My Mistake

by Syl Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:31 pm

Personally I think Muslim women should be able to wear the face coverings in peace if that's what they choose to do, as long as they remove them when asked for security reasons.

My one bugbear is they drive in them....and they cant bloody see properly.
They should be BANNED from being worn when behind the wheel of a car.

by Major Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:56 pm

My main bugbear is they wear them at all in this mainly Christian country, they look awful, intimidating, can EASILY conceal weapons/explosives and if foreigners wish to TRULY integrate they would make serious efforts to FIT IN.

by Syl Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:59 pm

I think if it's the womans choice to wear it here she should be able to...in peace. As long as she removes it when asked to for security reasons and driving, and as long as she removes it in the workplace if it hampers her job.
I know a lot of people agree with your viewpoint....but why make women feel uncomfortable in public if they choose to hide themselves?

by Major Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:05 pm

Syl wrote:I think if it's the womans choice to wear it here she should be able to...in peace. As long as she removes it when asked to for security reasons and driving, and as long as she removes it in the workplace if it hampers her job.
I know a lot of people agree with your viewpoint....but why make women feel uncomfortable in public if they choose to hide themselves?

It is NOT obvious they are women when dressed like they do, Syl

by Ben Reilly Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:44 pm

Stormee wrote:
Syl wrote:I think if it's the womans choice to wear it here she should be able to...in peace. As long as she removes it when asked to for security reasons and driving, and as long as she removes it in the workplace if it hampers her job.
I know a lot of people agree with your viewpoint....but why make women feel uncomfortable in public if they choose to hide themselves?

It is NOT obvious they are women when dressed like they do, Syl

So? What gives you the right to tell others how to dress?

by Victorismyhero Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:00 pm

the same rules that tell ME how to dress

like remove your crash helmet at the till or before going into the bank

the same rules of polite western society (thats My society btw Ben...that these people wish to live within) that dictate that people can see your face whilst interacting with you, so as to enable you to read their intent...

it is NOT unreasonable that I consider someone, whos face i cant see, as potentially hostile/ not what they purport to be/ to be hiding something

by eddie Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:13 pm

Stormee wrote:
Syl wrote:I think if it's the womans choice to wear it here she should be able to...in peace. As long as she removes it when asked to for security reasons and driving, and as long as she removes it in the workplace if it hampers her job.
I know a lot of people agree with your viewpoint....but why make women feel uncomfortable in public if they choose to hide themselves?

It is NOT obvious they are women when dressed like they do, Syl

I agree openly, always have, with Syl's viewpoints.
Why shouldn't people dress how they wish?

You,can't tell some men and women apart in any walk of life so that's not even a valid argument.

by Original Quill Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:42 pm

Syl wrote:

Personally I think Muslim women should be able to wear the face coverings in peace if that's what they choose to do, as long as they remove them when asked for security reasons.

Sure...same with bras. Twisted Evil

by Ben Reilly Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:58 pm

Lord Foul wrote:the same rules that tell ME how to dress

like remove your crash helmet at the till or before going into the bank

the same rules of polite western society (thats My society btw Ben...that these people wish to live within) that dictate that people can see your face whilst interacting with you, so as to enable you to read their intent...

it is NOT unreasonable that I consider someone, whos face i cant see, as potentially hostile/ not what they purport to be/ to be hiding something

I'm not talking about making reasonable accommodations, obviously. I want to know where anyone gets the idea that they have any right (beyond reasonable accommodation, again, OBVIOUSLY) to dictate another person's manner of dress. I'd really like an answer to that one.

by Victorismyhero Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:06 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:the same rules that tell ME how to dress

like remove your crash helmet at the till or before going into the bank

the same rules of polite western society (thats My society btw Ben...that these people wish to live within) that dictate that people can see your face whilst interacting with you, so as to enable you to read their intent...

it is NOT unreasonable that I consider someone, whos face i cant see, as potentially hostile/ not what they purport to be/ to be hiding something

I'm not talking about making reasonable accommodations, obviously. I want to know where anyone gets the idea that they have any right (beyond reasonable accommodation, again, OBVIOUSLY) to dictate another person's manner of dress. I'd really like an answer to that one.

what do you define as "reasonable accomodation"

"the same rules of polite western society (thats My society btw Ben...that these people wish to live within) that dictate that people can see your face whilst interacting with you, so as to enable you to read their intent...

it is NOT unreasonable that I consider someone, whos face i cant see, as potentially hostile/ not what they purport to be/ to be hiding something"

by Eilzel Tue Dec 29, 2015 12:19 am

How do you know if women wearing these things want to or not? Some aren't given a choice by their husbands. By allowing it you crush their freedom and roll back women's rights. The only reason people wear this anyway is due to stupid religious reasons. Truth is by doing so, in the west at least) they reject the society they live.

by Ben Reilly Tue Dec 29, 2015 12:22 am

Lord Foul wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:the same rules that tell ME how to dress

like remove your crash helmet at the till or before going into the bank

the same rules of polite western society (thats My society btw Ben...that these people wish to live within) that dictate that people can see your face whilst interacting with you, so as to enable you to read their intent...

it is NOT unreasonable that I consider someone, whos face i cant see, as potentially hostile/ not what they purport to be/ to be hiding something

I'm not talking about making reasonable accommodations, obviously. I want to know where anyone gets the idea that they have any right (beyond reasonable accommodation, again, OBVIOUSLY) to dictate another person's manner of dress. I'd really like an answer to that one.

what do you define as "reasonable accomodation"

"the same rules of polite western society (thats My society btw Ben...that these people wish to live within) that dictate that people can see your face whilst interacting with you, so as to enable you to read their intent...

it is NOT unreasonable that I consider someone, whos face i cant see, as potentially hostile/ not what they purport to be/ to be hiding something"

I can understand how you'd feel that way -- I might as well in certain circumstances.

However, that doesn't mean I think you or I should have any right to dictate to people that they can't dress themselves as they wish -- I think that's a pretty fundamental individual liberty. If you'd prefer not to interact with someone with a covered face, that's your own individual liberty, but I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone they can't (in the absence of any wrongdoing) cover his or her own face in public.

There are a whole host of reasons someone might cover their face in public -- from religious belief, to concealing a disfigurement, to preventing the spread of disease. For that matter, many of the people whose faces you CAN see are nonetheless potentially hostile or hiding something, so ... My Mistake 2190311264

by Victorismyhero Tue Dec 29, 2015 12:37 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

what do you define as "reasonable accomodation"

"the same rules of polite western society (thats My society btw Ben...that these people wish to live within) that dictate that people can see your face whilst interacting with you, so as to enable you to read their intent...

it is NOT unreasonable that I consider someone, whos face i cant see, as potentially hostile/ not what they purport to be/ to be hiding something"

I can understand how you'd feel that way -- I might as well in certain circumstances.

However, that doesn't mean I think you or I should have any right to dictate to people that they can't dress themselves as they wish -- I think that's a pretty fundamental individual liberty. If you'd prefer not to interact with someone with a covered face, that's your own individual liberty, but I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone they can't (in the absence of any wrongdoing) cover his or her own face in public.

true but then dont criticise "us" (those that feel this way) if we do exactly that and refuse to interact in any way under any circumstance....so the walking tent that is shouting in apparant distress is going to be ignored/avoided....I cant see face (to see if the distress is genuine) or hands (to see if they are holding a threat (knife etc))

so i'm NOT going to "get involved"

There are a whole host of reasons someone might cover their face in public -- from religious belief, to concealing a disfigurement, to preventing the spread of disease
you do realise that most of the time those masks are a con and useless...still whatever floats yer boat I suppose or as the advert over here says ...every little helps

. For that matter, many of the people whose faces you CAN see are nonetheless potentially hostile or hiding something, so ...

yues BUT...those who are as you describe here I can SEE...and avoid as individuals.....I dont need to avaoid EVERY westerner...just those with a face like a croc with toothache.....

by Original Quill Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:17 am

Eilzel wrote:How do you know if women wearing these things want to or not? Some aren't given a choice by their husbands. By allowing it you crush their freedom and roll back women's rights. The only reason people wear this anyway is due to stupid religious reasons. Truth is by doing so, in the west at least) they reject the society they live.

On the other hand, Les, you might be destroying a 1,500-year old tradition, steeped in religion.

No one can argue that cutting off the front part of one's dick can be really harsh. Yet, recently when the City of San Francisco tried to outlaw routine, non-consensual male circumcision of new-born's, members of the Jewish faith went apoplectic and filed a lawsuit based on First Amendment rights.

At these women can have maturity and consciousness on their side. And wearing a burka is not nearly as permanent as having your dick cut off. What decision-making latitude does a 3-day old child have? Yet is is looked upon by some as a perfectly legitimate religious practice.

by Eilzel Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:25 am

I see neither as legitamate. Both are backward traditions the world is better off without. Just my opinion of course Wink

by Original Quill Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:43 am

Eilzel wrote:I see neither as legitamate. Both are backward traditions the world is better off without. Just my opinion of course

Mine as well. I an against any kind of genital mutilation, and I oppose legal interference with one's consensual dress. We are in complete agreement.

I was just trying to point out the it's not new with burkas. People have walked among us for thousands of years, imposing twisted religious practices upon the bodies and lives of others. We have accepted it because it has always been so. Yet that's not a legitimate reason.

by nicko Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:13 am

What do they wear underneath? no one has mentioned that. Do they go naked or what?
My Daughter said she saw a Burka clad woman buying a thong and a quarter? cup bra.

by Major Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:16 am

Their whole attire is worn as an act of defiance, they are saying, 'up yours, we will do as we please as your laws protect us more than they do you stupid Brits, we are taking over this island and Europe'.

by Guest Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:25 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:the same rules that tell ME how to dress

like remove your crash helmet at the till or before going into the bank

the same rules of polite western society (thats My society btw Ben...that these people wish to live within) that dictate that people can see your face whilst interacting with you, so as to enable you to read their intent...

it is NOT unreasonable that I consider someone, whos face i cant see, as potentially hostile/ not what they purport to be/ to be hiding something

I'm not talking about making reasonable accommodations, obviously. I want to know where anyone gets the idea that they have any right (beyond reasonable accommodation, again, OBVIOUSLY) to dictate another person's manner of dress. I'd really like an answer to that one.

How can I say this so that the sensitivity of the lefty is not hurt?
This form of dress was designed to subjucate women and not free them as some stupidly lay claim to after they have been indoctrinated with bullshit. Its a symbol of shame for women, that they must cover up not for anything they have done wrong, but the supposed desires of men. On top of that in the west we communicate through more body laguage and facial features than we do of speech itself. So is blatantly rude and ill-mannerefd to have the face covered in communication. I mean people can learn as much from the expressions on a persons face than they can from just hearing some words. It is a form of oppression and anyone that seeks to defend that form of oppression is a complete dickhead. I mean next you will be telling me its okay to reintroduce neck and leg chains for African Americans, as its back in fashion

by eddie Tue Dec 29, 2015 1:04 pm

Eilzel wrote:How do you know if women wearing these things want to or not? Some aren't given a choice by their husbands. By allowing it you crush their freedom and roll back women's rights. The only reason people wear this anyway is due to stupid religious reasons. Truth is by doing so, in the west at least) they reject the society they live.

Morning les X
They should have to remove the veil when it's an airport, being served etc but I have no problem with them wearing it walking down the street or round tesco etc
Some people don't like punks, goths, transvestites, etc

I personally think people should be allowed to dress how they please.

by Guest Tue Dec 29, 2015 1:10 pm

eddie wrote:
Eilzel wrote:How do you know if women wearing these things want to or not? Some aren't given a choice by their husbands. By allowing it you crush their freedom and roll back women's rights. The only reason people wear this anyway is due to stupid religious reasons. Truth is by doing so, in the west at least) they reject the society they live.

Morning les X
They should have to remove the veil when it's an airport, being served etc but I have no problem with them wearing it walking down the street or round tesco etc
Some people don't like punks, goths, transvestites, etc

I personally think people should be allowed to dress how they please.

But you miss the point that its not really a choice when this has been indoctrintaed into them, where its not something compulsory, yet beleieve that it is. I fail to see how it is a choice when it is drummed into them they should wear this because of a shame based around their looks. Its barbaric backward and oppressive and by not doing somthing about that means we then are complicit to that oppresion

by Eilzel Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:07 pm

I get that Eds, but no one ever forces someone to dress in those ways you mention. By allowing the burkha we indirectly allow men a level of control over their wives.

by nicko Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:31 pm

What worries me about this burka business is what effect does it have on their children? A child needs to see it's Mothers face at all times, or am I wrong?

by Original Quill Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:16 pm

Stormee wrote:Their whole attire is worn as an act of defiance, they are saying, 'up yours, we will do as we please as your laws protect us more than they do you stupid Brits, we are taking over this island and Europe'.

So, it's a form of speech. In the US, where we have freedom of speech, that is a perfectly legitimate right.

by Original Quill Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:18 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

I'm not talking about making reasonable accommodations, obviously. I want to know where anyone gets the idea that they have any right (beyond reasonable accommodation, again, OBVIOUSLY) to dictate another person's manner of dress. I'd really like an answer to that one.

How can I say this so that the sensitivity of the lefty is not hurt?
This form of dress was designed to subjucate women and not free them as some stupidly lay claim to after they have been indoctrinated with bullshit. Its a symbol of shame for women, that they must cover up not for anything they have done wrong, but the supposed desires of men. On top of that in the west we communicate through more body laguage and facial features than we do of speech itself. So is blatantly rude and ill-mannerefd to have the face covered in communication. I mean people can learn as much from the expressions on a persons face than they can from just hearing some words. It is a form of oppression and anyone that seeks to defend that form of oppression is a complete dickhead. I mean next you will be telling me its okay to reintroduce neck and leg chains for African Americans, as its back in fashion

That's one opinion.

Didge wrote:But you miss the point that its not really a choice when this has been indoctrintaed into them, where its not something compulsory, yet beleieve that it is. I fail to see how it is a choice when it is drummed into them they should wear this because of a shame based around their looks. Its barbaric backward and oppressive and by not doing somthing about that means we then are complicit to that oppresion

So you would substitute your choice for their's, because it is not "indoctrinated"? What do you think they should be wearing, didge? I would like to know how you would dress them. What standards? Indeed, what colors and styles would free them from oppression?

by Guest Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:53 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

How can I say this so that the sensitivity of the lefty is not hurt?
This form of dress was designed to subjucate women and not free them as some stupidly lay claim to after they have been indoctrinated with bullshit. Its a symbol of shame for women, that they must cover up not for anything they have done wrong, but the supposed desires of men. On top of that in the west we communicate through more body laguage and facial features than we do of speech itself. So is blatantly rude and ill-mannerefd to have the face covered in communication. I mean people can learn as much from the expressions on a persons face than they can from just hearing some words. It is a form of oppression and anyone that seeks to defend that form of oppression is a complete dickhead. I mean next you will be telling me its okay to reintroduce neck and leg chains for African Americans, as its back in fashion

That's one opinion.

Didge wrote:But you miss the point that its not really a choice when this has been indoctrintaed into them, where its not something compulsory, yet beleieve that it is. I fail to see how it is a choice when it is drummed into them they should wear this because of a shame based around their looks. Its barbaric backward and oppressive and by not doing somthing about that means we then are complicit to that oppresion

So you would substitute your choice for their's, because it is not "indoctrinated"? What do you think they should be wearing, didge? I would like to know how you would dress them. What standards? Indeed, what colors and styles would free them from oppression?

My choice? I am not making a choice, the instrument of opression is banned.
Could not give a fuck how they dress, this is about every single point you failed to address.
Is this dress formed to oppress women?
Yes
Are women being forced to wear by their husbands and other being mislead they need to wear, when they do not?
Yes
Stop avoiding every point as you always do and adress the mainy you avoided.

by Original Quill Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:40 pm

Well who's going to make the choice of how they dress if they are incapable of making their own choice?

You say these women are oppressed. You are speaking of a different kind of freedom...known as positive freedom.

Wiki wrote:Two Concepts of Liberty was the inaugural lecture delivered by the liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin before the University of Oxford on 31 October 1958. It was subsequently published as a 57-page pamphlet by Oxford at the Clarendon Press. It also appears in the collection of Berlin's papers entitled Four Essays on Liberty (1969) and was more recently reissued in a collection entitled simply Liberty (2002)

"Berlin defined negative liberty (as the term "liberty" was used by Thomas Hobbes) as the absence of coercion or interference with agents' possible private actions, by an exterior social-body." Id., emphasis added. Positive liberty was defined as that which...

Wiki wrote:"...is involved in the answer to the question 'What, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?'"

Positive liberty or freedom has to do with 'who controls your mind?' Are you internally free? The two may blend, as I think is the case with your point about burkas. Do Muslim women make their own choice, or are they being restrained in the sense of positive freedom of choice?

And, are they also being coerced in the negative sense, in that a husband will beat them if they dare to go out in a sailor's cap or a hoodie.

Going back to the notion of positive liberty, isn't religion overall a form of infringement of positive freedom? If god determines all, are we even capable of positive freedom? Or, when we 'give up' to god, aren't we making a choice that we don't want to make those decisions...and isn't that freedom of choice?

And you--as an outsider--what business is it of yours, anyway? Hence I ask the question: what do you want them to wear? I mean, as long as you're in there messing around with their free choice, anyway.

Same questions to you Les. We all tend to conceive of freedom as the absence of negative restraints...something we can all agree on. But if it were purely a negative restraint, why wouldn't the women take the burka off as soon as they were outside and away from their coercive husbands? At what point on a sliding scale between negative and positive, does it become a mental thing? And thereafter, at what point isn't it freedom of choice?

by Guest Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:00 pm

The nation does by its laws as it already does do on forms of dress banned

Your idiotic points on liberty shows how far removed you are from understanding the form of dress is denying liberty because it makes a person wrongly believe they have to wear this form of dress
Even still then it is not compulsary to wear in Islam yet women are being forced to wear either through their husbands or wrongly believing they have to wear.

The rest of your points proves why you are a class A fuckwit and typical of the lefty mentality.

Now this form of dress is discrmination, which is sexist discrmination because no male can go outside dressed in public this way. Not only does this hinder posititive identification for if that person is the intended victim but does so if they are the offender. Not only that a belief does not give you a right to supercede the laws, of which again this is a form of oppression and not liberty.

So as a person who fights againts oppression unlike you the fuckwit regressive who seeks to empower Muslim men to force their women to wear this. I want top make the women free from this oppression, not only that it denies visual communication, it denies identification.
Not once did you address the points

by Original Quill Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:07 pm

Didge wrote:The rest of your points proves why you are a class A fuckwit and typical of the lefty mentality.

More simply put, it's beyond you.

by Guest Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:The rest of your points proves why you are a class A fuckwit and typical of the lefty mentality.

More simply put, it's beyond you.

More simply put you the regressive want to empower people to oppress.
Again my points still stand and you clearly want to bow out, which proves left wing views are as seen bullshit

by Ben Reilly Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:10 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:the same rules that tell ME how to dress

like remove your crash helmet at the till or before going into the bank

the same rules of polite western society (thats My society btw Ben...that these people wish to live within) that dictate that people can see your face whilst interacting with you, so as to enable you to read their intent...

it is NOT unreasonable that I consider someone, whos face i cant see, as potentially hostile/ not what they purport to be/ to be hiding something

I'm not talking about making reasonable accommodations, obviously. I want to know where anyone gets the idea that they have any right (beyond reasonable accommodation, again, OBVIOUSLY) to dictate another person's manner of dress. I'd really like an answer to that one.

How can I say this so that the sensitivity of the lefty is not hurt?
This form of dress was designed to subjucate women and not free them as some stupidly lay claim to after they have been indoctrinated with bullshit. Its a symbol of shame for women, that they must cover up not for anything they have done wrong, but the supposed desires of men. On top of that in the west we communicate through more body laguage and facial features than we do of speech itself. So is blatantly rude and ill-mannerefd to have the face covered in communication. I mean people can learn as much from the expressions on a persons face than they can from just hearing some words. It is a form of oppression and anyone that seeks to defend that form of oppression is a complete dickhead. I mean next you will be telling me its okay to reintroduce neck and leg chains for African Americans, as its back in fashion

My question is, how do you know that any particular woman sees the face covering not as a symbol of her devotion to her faith, but as an instrument of oppression?

You don't, that's the obvious answer. If you ask, you don't know whether you're getting the truth or not.

So at the end of the day, it all comes back to freedom of thought. If I think the world is a certain way that requires me to dress a certain way, it violates my freedom of thought not to allow me to do that. (Of COURSE, this isn't absolute, as in, my belief that Lord Xenu wants me naked doesn't give me the right to go out in public unclothed.)

I think part of the problem is that because we see these women as oppressed, we think they must feel oppressed. If they do they should be free to dress however they want -- but if they have bought into some worldview that tells them to hide their faces in public, we shouldn't force them not to just because we think they're wrong.

by Guest Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:16 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

How can I say this so that the sensitivity of the lefty is not hurt?
This form of dress was designed to subjucate women and not free them as some stupidly lay claim to after they have been indoctrinated with bullshit. Its a symbol of shame for women, that they must cover up not for anything they have done wrong, but the supposed desires of men. On top of that in the west we communicate through more body laguage and facial features than we do of speech itself. So is blatantly rude and ill-mannerefd to have the face covered in communication. I mean people can learn as much from the expressions on a persons face than they can from just hearing some words. It is a form of oppression and anyone that seeks to defend that form of oppression is a complete dickhead. I mean next you will be telling me its okay to reintroduce neck and leg chains for African Americans, as its back in fashion

My question is, how do you know that any particular woman sees the face covering not as a symbol of her devotion to her faith, but as an instrument of oppression?

You don't, that's the obvious answer. If you ask, you don't know whether you're getting the truth or not.

So at the end of the day, it all comes back to freedom of thought. If I think the world is a certain way that requires me to dress a certain way, it violates my freedom of thought not to allow me to do that. (Of COURSE, this isn't absolute, as in, my belief that Lord Xenu wants me naked doesn't give me the right to go out in public unclothed.)

I think part of the problem is that because we see these women as oppressed, we think they must feel oppressed. If they do they should be free to dress however they want -- but if they have bought into some worldview that tells them to hide their faces in public, we shouldn't force them not to just because we think they're wrong.

Point 1) As there is nothing in Islam to say that she should and this is only the view of a sect in Islam, then clearly this view has been indoctrinated into them. As this is a symbol invented by men it is nothing more than they teaching that women should covered and not seen. This is like for years where women thought because of their faith they could be beaten and in some cases still do because of their faith. Not only this the same happened with marital rape. Are you going to tell me both acts and the scars iof these abuses are a symbol of their faith?

Point2 )So yes it is freedom of thought, but if that freedom is being denied by being misled with false ideas, then a person will wrongly come to believe they should wear something that is not even commanded within Islam, but a set of Islam, which was more born from cultural beliefs that saw women for years subjucated and subservant to men. If you do not see these women as opprssed when it is used as a view that women are a desire for men and that they should cover up, shows how far removed the lefty mentality is. So based on your view you think it must be acceptabler if wivies are beaten and even raped if the women believes it is acceptable in her faith?

by Syl Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:35 pm

I have heard Muslim women talking and saying they wear the face coverings because it is THEY who feel comfortable wearing it outside....they are not told to wear it, they choose to.
I'm sure others wear it because their menfolk want them to.

Muslim women like Christian women, Jewish, Hindu (and any other faith) come in all shapes and sizes. Some surely actually have minds of their own....especially if they are westernised.

by Ben Reilly Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:36 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

How can I say this so that the sensitivity of the lefty is not hurt?
This form of dress was designed to subjucate women and not free them as some stupidly lay claim to after they have been indoctrinated with bullshit. Its a symbol of shame for women, that they must cover up not for anything they have done wrong, but the supposed desires of men. On top of that in the west we communicate through more body laguage and facial features than we do of speech itself. So is blatantly rude and ill-mannerefd to have the face covered in communication. I mean people can learn as much from the expressions on a persons face than they can from just hearing some words. It is a form of oppression and anyone that seeks to defend that form of oppression is a complete dickhead. I mean next you will be telling me its okay to reintroduce neck and leg chains for African Americans, as its back in fashion

My question is, how do you know that any particular woman sees the face covering not as a symbol of her devotion to her faith, but as an instrument of oppression?

You don't, that's the obvious answer. If you ask, you don't know whether you're getting the truth or not.

So at the end of the day, it all comes back to freedom of thought. If I think the world is a certain way that requires me to dress a certain way, it violates my freedom of thought not to allow me to do that. (Of COURSE, this isn't absolute, as in, my belief that Lord Xenu wants me naked doesn't give me the right to go out in public unclothed.)

I think part of the problem is that because we see these women as oppressed, we think they must feel oppressed. If they do they should be free to dress however they want -- but if they have bought into some worldview that tells them to hide their faces in public, we shouldn't force them not to just because we think they're wrong.

Point 1) As there is nothing in Islam to say that she should and this is only the view of a sect in Islam, then clearly this view has been indoctrinated into them. As this is a symbol invented by men it is nothing more than they teaching that women should covered and not seen. This is like for years where women thought because of their faith they could be beaten and in some cases still do because of their faith. Not only this the same happened with marital rape. Are you going to tell me both acts and the scars iof these abuses are a symbol of their faith?

Point2 )So yes it is freedom of thought, but if that freedom is being denied by being misled with false ideas, then a person will wrongly come to believe they should wear something that is not even commanded within Islam, but a set of Islam, which was more born from cultural beliefs that saw women for years subjucated and subservant to men. If you do not see these women as opprssed when it is used as a view that women are a desire for men and that they should cover up, shows how far removed the lefty mentality is. So based on your view you think it must be acceptabler if wivies are beaten and even raped if the women believes it is acceptable in her faith?

I'm just saying that it's tricky territory, dictating what beliefs people ought to have when we disagree with them. People still believe all sorts of stupid things -- from trickle-down economics to homeopathy -- and they have the right to. Are we as people who see a methodological naturalist approach to existence as more free and fulfilling supposed to shove this down their unwilling throats, or should we instead try to respectfully persuade? I seem to recall that you yourself posted an article recently about how difficult it is to persuade someone that they're wrong.

by Guest Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:39 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Point 1) As there is nothing in Islam to say that she should and this is only the view of a sect in Islam, then clearly this view has been indoctrinated into them. As this is a symbol invented by men it is nothing more than they teaching that women should covered and not seen. This is like for years where women thought because of their faith they could be beaten and in some cases still do because of their faith. Not only this the same happened with marital rape. Are you going to tell me both acts and the scars iof these abuses are a symbol of their faith?

Point2 )So yes it is freedom of thought, but if that freedom is being denied by being misled with false ideas, then a person will wrongly come to believe they should wear something that is not even commanded within Islam, but a set of Islam, which was more born from cultural beliefs that saw women for years subjucated and subservant to men. If you do not see these women as opprssed when it is used as a view that women are a desire for men and that they should cover up, shows how far removed the lefty mentality is. So based on your view you think it must be acceptabler if wivies are beaten and even raped if the women believes it is acceptable in her faith?

I'm just saying that it's tricky territory, dictating what beliefs people ought to have when we disagree with them. People still believe all sorts of stupid things -- from trickle-down economics to homeopathy -- and they have the right to. Is our job as people who see a methodological naturalist approach to existence as more free and fulfilling supposed to shove this down their unwilling throats, or should we instead try to respectfully persuade? I seem to recall that you yourself posted an article recently about how difficult it is to persuade someone that they're wrong.

There is nothing tricky about it when already countless women in these faiths also wrongly believe that their husbands have a right top beat them and force themselves onto them. Again it is just a belief and a belief does not mean that that belief should ever be seeen as acceptable espcially when that form of dress is a symbol of oppression to women,. Thus anyone that has been fooled to believe it is a symbol of her faith is being lied to. It is difficult to persuade people something is wrong which is made inherantly more difficult by clueless lefties who wish to empower forms of oppression

by Eilzel Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:13 am

So some women choose to wear it. Two questions:

Why do they choose to wear it?

Why do no men choose to wear it?

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:28 am

Can I just point something out? Men who FORCE women to wear a burqua are abusing them. Men who DEMAND women STOP wearing the burqua are abusing them.

Women who are forced to wear it should be supported, but whether men like it or not, there are women who want to, and they don't have to explain why they want to, that is their business.

Basically, everyone should butt out and let them wear what they want. Anything else, from either side, is coercion and NOT equality.

by Eilzel Wed Dec 30, 2015 1:00 am

It's impossible to stop men forcing women to where it if we don't ban it.

And why they choose to wear it is important, as it may explain the extent to which they really are 'choosing' it at all?

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 1:27 am

Les, you do realise the route you are going down here? Basically what you are saying to Muslim women is 'If you chose to wear a burqua, you have to pass our test, we don't trust you to be strong enough to make up your own minds, you have to tell us in minute detail why, and if we don't think that is good enough, we'll still pressurise you not to wear it, whatever you think'.

Many, many westernised, highly educated Muslim women have explained why they wear it, but why the hell should they? You don't think Muslim women are as strong as non-Muslim women? You have no right to force them to explain, anymore than we have the right to force girls to explain when they go out with their skirts up to their bums and their tits hanging out, and in my view, they are being pressurised both by men and by the 'glamour' expections, to make themselves look like total tarts, but that is their business, not mine.

If a Muslim woman is being abused in ANY way, the same laws apply to her treatment in this country, as apply to any other women's treatment, or mens for that matter.

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 1:43 am

sassy wrote:Can I just point something out? Men who FORCE women to wear a burqua are abusing them. Men who DEMAND women STOP wearing the burqua are abusing them.

Women who are forced to wear it should be supported, but whether men like it or not, there are women who want to, and they don't have to explain why they want to, that is their business.

Basically, everyone should butt out and let them wear what they want. Anything else, from either side, is coercion and NOT equality.

And idiots who appease thinking women actually want to wear it are again backing men teach and abuse that women should wear this. The fact is there are women who becuase of their faith think domestic violence and marital rape is accetable and its fucking twats like you that make it even harder for these women to understand that they have rights. That this rights are abused from men beating them and forcing themseves onto them and yet they think the men have a right to do so. These are highly educated woimen as well, salafist women who back the men in islamic doctrine.
Stop being apart of the problem, as you fundementally always are and know fuck all about the discrmination of women.

by Tommy Monk Wed Dec 30, 2015 2:09 am

Sassy... a westernised Muslim woman wanting to turn up in a mobile tent is as likely as a tennis player wanting to play in boxing gloves and cricket pads!

Unless she is thinking ahead and trying to make sure no other women are wearing the same outfit as her...?

Imagine if she turned up and there was another westernised Muslim woman there wearing exactly the same outfit...!?

by Eilzel Wed Dec 30, 2015 2:13 am

Sass, the reasons are entirely based on religious indoctrination or as an affront to modern western society (a defiance at what some see as objectification of women). Those are not good reasons and ultimately they aren't real 'choices' either. Banning it removes that. I am not aaking for a ban on simple veils, but on the monstrous full body coverings.

by Ben Reilly Wed Dec 30, 2015 2:40 am

sassy wrote:Les, you do realise the route you are going down here? Basically what you are saying to Muslim women is 'If you chose to wear a burqua, you have to pass our test, we don't trust you to be strong enough to make up your own minds, you have to tell us in minute detail why, and if we don't think that is good enough, we'll still pressurise you not to wear it, whatever you think'.

Many, many westernised, highly educated Muslim women have explained why they wear it, but why the hell should they? You don't think Muslim women are as strong as non-Muslim women? You have no right to force them to explain, anymore than we have the right to force girls to explain when they go out with their skirts up to their bums and their tits hanging out, and in my view, they are being pressurised both by men and by the 'glamour' expections, to make themselves look like total tarts, but that is their business, not mine.

If a Muslim woman is being abused in ANY way, the same laws apply to her treatment in this country, as apply to any other women's treatment, or mens for that matter.

Absolutely right. The issue here is dress -- not rape, abuse, etc. People have a fundamental right to their own beliefs and if that extends to dress, so be it.

If a person is being brainwashed, no dress law is going to help stop that - - any more than taking an aspirin would cure a broken bone.

by Original Quill Wed Dec 30, 2015 2:45 am

sassy wrote:Can I just point something out? Men who FORCE women to wear a burqua are abusing them. Men who DEMAND women STOP wearing the burqua are abusing them.

Women who are forced to wear it should be supported, but whether men like it or not, there are women who want to, and they don't have to explain why they want to, that is their business.

Basically, everyone should butt out and let them wear what they want. Anything else, from either side, is coercion and NOT equality.

There is the definition between positive and negative freedom.

Jail is the transgression of negative freedom. Indoctrination is the transgression of positive freedom. The question is, what do these women want? Let's not speak for them...les...didge?

by Eilzel Wed Dec 30, 2015 2:59 am

Ok let me ask this- most of you oppose the covering of the face in many circumnstances for security reasons- why is the situation outdoors different?

by Original Quill Wed Dec 30, 2015 3:12 am

Eilzel wrote:Ok let me ask this- most of you oppose the covering of the face in many circumnstances for security reasons- why is the situation outdoors different?

Well, it isn't for me. It's whatever they want. People who substitute reasons from them to us, as when they say it's for security reasons, I believe are being disingenuous. They are just saying they don't like them being different.

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:32 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sassy wrote:Les, you do realise the route you are going down here? Basically what you are saying to Muslim women is 'If you chose to wear a burqua, you have to pass our test, we don't trust you to be strong enough to make up your own minds, you have to tell us in minute detail why, and if we don't think that is good enough, we'll still pressurise you not to wear it, whatever you think'.

Many, many westernised, highly educated Muslim women have explained why they wear it, but why the hell should they? You don't think Muslim women are as strong as non-Muslim women? You have no right to force them to explain, anymore than we have the right to force girls to explain when they go out with their skirts up to their bums and their tits hanging out, and in my view, they are being pressurised both by men and by the 'glamour' expections, to make themselves look like total tarts, but that is their business, not mine.

If a Muslim woman is being abused in ANY way, the same laws apply to her treatment in this country, as apply to any other women's treatment, or mens for that matter.

Absolutely right. The issue here is dress -- not rape, abuse, etc. People have a fundamental right to their own beliefs and if that extends to dress, so be it.

If a person is being brainwashed, no dress law is going to help stop that - - any more than taking an aspirin would cure a broken bone.

Oh for fuck sakes the regressive stikes again, its about everything it reoresents in the form of dress which subjucates women. So you have no problem with people being taught extreme beliefs, that classify women as subservant to men, which is what is fundementally is. In other words that makes you a backer of sexism.
This is about the rights of women being fundementally denied through the ignorance of religion.
Only a regressive would defend sexism
I mean there are many Muslims trying progress Islam topday and it does not need halfwits like you ensuring it stays back in the 7th century, when you should be supporting the reformers.
Athiest? Like fuck you are, you bend over to any belief even if it means the discrmination of people.
Its more thann a dress but a symbol of what that dress represents.
The worst aspect of your appeasement is you have given naff all consideration to those forced to wear this, only those brainwashed into thinking they need to wear when there is no part of Islam which says that they should. You place those forced to wear thus of no importance and would rather they continue to suffer just so you can appease the ones brainwashed.
That just shows why people are getting more and more sick and tired of the outright stuopidity of the left because that fundementally shows you are no champion against an injustice.

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:30 pm

Lets see how much Didge has morphed into Smelly over the last few months.

This was back in May:

Fluffy Bunny Question

What about the women who are forced to wear the Burqa in this country,(I know some wish to wear it and it is their choice but this is not true for all Muslim ladies) It is a sheet,it is a symbol of repression and control and it is impractical.Women in this so called civilised day and age should not be forced to wear sheets on the basis that a man may glance in their direction.

Didge Answer

Really forced to wear? Again nobody should be forced to wear anything the amount of women that wear this is so small it is a something that again Muslims should teach is not part of Islam, but you are again using a small amount of Muslims to promote a view of a claim to a much bigger problem which does not tally up to your claims. What about those who wish to wear, being as your are all for women's rights, why do you not back those who chose to have the right to wear one? You go off what you call as civilized, but to some women who wear this, it has nothing to do with anything more than showing respect to their faith, their choice, even if I think myself it is not good for communication. You do not though use something so small as to promote a poor argument what you do is teach and show a more approachable to way to help bring about change, as forcing people to change, has the opposite affect

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t4682-let-s-be-honest-about-britain-s-islamophobia#96959

From later on in the thread:

Didge wrote:

The fact is it has been western policy that has driven the increase in the rise of Muslims driven to extremism, where again to a Muslim a drone attack that kills civilians would also be seen as terrorism, as I am sure if you had drone attacks here to oust terrorists, that killed civilians you would be saying the same thing and as seen many people do not have a problem with civilians being killed to get terrorists. It has been concluded that the whole Iraq war has driven extremism in this country but you are not even concerned over that, you wish to promote an absurd view over Islam, when in every Terrorist action the causes behind them have been over events, like troops in Ira for example, deaths to civilians etc showing you have not the first clue understanding what creates terrorism in the first place, you only see through your eyes of hatred.
It is down to many Muslims to tackle extremism, but it is very much something that the West has very much increased those to their cause with their policies.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t4682-let-s-be-honest-about-britain-s-islamophobia#96928

Maybe that's why he keeps changing his name?

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:45 pm

Oh dear so now if people change their minds its a criminal to sassy when what is fundemental she cannot counter my points

How desperate is that and even worse did she even show a comparrison to smelly.

Np

The name of the game for Nazis like Sassy is to deligitimise.

Points stioll stand you stupid old bat, either counter them or crawl away like the pathetic waste of oxygen that you are

by Sponsored content