquas/whateverthey'recalled:

I have no problems with it, as long as its a free choice and not forced on them, like it is in some places in the Middle East[And elsewhere]. Quebec... As far as I can tell, the whole point of Quebec right now is to make it as inconvenient as possible for everyone who isn't Francophone and Catholic. Which, considering they were an oppressed minority not that long ago, is sort of ironic. Banning religious symbols =/= good. Although you might be able to make a case for religions that have their members carry knives/swords around with them or something like that.

And Smee, please don't double post. In the bottom right corner of a post you've already made, there's a "modify" button which allows you to edit your posts. Its generally considered more polite to add an addendum to your previous post rather then posting twice in a row unless its a succession game or something.

EDIT: Like this.

The sword Sikhs wield are a big part of their religion, and frankly, I seriously doubt any of them are going to go on a rampage (though I did see a killer sword fight arguing over how to commemorate a peace agreement between two sides. One guy lost his sword, grabbed another guy's sword and threw it at the enemy. No one died, and that wouldn't happen 99.99999% of the time. I think they even have a small dagger they can wear instead.)

Why does double posting one post bother people so much? Editing is a real pita.

The problem is, you can't go into each home and make certain that the woman is wearing the burqa or whatever under duress or not. And you do not solve this by forcing them to not wear it.

You have to empower women to make their own choices. Give them independence, give them options. Make it clear that they are equal members of society.

It's like America trying to shove democracy down everyone's throat. That is not a good way to go about things.

edit: UXLZ I am a hardline atheist and I can still understand respecting religious freedom. Saying that is the same as them saying you have to wear a cross wherever you go. You wouldn't like that, I wouldn't like that, so we can't force our lack of faith on them individually.

[Sheb]

AFAIK, Sikh are allowed to wear a sword/dagger that is welded to the scabbard and can effectively not be used, so that's a solution.

[Angle]

Yeah, when it comes to liberating people, giving them an educaton and opportunities is far more effective than beating them over the head with laws.

[smeeprocket]

AFAIK, Sikh are allowed to wear a sword/dagger that is welded to the scabbard and can effectively not be used, so that's a solution.

I know it was recently the cause of a legal battle in one America school, the Sikhs won. Which pleased me.

Yes I'm positive a middle ground can be reached. Especially if people stop going: auugh arabs, clearly all terrorists! and think a bit.

[Baffler]

That does raise an interesting question though. If they can carry a knife, why shouldn't I be able to carry a knife? Unless Sikhs are inherently more trustworthy, which I have strong doubts about. Not to mention that we're all equal under the law. Food for thought.

[UXLZ]

edit: UXLZ I am a hardline atheist and I can still understand respecting religious freedom. Saying that is the same as them saying you have to wear a cross wherever you go. You wouldn't like that, I wouldn't like that, so we can't force our lack of faith on them individually

What I was saying was that I think (summarised) all face-concealing attire should be banned under certain circumstances (those circumstances being malls, public parks, banks, locations like that), religious or not. You may say 'but this restricts religious apparel' and I will say 'sure it does, and that's a shame, but face-concealing stuff needs to go.

I'll note that this has nothing to do with burqas, as I honestly don't really care about whether people wear them or not... Under the circumstance that they aren't in a bank. I guess I can retract not being allowed to wear face-concealing stuff in parks and malls, but certainly banks and locations where security is very important.

Also, bad choice of example. I think crosses look cool and would be fine wearing one.

I know it was recently the cause of a legal battle in one America school, the Sikhs won. Which pleased me.

Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

AFAIK, Sikh are allowed to wear a sword/dagger that is welded to the scabbard and can effectively not be used, so that's a solution.

The issue with that is that for anybody whom isn't totally liberal, the dagger isn't just a symbol of power to be carried, it is a religiously-mandated weapon. If it can't be used as a weapon you can easily say it does not qualify.

Yes I'm positive a middle ground can be reached. Especially if people stop going: auugh arabs, clearly all terrorists! and think a bit.

There are surely very few Arab Sikhs in the world.

That does raise an interesting question though. If they can carry a knife, why shouldn't I be able to carry a knife? Unless Sikhs are inherently more trustworthy, which I have strong doubts about. Not to mention that we're all equal under the law. Food for thought.

Under a ruling like that, you can carry a knife....welded into its scabbard.