My Mistake

sassy wrote:That was the whole point that most were making Rags, that Didge didn't seem able to grasp.  You can stop people saying something, you can't stop them thinking it.

Yes didge can understand something you ugly old bat, this was whether the law was covered in regads to this on marital rape and domestic violence, not that you could understand what was being reason and at no point did I call for the ban of a thought
Try reading the debate your brainless skank and then you might learn something

 


He just can't help himself can he, poor soul.

Soul?

I thought you were athiest and you believe in a soul, lol


What a brainless fuckwitt ha ha ha

sassy wrote:That was the whole point that most were making Rags, that Didge didn't seem able to grasp.  You can stop people saying something, you can't stop them thinking it.

I was actually agreeing with Didge for once. He appears to be saying that a belief is generally expressed.

Now you are being a daft as him.  He couldn't get it through his head that you can't stop a belief, but you can stop the expression of it, ie people being sent to prision for expressing their belief that the Holocaust didn't happen.  Or NOT being able to send someone to prison if someone commits a crime where the only witness believes that they are allowed to commit that crime and won't testify against them.

lol this coming from the woman who constantly contradicts
Which the debate has deliberately been deflected by Ben on a technicality where he is again trying to defend women being subjucated.
I do not see the likes of Sassy call for Muslims to help teaach this is not required to be worn in Islam, instead they defend this barbaric form of dress that subjucateds women and is inherantly sexist and discrminating being as men are not allowed to cover their faces in public.
So there should be every right and move to ban this in public places for security reasons, as nobody should have their face hidden from public view.

sassy wrote:Now you are being a daft as him.  He couldn't get it through his head that you can't stop a belief, but you can stop the expression of it, ie people being sent to prision for expressing their belief that the Holocaust didn't happen.  Or NOT being able to send someone to prison if someone commits a crime where the only witness believes that they are allowed to commit that crime and won't testify against them.

I'm not being daft at all. Try thinking outside of the box yourself. Those who think the Holocaust didn't happen, or didn't happen in the way it's been reported, aren't likely to keep those thoughts in their head for very long are they?

I don't think it should be illegal to deny it, and I'm glad it's not illegal here. To make it illegal is just denying people their freedom of speech. What is the difference between denying the Holocaust and saying that no planes flown by terrorists crashed into the WTC?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:lol this coming from the woman who constantly contradicts
Which the debate has deliberately been deflected by Ben on a technicality where he is again trying to defend women being subjucated.
I do not see the likes of Sassy call for Muslims to help teaach this is not required to be worn in Islam, instead they defend this barbaric form of dress that subjucateds women and is inherantly sexist and discrminating being as men are not allowed to cover their faces in public.
So there should be every right and move to ban this in public places for security reasons, as nobody should have their face hidden from public view.

I'm not bothered about the women who choose to wear burkas - or think they've chosen to based on what they've been told. To me, they send out the wrong message in society - like Sharia courts. They're basically saying that women should be subservient and completely cover up. That is not a message I want to see in this country. It's also all a bit narcissistic because they appear to be assuming that if they're not covered from head to toe, no man would be able to resist trying to get their hands on them.

Fair points Rags, but I think teaching is going to be the best way to eradicate, which is difficult when we have such regressive Islamic schools of thought out there like Wahhabism

I think sassy's making a very simple, but significant point. You can't police thoughts. You can only outlaw the expression of thoughts.

The difference between speech and thought...why is that so hard?

Obviously there is a huge difference in thinking something and saying it.
Where the line should be drawn between free speech and censuring free speech is difficult, someone will always be offended by something.

I think social media has changed things somewhat, what some may say hidden behind a keyboard is at odds to what they would say face to face.

Original Quill wrote:I think sassy's making a very simple, but significant point.  You can't police thoughts.  You can only outlaw the expression of thoughts.

The difference between speech and thought...why is that so hard?

Yes Quill this point has already been pointed out by Victor and Ben, which is not the issue, what is though is people defending this form of subjucation. The fact is women are either forced to wear and the others indoctrinated with poor beliefs which are not even Islamic which date more back to cultural roots which have then later been formed as one of the Islamic sects.
Everybody should stand aposed to this form of subjucation, no matter if they view everyone has a right to wear what they wish, as everyone gets that people can but if people are not critical of this and even worse support this, then these women have no chance of ever understanding they do not need to allow men to abuse islam by making them wrongly think they need to cover fully up.
This is the issue that is at hand here and by supporting the form of subjucation in the dress, when we should be highly critical but with support to the women in the view point of helping them, will again only allow this problem to continue to exist.

Well Syl. There are certain people who, IMHO would say the same to your face as they do to the keyboard. I believe yourself and Miss Ragga to be one of those straight talking chix.

Original Quill wrote:I think sassy's making a very simple, but significant point.  You can't police thoughts.  You can only outlaw the expression of thoughts.

The difference between speech and thought...why is that so hard?

The point is that if someone has a thought which they think is important, they're going to express it sooner or later.

Syl wrote:Obviously there is a huge difference in thinking something and saying it.
Where the line should be drawn between free speech and censuring free speech is difficult, someone will always be offended by something.

There's a big difference between the US and European states. The US is an open society, whereas most European states more comfortable with authoritarian governments (perhaps because of their authoritarian past). The US was deliberately, and consciously crafted to be an open and democratic government, although some of the citizens within it are real knuckle draggers. One of the manifestations of this was our First Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits any government authority from outlawing any type of speech or expression.

Syl wrote:I think social media has changed things somewhat, what some may say hidden behind a keyboard is at odds to what they would say face to face.

I agree wholeheartedly. The Internet has taught us the natural instincts of the human organism, which is to speak without inhibition. That means that our First Amendment is consonant with the natural instincts of mankind. Anything else--regardless of the message contained within the speech--is an aberration.

Stormee wrote:Well Syl. There are certain people who, IMHO would say the same to your face as they do to the keyboard. I believe yourself and Miss Ragga to be one of those straight talking chix.

Thanks Stormee...that's true.
I would never say anything online I wouldn't say to someone face... and I think lots of people are the same.
I firmly believe though that some do hide behind keyboards spouting off insults...probably hen pecked and downtrodden in rl they find some sort of release.
Fact is though if they did speak to people in the same way face to face they would all be wearing dentures.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I think sassy's making a very simple, but significant point.  You can't police thoughts.  You can only outlaw the expression of thoughts.

The difference between speech and thought...why is that so hard?

Yes Quill this point has already been pointed out by Victor and Ben, which is not the issue, what is though is people defending this form of subjucation. The fact is women are either forced to wear and the others indoctrinated with poor beliefs which are not even Islamic which date more back to cultural roots which have then later been formed as one of the Islamic sects.
Everybody should stand aposed to this form of subjucation, no matter if they view everyone has a right to wear what they wish, as everyone gets that people can but if people are not critical of this and even worse support this, then these women have no chance of ever understanding they do not need to allow men to abuse islam by making them wrongly think they need to cover fully up.
This is the issue that is at hand here and by supporting the form of subjucation in the dress, when we should be highly critical but with support to the women in the view point of helping them, will again only allow this problem to continue to exist.

Why is it subjugation?  Poor beliefs?  Indoctrinated?  Isn't that highly judgmental?  These are presumptions in your argument, but are they real?

People have to believe in something.  Now, certainly I'm not one to support religion of any kind, but as long as you have to fill your mind with something...why not?  If a burka helps them relate to some religious, or indeed, some cultural belief, what is the harm?

I've seen no evidence that anyone is being "forced" to wear anything.  I can see this type of argument in the context of a discussion about genital mutilation (where there is at least medical data to support that it is wrong), but it seems to me we are side-stepping the basic issue.  It isn't wrong unless someone demonstrates that these woman are being coerced.  I've seen no evidence of this.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I think social media has changed things somewhat, what some may say hidden behind a keyboard is at odds to what they would say face to face.

I agree wholeheartedly.  The Internet has taught us the natural instincts of the human organism, which is to speak without inhibition.  That means that our First Amendment is consonant with the natural instincts of mankind.  Anything else--regardless of the message contained within the speech--is an aberration.

I don't think it's speaking without inhibition so much as hiding behind a machine in the almost certain knowledge that they can insult without consequence.
You see it as a positive thing...I see it more as cowardice.

Original Quill wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Yes Quill this point has already been pointed out by Victor and Ben, which is not the issue, what is though is people defending this form of subjucation. The fact is women are either forced to wear and the others indoctrinated with poor beliefs which are not even Islamic which date more back to cultural roots which have then later been formed as one of the Islamic sects.
Everybody should stand aposed to this form of subjucation, no matter if they view everyone has a right to wear what they wish, as everyone gets that people can but if people are not critical of this and even worse support this, then these women have no chance of ever understanding they do not need to allow men to abuse islam by making them wrongly think they need to cover fully up.
This is the issue that is at hand here and by supporting the form of subjucation in the dress, when we should be highly critical but with support to the women in the view point of helping them, will again only allow this problem to continue to exist.

Why is it subjugation?  Poor beliefs?  Indoctrinated?  Isn't that highly judgmental?  These are presumptions in your argument, but are they real?

People have to believe in something.  Now, certainly I'm not one to support religion of any kind, but as long as you have to fill your mind with something...why not?  If a burka helps them relate to some religious, or indeed, some cultural belief, what is the harm?

I've seen no evidence that anyone is being "forced" to wear anything.  I can see this type of argument in the context of a discussion about genital mutilation (where there is at least medical data to support that it is wrong), but it seems to me we are side-stepping the basic issue.  It isn't wrong unless someone demonstrates that these woman are being coerced.  I've seen no evidence of this.

Seriously what is the point even debating someone so closed minded as you are being Quill.
The fact you know nothing of the history or reasons behind wearing this leaves little point is debating you on something you know next to nothing on the matter. If you do as you are doing above claim that women have or are never forced then you really have no idea on the matter and are just looking at this from a legal perspective and not a piosition of one to help
If you think women are not coerced through doctrine, all you have to do is take a look at Polls of Literal Muslims or Christian women to see where they place religious dogma above their own equality as women. To even claim this does not happen shows you again know next to nothing of theology.
For example how many Literal Christian parents have disowned their own son or daughter for being gay?

or picking their teggiz out of their bum.

I have had tellings off from several forthright forum ladies who did it politely, did not call me nasty names, tell lies about me, call for me to be banned, they gave their points sharp as a witches tongue, myself in return gave them my respect as a gentleman would.
If anyone does unacceptable things to me, then and only then do I retaliate.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:



I agree wholeheartedly.  The Internet has taught us the natural instincts of the human organism, which is to speak without inhibition.  That means that our First Amendment is consonant with the natural instincts of mankind.  Anything else--regardless of the message contained within the speech--is an aberration.

I don't think it's speaking without inhibition so much as hiding behind a machine in the almost certain knowledge that they can insult without consequence.
You see it as a positive thing...I see it more as cowardice.

Which is to say, we both see human beings in there. People are capable of a variety of emotions, and a variety of motives. Granted.

But I do think there are social inhibitions in face-to-face interactions, which create the kinds of duplicity that Stormie is talking about. When addressing, people may become less kind, but they are more honest.

Which is not to say they are necessarily speaking the truth...just revealing more of themselves. And therein is the less attractiveness. I find I am more comfortable reading someone's candid thoughts, because as they might intend a kind of hurtfulness, I am less concerned about their opinion of me and more interested in getting their true motivation and meaning.

Didge wrote:Seriously what is the point even debating someone so closed minded as you are being Quill.
The fact you know nothing of the history or reasons behind wearing this leaves little point is debating you on something you know next to nothing on the matter. If you do as you are doing above claim that women have or are never forced then you really have no idea on the matter and are just looking at this from a legal perspective and not a piosition of one to help
If you think women are not coerced through doctrine, all you have to do is take a look at Polls of Literal Muslims or Christian women to see where they place religious dogma above their own equality as women. To even claim this does not happen shows you again know next to nothing of theology.
For example how many Literal Christian parents have disowned their own son or daughter for being gay?

When you go into your I am the expert, and you can't possibly know... routine, my eyes glaze over.  You are not a true historian, didge, because you don't grasp the meaning of history.  You are a fact-gatherer, at best, and most of those aren't facts, but presumptions.

To continue:

didge wrote:to see where they place religious dogma above their own equality as women.

*  *  *
shows you again know next to nothing of theology.

And so you are going to substitute your values for theirs, and in the process education us all in Didge's theology??  Because that's all you've given us...your opinions.

Where do you get off telling these women what they should believe, and what they should do, or wear or believe, anyway?  You've got no proof of coercion.  You've just built your argument on your own presumptions (Didge's theology).  

I mean, don't let facts get in your way (btw, that's sarcasm).  Who needs facts, when we've got life and god as didge sees it to guide us along the way?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't think it's speaking without inhibition so much as hiding behind a machine in the almost certain knowledge that they can insult without consequence.
You see it as a positive thing...I see it more as cowardice.

Which is to say, we both see human beings in there.  People are capable of a variety of emotions, and a variety of motives.  Granted.

But I do think there are social inhibitions in face-to-face interactions, which create the kinds of duplicity that Stormie is talking about.  When addressing, people may become less kind, but they are more honest.

Which is not to say they are necessarily speaking the truth...just revealing more of themselves.  And therein is the less attractiveness.  I find I am more comfortable reading someone's candid thoughts, because as they might intend a kind of hurtfulness, I am less concerned about their opinion of me  and more interested in getting their true motivation and meaning.

I do see your point, I just don't agree with it.
I treat forums the same way I would treat a big communal room.....if some arsehole barges in with the intent to cause trouble by flinging insults I would either leave or (try my best) to ignore.

You would look past the nastiness and listen in the hope they would have something worthwhile to say beneath all the bluff.

I prefer forum free speech to be more about allowing people to give opinions (not insults) even though they may be the polar opposite to your own.

See utterly clueless having no understanding and as seen could not counter the point many literal religious people are most certainly coerced.
The fact Quill that you fail to even grasp that the form of dress is meant to cover women to the point they are not sexualized by men with temptation, which is placing a blame onto the womeb, for mens desires to the point they should cover themselves shows again you have absolutely no understanding here abd like I say wasting my time with someone so utterly closed minded to an issue here. If you cannot even grasp where something is sexist and thus placing an onus on women due to the uncontrollable desires of men, is men contolling them, in every possible way, to how they should be seen to others. What this shows is you clearly have no idea about womens rights, because for years women were forced in the west to adhere to dress codes, or have you so easily forgotten this?

Anyway as seen you have no comprehension in regards to the outfit and why it is taught with a view on women that they should cover themselves through no fault of their own. Its also denying the beauty of women, which is also a contradiction in the religion, as why create something so beautiful, so that it is never seen. The point you miss is literal belief does not allow for a choice, you obey the rules. That is not having a choice, as the choice would mean to not believe anymore in the literal sense.

Anyway I am done trying to reason as its clear you are too closeminded on this quill


Hope you have a happy New Year

Laters

Some women cover themselves because they want to.

Why do you think some women who wear the face coverings make up their eyes elaborately? They like the knowledge that they are covering themselves yet giving the message that underneath they are beautiful...less is more.

Also not all Muslim women are born and brought up in that belief. They choose it ...and they also choose to wear the dress.

Syl wrote:Some women cover themselves because they want to.

Why do you think some women who wear the face coverings make up their eyes elaborately? They like the knowledge that they are covering themselves yet giving the message that underneath they are beautiful...less is more.

Also not all Muslim women are born and brought up in that belief. They choose it ...and they also choose to wear the dress.

then, as far as I personally am concerned, they choose the path of total exclusion. as far as I'm concerned, they dont exist, except as "obstacles", like parked cars or wayward elephants to be avoided at all costs...

Syl wrote:Some women cover themselves because they want to.

Why do you think some women who wear the face coverings make up their eyes elaborately? They like the knowledge that they are covering themselves yet giving the message that underneath they are beautiful...less is more.

Also not all Muslim women are born and brought up in that belief. They choose it ...and they also choose to wear the dress.

I think that's silly. If they want to cover themselves up, why make themselves more beautiful re the eyes? Either they want people to look at them or they don't.

Why would anyone choose to wear such a cumbersome garment unless they wanted to hide away - or hide something?

I mean there's modesty, and then there's madness. It's unnatural to cover yourself up completely in such a hideous, unfriendly, and intimidating way.

Lord Foul wrote:

Syl wrote:Some women cover themselves because they want to.

Why do you think some women who wear the face coverings make up their eyes elaborately? They like the knowledge that they are covering themselves yet giving the message that underneath they are beautiful...less is more.

Also not all Muslim women are born and brought up in that belief. They choose it ...and they also choose to wear the dress.

then, as far as I personally am concerned, they choose the path of total exclusion. as far as I'm concerned, they dont exist, except as "obstacles", like parked cars or wayward elephants to be avoided at all costs...

Well that's your entitlement, just as it's theirs to dress as they please.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Some women cover themselves because they want to.

Why do you think some women who wear the face coverings make up their eyes elaborately? They like the knowledge that they are covering themselves yet giving the message that underneath they are beautiful...less is more.

Also not all Muslim women are born and brought up in that belief. They choose it ...and they also choose to wear the dress.

I think that's silly. If they want to cover themselves up, why make themselves more beautiful re the eyes? Either they want people to look at them or they don't.

Why would anyone choose to wear such a cumbersome garment unless they wanted to hide away - or hide something?

It's daft to me too Rags, but not to them obviously...maybe they like the mystery of it all.
Have you ever noticed how much heavy exotic eye makeup some covered Muslim women wear?
They could look like battered crabs underneath the veil though, so that could be one reason to emphasise the eyes.

In France they take the view that if you arrive in France but you want to cut yourself off from society and be a doormat, you can't become a French citizen.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jul/12/france.islam

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that's silly. If they want to cover themselves up, why make themselves more beautiful re the eyes? Either they want people to look at them or they don't.

Why would anyone choose to wear such a cumbersome garment unless they wanted to hide away - or hide something?

It's daft to me too Rags, but not to them obviously...maybe they like the mystery of it all.
Have you ever noticed how much heavy exotic eye makeup some covered Muslim women wear?
They could look like battered crabs underneath the veil though, so that could be one reason to emphasise the eyes.

No, I hadn't noticed. I don't look at them really - they look like great big black crows and should be avoided IMO. If they don't want people to look at them, I'm happy to oblige.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

It's daft to me too Rags, but not to them obviously...maybe they like the mystery of it all.
Have you ever noticed how much heavy exotic eye makeup some covered Muslim women wear?
They could look like battered crabs underneath the veil though, so that could be one reason to emphasise the eyes.

No, I hadn't noticed. I don't look at them really - they look like great big black crows and should be avoided IMO. If they don't want people to look at them, I'm happy to oblige.

I think a lot of people agree with that viewpoint.
They just don't bother me....same as hoodie wearing youths don't, each to their own.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, I hadn't noticed. I don't look at them really - they look like great big black crows and should be avoided IMO. If they don't want people to look at them, I'm happy to oblige.

I think a lot of people agree with that viewpoint.
They just don't bother me....same as hoodie wearing youths don't, each to their own.

I don't see many of them these days anyway. I used to see them in M&S a lot in London - some of them wore those awful masks too. I don't suppose they were shopping for summer frocks.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think a lot of people agree with that viewpoint.
They just don't bother me....same as hoodie wearing youths don't, each to their own.

I don't see many of them these days anyway. I used to see them in M&S a lot in London - some of them wore those awful masks too. I don't suppose they were shopping for summer frocks.

I see quite a lot round here....only the ones driving get on my nerves....mostly because they may as well be wearing blinkers, they are a menace on the roads.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't see many of them these days anyway. I used to see them in M&S a lot in London - some of them wore those awful masks too. I don't suppose they were shopping for summer frocks.

I see quite a lot round here....only the ones driving get on my nerves....mostly because they may as well be wearing blinkers, they are a menace on the roads.

I'm surprised they're allowed to wear them whilst driving. If they need to look behind them, they'll just see a wall of black.

I know....I saw one driver the other day pull out right in front of a bus....she was oblivious.
Not sure where the law stands...I imagine police turn a blind eye unless an accident occurs....bit late then though.

Hmmm...this petition wasn't very well supported was it?

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/7187

Ya can bet ya bottom dollar plod has been told to lay off from upstairs.

That wouldn't surprise me at all.

Off to do NYE feast.......have a good one. x

I womder if those who wear the Burka realise they are at great risk of getting Rickets, if the sun can't get at them a serious risk of vitamin D deficiency is possible, leading to brittle bones.

Picking up on a point above somewhere...
Muslim women, as a rule, don't cover up because they're told to by "men".

They cover up because they're proud of what they are and who they and they're proud of their religion.

Whether I agree with it or not, it's their individual right.

nicko wrote:I womder if those who wear the Burka realise they are at great risk of getting Rickets, if the sun can't get at them a serious risk of vitamin D deficiency is possible,  leading to brittle bones.

That should tell them that's it's unnatural to be covered from head to toe all the time.

Raggamuffin wrote:

nicko wrote:I womder if those who wear the Burka realise they are at great risk of getting Rickets, if the sun can't get at them a serious risk of vitamin D deficiency is possible,  leading to brittle bones.

That should tell them that's it's unnatural to be covered from head to toe all the time.

Which is a fascinating insight into the influence of geography on religious belief, if you think about it ...

To garner a btter overall picture on this topic and its roots please watch Mona Eltahawy, a Muslim Feminist talking with Medhi.
A debate at the very root of the problem.

nicko wrote:I womder if those who wear the Burka realise they are at great risk of getting Rickets, if the sun can't get at them a serious risk of vitamin D deficiency is possible,  leading to brittle bones.

Why do you think they call you guys Limeys? It wasn't until you guys discovered that citrus in your diets would control your sickness, that you imported limes in your shipmate's diets. Duh.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:I womder if those who wear the Burka realise they are at great risk of getting Rickets, if the sun can't get at them a serious risk of vitamin D deficiency is possible,  leading to brittle bones.

Why do you think they call you guys Limeys?  It wasn't until you guys discovered that citrus in your diets would control your sickness, that you imported limes in your shipmate's diets.  Duh.

Was that before America was discovered? Becasue when you say "you" within history references, you must mean "we"?

Duh Quill...thta was vitamin C, not "D"

and , I think te circumatnces are somewhat different .
the typical regressive lefty, when confounded bring up an unrelated historical fact, misapply it, and ignore its lack of relevence

Lord Foul wrote:Duh Quill...thta was vitamin C, not "D"

and , I think te circumatnces are somewhat different .
the typical regressive lefty, when confounded bring up an unrelated historical fact, misapply it, and ignore its lack of relevence

...says the master of irrational prejudices. I lov it when the ignorant project themselves on the rest of the world.

I didn't know the full story...was it vitamin C? I didn't say anything about Vitamin D.

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Duh Quill...thta was vitamin C, not "D"

and , I think te circumatnces are somewhat different .
the typical regressive lefty, when confounded bring up an unrelated historical fact, misapply it, and ignore its lack of relevence

...says the master of irrational prejudices.  I lov it when the ignorant project themselves on the rest of the world.

I didn't know the full story...was it vitamin C?  I didn't say anything about Vitamin D.

Nicko's post was about Vitamin D though.