|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 294 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Faith
I note a small flaw in your thinking. "while conspiring to bring down a nation by growing your population to the point that you can force others to Sharia law." You say, "your population" while forgetting that these are now/then Americans that you are speaking of. Muslins, no argument, but still Americans. The same would apply to Canada of course. If a certain section of Americans, like the original mostly white population, refuse to reproduce, and another shade does, the other shade, if it becomes dominant over time, cannot be restricted in the type of law or political party it can form. Think liberal and conservative. If conservatives out-reproduce liberals regardless of color or original nationality or religion, your own constitution says that they can take over the government and do as they wish in terms of law. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2388 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined: |
I agree. Thanks for agreeing that he and his misogynous religion is the one forcing the wearing of that apparel. Since not all muslims men are forcing the niqab, I suggest you think about it for a second. It always been the man, not the religion.
But what do you suggest we do to such a fundamentally flawed person? We already have laws to protect the women.
I have already suggested that we force Islam to alter the message of their jihadist and misogynous man creating Qur'an. Few seemed to think we could ask that so I have no other solution except for what follow. Oh I remember. I also said you had it wrong and just had to change the way you think about it. (This was your argument after all... senseless but yeah that was all you could come up with in the end).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2388 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined: |
Again you put an idiotic view that is not indicated at all. Surprise! More insults!
The French are a white race. Please explain the meaning of this then.
Who is the racist here? Please don't ask me that, you wouldn't like the answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 294 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Bliyaal
If we --- "already have laws to protect the women" --- then we would not be discussing a law to protect her from or reducing her oppression. -------- Care to comment on the last part of that post? Do you think a Muslim man will think of the security of the person of his wife? RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 294 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Bliyaal
My ---The French are a white race. Your ---Please explain the meaning of this then. ---------- What is it that you do not understand in such a simple statement of fact? What color do you think we French are? Black. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Graetest I am writes:
It's abuse to tell women that they can not wear the hijab, niqab or burka if they want to. You want to ban the hijab, niqab and burka - i.e. you are advocating a law that would abuse women.
Is it abuse to make people drive the speed limit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
What color do you think we French are? Black.
Are you saying there are no black people living in France?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Think liberal and conservative. If conservatives out-reproduce liberals regardless of color or original nationality or religion, your own constitution says that they can take over the government and do as they wish in terms of law. I don't see that it says any such thing. It is supposed to be a rule of law that applies no matter what the population mix is. The point about Islam is that they will throw out the Constitution as soon as they have the power to do so. Not that it is going to matter much by then anyway since Political Correctness has already turned the Constitution on its head.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2388 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined: |
If we --- "already have laws to protect the women" --- then we would not be discussing a law to protect her from or reducing her oppression. We have laws agaisnt murder. It doesn't mean it won't happen.
Do you think a Muslim man will think of the security of the person of his wife? How is it relevant to the topic? You drift off topic all the time. It's almost like you don't have an argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2388 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined: |
What color do you think we French are? Black. A black man or woman isn't a French? From here :
As of 2004, French conservative think-tank Institut Montaigne estimated that there were 60 million (85%) white people of European origin, 6 million (10%) North African people, 2 million (3.5%) Black people and 1 million (1.5%) people of Asian origin in Metropolitan France, including all generations of immigrant descendants. Are you saying that 15% of the population of France aren't French? And you asked who sounded like a racist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Nope. Your Bill of Rights guarantees individual rights, basically in defiance of majority opinion.
It is supposed to be a rule of law that applies no matter what the population mix is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, GIA.
GIA writes: Absolutely. It protects the main culture and its values of face to face communication without ostracizing the immigrant culture or upsetting the majority culture. In the British legal system, witnesses must unveil as well as jurors because of the importance of the right of the defendant to face to face communication. You're supposed to be providing evidence, not rhetoric.
GIA writes: Blue Jay writes: There is no evidence that such bans in other countries have significantly reduced oppression of Muslim women. Any reduction in oppression is valuable in a free nation is it not? There is no evidence that such bans in other countries have significantly reduced oppression of Muslim women.
GIA writes: Would you be prick enough to deny even a small reduction in oppression? Stop vilifying me for your own misunderstandings! I do not support oppression of women, I do not have a vested interest in preventing women's liberation, and I am not opposed to legislation that aims to reduce oppression of women. Give me some evidence that banning burqas will reduce oppression of women, and I will then be willing to give the idea some consideration. Until then, I'm just going to keep telling you to stop vilifying me for disagreeing with you, and repeating "there is no evidence that burqa bans reduce oppression of women."
GIA writes: Blue Jay writes: The ban is likely to negatively effect women who are not currently being oppressed. Granted. It will to those brainwashed into thinking that apparel is somehow tied to religion and spirituality. Your noble cause is collecting quite a rogue's gallery of psychotic villains: Blue Jay, the corrupt, heartless, evil prick.Muslim men, the power-hungry, domineering sex fiends. Burqa-wearing Muslim women, the brainwashed minions of Islam. It's a good thing none of your nemeses actually has a soul, otherwise you might actually have to produce evidence that supports your position, instead of simply vilifying your opponents.
GIA writes: They should take comfort in the fact that Jesus is said to have said that such religious symbols should be worn only in private. He frowned on public displays of piety. This would be considerably more comforting to them if they were Christian.
GIA writes: Blue Jay writes: The ban is going to difficult to enforce tactfully and effectively. B.S. No more than a speeding ticket if the women are more law abiding than this one. If a woman makes too big a fus, then she, like this one, will pay the consequences. How many legal infractions go unticketed each year? I'd wager that 95% of people who speed go unticketed. I'd wager that practically 100% of people who jaywalk or ride unregistered bicycles go unticketed. Why aren't these offenses dealt with? After all, it's just a matter of giving a ticket, so it should be pretty easy to enforce, right? And yet, nearly everybody who does it actually gets away with it. The same will be true if you try to outlaw burqas: most people are still going to get away with it, because the police will only catch a tiny fraction of violators, will not be able to enforce it where it would be most likely to reduce oppression (i.e., in private homes), and will probably have other, greater priorities. A burqa ban would also come with the added concern that anyone who violates it might be doing so on purpose to make a social or political statement, and is thus likely to resist and make a PR spectacle out of it. French police have apparently experienced some violent backlash while trying to enforce the burqa ban.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I don't know what you think I said that this doesn't answer. I asked you to specify a portion of the constitution that prevents groups from growing until they are able to enact laws that the current majority does not like. Instead of actually citing some provision I just get more of your opinion. What I am asking you to do is to back up your opinion with some actual cites to the constitution.
Catholicism and Islam are subversive religions that seek to take over the world. Not going there. As a side issue, I don't see that people who want to wear hijabs in this country are subversive or how their doing so is on a path to dominating Christianity, but I know better than to pursue that with you. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Where did I claim to argue from the Constitution anyway? I answered some things others said about the Constitution, I never claimed it on behalf of my own argument that I recall. Then when pressed I said what I'd been saying all along: It's how you READ the Constitution whether it supports subversive sects or not. It doesn't say anything specific about the situation but Political Correctness claims the Constitution supports it and I say it does not. My argument has to do with the spirit of the Constitution: since preventing one denomination from dominating others is its spirit, arguing that it supports religions that aim to dominate the whole world can't possibly be Constitutional. You can't be paying attention to the argument to demand that I give Constitutional support for this when I've never claimed it beyond what I just said.
Of course you aren't "going there" because you are ignorant of the truth. The early Americans at least knew that about the RCC and what I quoted from Samuel Adams makes it explicit. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
*groan*
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024