Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 48 of 372 (771237)
10-22-2015 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Greatest I am
10-22-2015 2:06 PM


Re: Pajama Bottoms at the bottom of the style barrel
Hi, Greatest I Am.
GIA writes:
I hear those who say that some women claim that they freely wear the hijab, niqab and burka. If that is true then I would suggest that they see a doctor as that is not normal behavior for a free human being. Women and men instinctively know and look for body language while communicating and such apparel inhibits that.
Why paint with such broad strokes of baseless rhetoric? The fact is that "normal behavior" is just an average value, and is a very crude representation of the population if you don't also consider the variance. Not everybody's happiness and fulfillment will be maximized by enforcing "normal" behavior, so you have to leave room to let people find their own optimum.
Wholesale banning of a behavior that is sometimes associated with an undesirable behavior is a very inane thing to do. If it's already illegal for a man to oppress a woman, then how would banning clothing that you associate with oppression improve upon that existing law?

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Greatest I am, posted 10-22-2015 2:06 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Greatest I am, posted 10-22-2015 4:43 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(5)
Message 52 of 372 (771245)
10-22-2015 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Greatest I am
10-22-2015 4:43 PM


Re: Pajama Bottoms at the bottom of the style barrel
Hi, GIA.
Greatest I Am writes:
Please listen to the link in the post just above as it shows a woman saying that we are sweeping the oppression of women under the rug by ignoring male misogyny against women.
And, once I watch the video, I will be filled with sympathy for this woman, which will give me clarity on the issue, so I can reject the basically rational and objective decision I have already made in favor of an irrational, emotional decision that gives me the warm feeling of standing for a righteous social cause.
Does that about sum it up?
Focusing on something that symbolizes oppression in some people's minds, rather than on oppression itself, is a very oblique way of dealing with the oppression.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Greatest I am, posted 10-22-2015 4:43 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Omnivorous, posted 10-22-2015 9:14 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 64 by Greatest I am, posted 10-26-2015 8:10 AM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(3)
Message 71 of 372 (771460)
10-26-2015 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Greatest I am
10-26-2015 8:10 AM


Re: Pajama Bottoms at the bottom of the style barrel
Hi, GIA.
GIA writes:
Not if you are one of the women.
Then you would just hope for success.
Again, you're trying to manipulate me and/or any other readers by playing on my emotions and inducing a guilt trip. You seem to be under the impression that anybody who opposes you must not care about Muslim women.
What you need to recognize is that you are not being opposed because your opposition are heartless and don't care about Muslim women. You are being opposed because your way of dealing with the problem has major flaws:
  1. It fits into a pattern of well-intentioned legislation that simply hasn't worked in the past.
  2. It will probably impinge unnecessarily on the rights of women who are not affected by the oppression you're trying to target
I maintain that the only thing we are likely to gain from this legislation is the warm (and probably wrong) feeling that we have embraced and supported a social cause. Unfortunately, since this feeling is highly likely to be inaccurate, we'll probably have only made the situation worse by convincing ourselves we've done something meaningful when we haven't.
Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.
Edited by Blue Jay, : Minor edits.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Greatest I am, posted 10-26-2015 8:10 AM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Greatest I am, posted 10-27-2015 8:44 AM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 79 of 372 (771569)
10-27-2015 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Greatest I am
10-27-2015 8:44 AM


Re: Pajama Bottoms at the bottom of the style barrel
Hi, GIA.
GIA writes:
The ban does work.
Page not found Quartz
That is a list of countries that have passed laws about wearing burqas.
It is not an evaluation of how well burqa bans "work."
Do you have statistics demonstrating that Muslim women are better off now that France and Belgium have banned burqas?
GIA writes:
So that feeling you wanted us to ignore is available to us.
That feeling should never be your goal, GIA: feelings can be very easily manipulated and misdirected. We should instead be focusing on producing some data about the actual effects of your proposed action.
GIA writes:
Do not fear doing the right thing.
Why do you insist on vilifying me?
I am not opposed to "doing the right thing": I am in disagreement with you over what "the right thing" is.
Please stop conflating these two things.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Greatest I am, posted 10-27-2015 8:44 AM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Greatest I am, posted 10-27-2015 11:24 AM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 84 by Omnivorous, posted 10-27-2015 5:45 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 83 of 372 (771592)
10-27-2015 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Greatest I am
10-27-2015 11:24 AM


French ban on burqas
Hi, GIA.
GIA writes:
I will have the moment a fire hits any building in those countries and girls do not die because they were forced to wear that apparel.
I've never heard "protection from fire" listed as one of the claimed reasons for wearing a burqa.
GIA writes:
I do have statistical information that all the citizens of both France and Belgium are better off in the sense that the majority ruled that the apparel in question was not desired by the majority.
Perhaps I'm being a bit obtuse here, but it seems like you're defining "better off" to mean "the majority has told the minority where they can stick it, and the minority is now sticking it there." I will need some more convincing before I accept this definition.
The evidence I would expect to see if burqa bans are effective might look like some of the following:
  1. a statistically significant decrease in domestic violence incidents perpetrated by Muslim men against Muslim women
  2. a statistically significant increase in average well-being as self-reported by Muslim women on questionnaires
  3. a statistically significant positive shift in various metrics of gender equality within the Muslim community of France since the burqa ban.
I very well might begin to change my mind on this issue if evidence like this comes forward. As it stands however, the evidence of which I am aware seems pretty ambiguous, which makes me disinclined to support it.
GIA writes:
That rule of law serves all the Muslims in those communities as it protects the predominant culture and their desires.
In general, my political philosophy advocates for a certain degree of conformity with majority opinion, but forced conformity is very likely to breed unrest.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Greatest I am, posted 10-27-2015 11:24 AM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Greatest I am, posted 10-28-2015 9:06 AM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 105 of 372 (771676)
10-28-2015 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Greatest I am
10-28-2015 9:06 AM


Re: French ban on burqas
Hi, GIA.
GIA writes:
What is every law we have on the books if not forced conformity?
Indeed. Then logically, before we pass a law, we should make sure there is pretty good evidence that the benefits of forced conformity will outweigh the detriments. Or are you proposing that this semantic game you're playing is adequate justification for forcing conformity arbitrarily?
GIA writes:
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.
...which we all agree is a bad thing, right? That's why democratic nations build into their constitutions things like a "Bill of Rights" and a system of checks and balances: to protect individual liberties and prevent one group from dominating all the others.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Greatest I am, posted 10-28-2015 9:06 AM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Greatest I am, posted 10-28-2015 1:00 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 108 of 372 (771679)
10-28-2015 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Greatest I am
10-28-2015 9:06 AM


Re: French ban on burqas
-double post-
Edited by Blue Jay, : double post

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Greatest I am, posted 10-28-2015 9:06 AM Greatest I am has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 114 of 372 (771685)
10-28-2015 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Greatest I am
10-28-2015 1:00 PM


Re: French ban on burqas
Hi, GIA.
Take a minute to review the conversation so far:
GIA writes:
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.
Blue Jay writes:
...which we all agree is a bad thing, right?
GIA writes:
No.
Laws have to be and should all be firmly and tyrannically enforced...
And then you turn around and make this comment to Ringo:
GIA writes:
Are you saying that you do not believe in equality and that just because you think you are in the majority that that makes you moral?
You clearly advocate majority rule for societal decisions, yet you also express the sentiment that majority rule might not always be moral.
Extrapolating from this set of comments, one would conclude that you do not believe societal decisions should be based on morality, which would beg the question of why "slave garb" represents a legally actionable moral issue for you.
I think the more likely interpretation is that you're simply being completely irrational on purpose.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Greatest I am, posted 10-28-2015 1:00 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Greatest I am, posted 10-28-2015 1:33 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 115 of 372 (771686)
10-28-2015 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Greatest I am
10-28-2015 1:00 PM


Re: French ban on burqas
Hi, GIA.
Take a minute to review the conversation so far:
GIA writes:
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.
Blue Jay writes:
...which we all agree is a bad thing, right?
GIA writes:
No.
Laws have to be and should all be firmly and tyrannically enforced...
And then you turn around and make this comment to Ringo:
GIA writes:
Are you saying that you do not believe in equality and that just because you think you are in the majority that that makes you moral?
You clearly advocate majority rule for societal decisions, yet you also express the sentiment that majority rule might not always be moral.
Extrapolating from this set of comments, one would conclude that you do not believe societal decisions should be based on morality, which would beg the question of why "slave garb" represents a legally actionable moral issue for you.
I think the more likely interpretation is that you're simply being completely irrational on purpose.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Greatest I am, posted 10-28-2015 1:00 PM Greatest I am has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 119 of 372 (771691)
10-28-2015 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Greatest I am
10-28-2015 1:33 PM


Re: French ban on burqas
Hi, GIA.
GIA writes:
Out of context as you are mixing two trains of thought.
You took a hardliner "majority rules" stance against me, and then pulled out "the majority is not always right" against Ringo.
You made bare, unelaborated appeals to two opposite principles to support your position. Clearly, this tells me that you are not actually a hardliner "majority rules" guy, which makes me suspect that you haven't been debating honestly with me.
In reality, both of us seem to recognize that neither a strict "majority rules" or a loose anarchy is desirable: the best system of governance should strike a balance between enforced conformity for the sake of order, and accepted diversity for the sake of morality.
Here's what I see:
On one hand, burqa bans have some strong rhetorical appeal and some unsubstantiated claims about maybe, possibly, indirectly benefiting a particular social cause.
On the other hand, burqa bans seem to make another segment of the population just as unhappy, and create additional logistical strains on police forces.
In my judgment, it seems highly unlikely to result in a net-positive effect.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Greatest I am, posted 10-28-2015 1:33 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Greatest I am, posted 10-28-2015 5:37 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 124 of 372 (771721)
10-29-2015 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Greatest I am
10-28-2015 5:37 PM


Re: French ban on burqas
Hi, GIA.
GIA writes:
Blue Jay writes:
You took a hardliner "majority rules" stance against me, and then pulled out "the majority is not always right" against Ringo."
Does the majority not rule where you live?
If yes then the first is correct.
Please try to keep up. I'm not criticizing you for saying "majority rules": I'm criticizing you for saying that "majority rules" is a good and moral thing. For example, when I asked for evidence that Muslim women are better off under a burqa ban, you said this in Message 80:
quote:
...all the citizens of both France and Belgium are better off in the sense that the majority ruled...
So, you say people are better off when the majority imposes its will on the minority. And, in Message 109 you say that tyranny of the majority is a good thing.
Then, you turn around and say this to Omnivorous in Message 111:
quote:
Are you saying ... that just because you think you are in the majority that that makes you moral?
You're attacking him for what you perceived (wrongly, as it turns out) to be an appeal to "majority rules." The exact same appeal you made in your discussion with me.
Now, we're back at square one, where I ask you to show that Muslim women are better off burqa bans. And, this time you need to provide something other than "because everyone is better off when the majority rules," because you forfeited the right to use that appeal when you criticized someone else for it.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Greatest I am, posted 10-28-2015 5:37 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Greatest I am, posted 10-29-2015 1:54 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 139 of 372 (771785)
10-29-2015 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Greatest I am
10-29-2015 1:54 PM


Re: French ban on burqas
Hi, GIA.
GIA writes:
Pay attention.
In a society where the majority is to rule, the majority have decided that it is moral to have the majority rule.
This does not translate into the majority is moral or always moral. It is just saying that the majority thinks that it is moral to have the majority rule.
If the majority was always moral then no law would ever be repealed and we have some of those laws that are repealed as the standards or morality change.
Oh, for God's sake, G. This little side track isn't about whether or not I comprehend your opinions about government principles: it's about your debate tactics.
I said, "Show evidence that burqa bans work."
You said, "Majority rules, therefore burqa bans work."
In logic parlance, this is called "appeal to popularity" (argumentum ad populum), and is considered a fallacious argument.
Then, to Omnivorous, you said, "Majority isn't always right."
So, I turned around and said, "So, France's burqa ban is not evidence that burqa bans are right."
And now you're repeatedly reiterating your view of how democratic principles operate.
The question still stands: "Do burqa bans have a beneficial effect on society?" Your last couple of posts effectively amount to backpedaling on your original statement that "burqa bans benefit all people because the majority ruled"; so you're left with two pieces of "evidence": a series of manipulative video appeals to emotion, and your erroneous conflation of disagreement with immorality.
Once again: my position is that a burqa ban is highly unlikely to result in a net benefit for Canada for three reasons:
  1. There is no evidence that such bans in other countries have significantly reduced oppression of Muslim women.
  2. The ban is likely to negatively effect women who are not currently being oppressed.
  3. The ban is going to difficult to enforce tactfully and effectively.
Can you defend your position that a burqa ban would be beneficial for Canada without appealing to "majority rules"?
Edited by Blue Jay, : Fixing "list" code.
Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Greatest I am, posted 10-29-2015 1:54 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Greatest I am, posted 10-30-2015 8:43 AM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 162 of 372 (771834)
10-30-2015 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Greatest I am
10-30-2015 8:43 AM


Re: French ban on burqas
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Greatest I am, posted 10-30-2015 8:43 AM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Greatest I am, posted 10-31-2015 3:57 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 185 of 372 (771939)
11-01-2015 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Greatest I am
10-31-2015 3:57 PM


Re: French ban on burqas
Hi, GIA.
GIA writes:
They can make all the statements they want. I did every time I paid a ticket.
What are you talking about? Is this all you have to say?
Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Greatest I am, posted 10-31-2015 3:57 PM Greatest I am has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024