View Full Version : I...Agree with the French
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-13-2009, 03:04
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8197917.stm
Something deep inside when Western Chivalric-influenced psyche is offended by the Burkka. A woman does not need to hide her shape and face to be safe from me, or another man when I am around.
I fully support this French policy in general, the only thing I don't like is that we didn't come up with it first.
Hooahguy
08-13-2009, 03:07
ignore
Don Corleone
08-13-2009, 03:14
Burkhas and hijabs worn in the West aren't about modesty, they're a statement.
According to the women that wear them, they're making a statement on the superiority of the Islamic culture, and hoping to promote a migration towards it in their new Western home
a completely inoffensive name
08-13-2009, 03:29
Burkhas and hijabs worn in the West aren't about modesty, they're a statement.
According to the women that wear them, they're making a statement on the superiority of the Islamic culture, and hoping to promote a migration towards it in their new Western home
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
https://i642.photobucket.com/albums/uu150/Joltie/Citation-Needed-wikipedia-819731_50.jpg
Should have used this image. Now that you're with the big boys, you need to learn the proper ways to influence people into your side, whatever that may be. Funny images are a way to do that. : D
On-topic, indeed I also believe the Western Chivalry might have influenced us, along with the dose of colonialism and Imperial European superiority which showed that our culture is superior and anything that conflicts with it is by default, bad/wrong.
AlexanderSextus
08-13-2009, 04:52
As a yankee i must continue our historical tradition of siding with the french on this one...
There is no need to ban the burka, you have to be recognisable on the street, current laws are fine
finger -> face MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA shambling sleepingbag
disrespect is key.
Burkinis are pretty silly (well, they're a clever adaptation for those feeling obliged to follow a pretty silly rule anyway) but it seems odd to have a pool ban a type of clothing designed for swimming in. I suppose if they thought they'd lose a lot of business they wouldn't do it. Still odd.
It is kind of funny to see a French pool keeping people out for wearing too much, here it'd likely be for wearing too little (possibly with the same argument of the clothing, or lack thereof, being degrading to women). :clown:
As far as the government appointing 32 legislators to spend six months trying to find ways to limit the use of the Burkha....that's interesting. I guess it keeps them from causing the kind of trouble they might in their normal duties, although I'm sure they'll find a way to cause trouble with their current assignment. :smash:
Kralizec
08-13-2009, 08:56
I despise islamic dress code, but part of me is uncomfortable with banning them. Strictly speaking they don't harm anyone.
Emerainville Mayor Alain Kelyor said "all this has nothing to do with Islam", adding that the swimsuit was "not an Islamic swimsuit" and that "that type of suit does not exist in the Koran".
I always think it's odd when people do this. You never hear of protestants lecturing catholics on how to venerate saints, or McDonalds refusing to allow jews inside because they're not allowed to eat there according to their religion...
Somebody should try entering a French pool in a diving suit to see if anyone makes a complaint about it.
InsaneApache
08-13-2009, 09:31
Is Burka short for Berkshire Hunt? :inquisitive:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8197917.stm
Something deep inside when Western Chivalric-influenced psyche is offended by the Burkka. A woman does not need to hide her shape and face to be safe from me, or another man when I am around.
I fully support this French policy in general, the only thing I don't like is that we didn't come up with it first.
Surely by telling her what to wear you are patronising her, how does that fit into chivalric thinking? Let them where what they want, why does anyone care what they wear? Or are we still in the childish "all towel heads are terrorists" stage?
Foreign people look and act different and native people don't like it.
A real scoop this one :rolleyes:
Sure enough but the burkha should be banned, I don't care for the justification their petty beliefs don't offend me, but the burkha is a security-risk pure and simple, you can't see who is under it. As for the rest, couldn't care less.
I can't see the face of people walking in front of me. Is that a security risk?
Should wearing a mask be illegal too?
Howabout false mostaches?
Beefy187
08-13-2009, 10:51
Just think of it as fashion.
I see nothing wrong if they want to wear them.
rory_20_uk
08-13-2009, 10:52
Last time I read the Koran it stated women need to cover their breasts. I could not see the bit that said hair.
Assuming that men have no control over their urges, why is it that women suffer in requiring a constant bodyguard and wearing such horrible clothes? Shouldn't men be forced to wear chastity belts and anything else that causes them to all be such cause of concern? :inquisitive:
Just like wearing a bikini isn't culturally acceptable on the beaches of Saudi Arabia, these things shouldn't be acceptable over here. Of course, we're not as barbaric to flog the offenders.
~:smoking:
Shouldn't men be forced to wear chastity belts and anything else that causes them to all be such cause of concern? :inquisitive:
How about this,
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/vp1a_1904balkje_196374h.jpg
Burkha for men :balloon2:
I can't see the face of people walking in front of me. Is that a security risk?
Should wearing a mask be illegal too?
Howabout false mostaches?
Is there a place where a lot of people wear masks, allowing just about any trafficking? A criminal or terrorist can be completely invisible.
__________________
Hosakawa Tito
08-13-2009, 10:58
I can't see the face of people walking in front of me. Is that a security risk?
Should wearing a mask be illegal too?
Howabout false mostaches?
OMG, Halloween will be next.
I can't see the face of people walking in front of me. Is that a security risk?
Should wearing a mask be illegal too?
Howabout false mostaches?
OMG, Halloween will be next.
Nobody said that, that's just silly and avoiding the real issue.
Let's call a spade a spade. It's not about 'safety' or "hygiene'.
No, burka's should be disallowed because they are denigrating for the women wearing them. It's a clothing designed to make women unrecognisable objects and to mark them as inferior beings. Away with the burka, it's a disgrace.
OMG, Halloween will be next.
Halloween is once a year. These burkhas all look the same and they are a common view(are they? have never seen one), I could organise the greatest heist in history right under your noses, or worse.
What gives you the right to determine what a person can wear? We aren't dealing with 5 year olds here, these are grown women who should be able to decide what they want to wear. Treating them like little kids and telling them how to get dressed is denigrating.
rory_20_uk
08-13-2009, 11:25
It is alien to our society.
People should come to the country to meld with the society, not do what they or their ancestors did in their own.
If they don't like it - leave.
~:smoking:
Meneldil
08-13-2009, 11:36
What gives you the right to determine what a person can wear? We aren't dealing with 5 year olds here, these are grown women who should be able to decide what they want to wear. Treating them like little kids and telling them how to get dressed is denigrating.
I don't know what gives anyone a right to tell what a person can wear, but french laws surely can tell what a person cannot wear. Fine enough for me.
Now, before you start using general principles and whatnots, a few informations:
- the french idea of laïcité (sometimes described abroad as a general anti-religious feeling) involves many thing, such as not wearing any religious symbols in a public area. Obviously, the whole thingy has been lately in conflict with veils, burkas, burkinis and other ridiculous islamofascist clothing fashions, but be assured that a catholic kid is in theory not allowed to wear a cross in school, just like a jewish one is not allowed to wear a kippa.
- swimming pools are public areas.
- burkinis are a religious symbol, which not only - as Don explained - tries to carry a message ('Islam is teh :daisy:') but also turns women into mere objects.
So yeah, good riddance. It's about freaking time, and I hope the law project that attempts to ban Burka, Niqab and other similar middle-age crap will pass soon. Not that there are many women wearing burka in France, but that way, they'll know that their distorded view of religion and identity is not welcome here.
Edit: Reading the article really makes it sound like France is on crusade against islam and what not. Obviously, most of the issues nowadays are caused by islam and muslims who can't graspe the principle of laicité, but this very idea of laicité was at first aimed at the catholic church. It also greatly favored the freedom of minor religious groups (jews, protestants, armenians) in France.
It is alien to our society.
People should come to the country to meld with the society, not do what they or their ancestors did in their own.
If they don't like it - leave.
~:smoking:
Lulz...
Is that enshrined in the constitution? Perhaps it should be. We can get parliament to set out what cultural behaviour is acceptable, and anyone who doesn't comply should be deported. How about some good honest white english woman who decides to wear a burkha? Should she be imprisoned?
The Cultural Norms Act (2010)
Section A: Acceptable attire includes:
(i) Slacks and shirts for men
(ii) Skirts and dresses for the ladies
:laugh4: This board can be truely tragi-comic.
but be assured that a catholic kid is in theory not allowed to wear a cross in school, just like a jewish one is not allowed to wear a kippa.
In theory or practise? I agree with Miotas, security is my only consideration for the burkha, but a niqaab or a veil is just fashion to me. The maroccan pirate-veil even looks kinda cool.
Interestingly if you look at 20-30 year old photos of crowds in Islamic countries - almost all women are not veiled.
The Koran suggests that men and women dress modestly and "cover all that isn't apparent". The current fashion for complete veiling is relatively recent. It is neither islamic in origin, nor is it that traditional. But hey - this is the org - we don't care about understanding things - we just want a place to knee-jerk.
Pictures of Nasser's funeral:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/387/cu1.gif
Left, a Woman in Saudi Arab dress of Royal Family and
Right, a Woman in Palestine dress from Bethlehem:
http://www.arab2.com/arab-traditional-dress/images/saudi-palestine.gif
There is no need to ban the burka, you have to be recognisable on the street, current laws are fine
finger -> face MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA shambling sleepingbag
disrespect is key.
Wouldn't that be illegal under the anti-discrimination laws that countries like Norway, Sweden and Germany have? :inquisitive:
rory_20_uk
08-13-2009, 12:02
Lulz...
Is that enshrined in the constitution? Perhaps it should be. We can get parliament to set out what cultural behaviour is acceptable, and anyone who doesn't comply should be deported. How about some good honest white english woman who decides to wear a burkha? Should she be imprisoned?
The Cultural Norms Act (2010)
Section A: Acceptable attire includes:
(i) Slacks and shirts for men
(ii) Skirts and dresses for the ladies
:laugh4: This board can be truely tragi-comic.
Indeed it can. Of course, on matters you care about extreme measures are justified...
~:smoking:
Indeed it can. Of course, on matters you care about extreme measures are justified...
~:smoking:
What are you actually scared of Rory? You think that your girlfriend will be forced to wear a burkha?
It's an issue because people make it one. Any law would be utterly unworkable, illiberal and ultimately counterproductive.
As I have attempted to show, fashions change. 'Islamic' fashions change too. They will change again - especially if they are not made into issues central to identity.
Wouldn't that be illegal under the anti-discrimination laws that countries like Norway, Sweden and Germany have? :inquisitive:
So what, if they insist on asking more than we are prepared to give humiliate the crap out of them, mock them, redicule them, up to the point that they simply can't take it anymore, and after that laugh them in their face until they start enjoying it and laugh along. Presto.
What are you actually scared of Rory? You think that your girlfriend will be forced to wear a burkha?
It's an issue because people make it one. Any law would be utterly unworkable, illiberal and ultimately counterproductive.
As I have attempted to show, fashions change. 'Islamic' fashions change too. They will change again - especially if they are not made into issues central to identity.
Do you honestly think the burka is just some new fashion and nothing else?
Care to explain the succes of this "new fashion" in Afghanistan?
HoreTore
08-13-2009, 12:18
What's the most important issues for female liberation?
Economic independence, economic independence and economic independence.
Anything else, like burkas or whatever, is secondary.
Cute Wolf
08-13-2009, 12:20
Well, I Must said that.....
I agree with those French, All covered, and loose fitting suits for women made them easier to hide the bomb in. But guys... talking about Islamic dresscode this late years, those fanatics seemed to had a tighter grips by now.... using peer pressures and school regulations even my girlfriend was "forced" to wear that in her highschool.
But seriously, AGAINST MOST THAT THEY BELIEVE, using all covered dress DOESN'T stop some filthy minded males to grab their breasts and caress their butts, SERIOUSLY!, here, in Indonesia.... MOST WOMEN THAT GOT RAPED WEARS HIJAB!!! (Citation: Kompas)
EDIT: but once you got yourself a girlfriend that wear "hijab". I bet they still prefer to open their dress when in your room. :embarassed:
I agree with those French, All covered, and loose fitting suits for women made them easier to hide the bomb in.
Well in case of the burkini that's a bit hard.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/burkini.jpg
I think this is taking it a bit too far, should I have a problem with this.
edit: afterthought, I can't believe I am saying this. I don't think these shambling sleepingbags are the ones going to the pool. Wearing a burkha is closing yourself of to society, the burkini sounds more like a good compromise, being part of society without compromising theirselves. We happy they happy, but we aren't happy. Would we have all this fuzz if they picked a name for that thing that doesn't sound like Burkha?
Furunculus
08-13-2009, 12:40
Let's call a spade a spade. It's not about 'safety' or "hygiene'.
No, burka's should be disallowed because they are denigrating for the women wearing them. It's a clothing designed to make women unrecognisable objects and to mark them as inferior beings. Away with the burka, it's a disgrace.
to take this further, we expect to be able to 'read' someones face in order to judge their intentions and assess their trustworthiness, especially with those we don't know personally.
that may not matter in societies where women are effectively chattel, why do you need to trust someone who has no power and influence to affect your life, but i kind of thought we'd got past that in the west.
i'm not sure i'd legislate against a form of clothing, but i'd be damn sure there was no legislation barring discrimination on the trust grounds.
Vladimir
08-13-2009, 12:41
Funny.
Another one from AFP: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g8SIBOp1Y256lTipHzwXtl2sWJ0A
Well in case of the burkini that's a bit hard.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/burkini.jpg
I think this is taking it a bit too far, should I have a problem with this.
Ok, now I am just stunned. THAT is what they want to ban? Would you ban this?
https://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo293/joshball2000/OlympicSwimsuit1.jpg
Yeah, if it's meant to make them unattractive I must say it fails completely...
Wearing burqas must be allowed. As much as they offend my sensibilities, wearing that sack is a personal business of the wearer. Of course, *driving* with that thing on should be strictly verbotten.
Do you honestly think the burka is just some new fashion and nothing else?
Care to explain the succes of this "new fashion" in Afghanistan?
What has Afghanistan got to do with this? This is about european law.
So what, if they insist on asking more than we are prepared to give humiliate the crap out of them, mock them, redicule them, up to the point that they simply can't take it anymore, and after that laugh them in their face until they start enjoying it and laugh along. Presto.
So harrass and abuse people who do things differently to you Fragony. Nice.
rory_20_uk
08-13-2009, 14:22
You're right. Allow everything that a culture somewhere finds OK. Knives under cots? Sure, why not. Dogmatic teaching from a young age? It works abroad, why not here? Never offend others sensibilities, so everyone must take shoes off before entering a house of Mosque. Mustn't let police work offend anyone. Polygamy? Well, rather legalise it than cause any offence. Cutting sheep's throats in the back garden? Well, if their grandfathers did it we can't change them can we? Church bells causing offence? Better stop them too whilst we're at it. The Queen is defender of the Faith. Clearly that's discrimination. Better scrap that too.
~:smoking:
Centurion1
08-13-2009, 14:24
What has Afghanistan got to do with this? This is about european law.
Taliban and their anti-female laws.
It is denigrating to women. I don't know if you can revoke the privilege unless you infringe on personal freedoms. The women don't complain because that is their culture but as soon as they gain some freedom from their male oppressors i am sure they won't want to wear the burkha. i mean it doesn't really look very convient, must really mess with your peripherals.
Gosh i felt like a feminist for a minute there.
So harrass and abuse people who do things differently to you Fragony. Nice.
I have no time for their imaginary friends, when you are tresspassing meet the dogs. The only way we can make this work is by being perfectly clear, this is us, you are welcome here but this is not your country it is ours and we do things our way. So if some beard demands 5 prayer breaks a day they won't make theirselves very popular. Ask it to me and I will give him a spot where there is absolute certainty that while he is praying to mecca everybody will be looking at his butt. If you can't take a healthy dose of rudeness you definately don't belong in the Netherlands, we don't like to be told what to do.
Hmm... no problem. Don't give muslims any breaks. Don't adjust anything to fit their needs. That's not a problem really, however, telling them what to wear imho goes too far. You don't need to (and quite frankly, shouldn't) change the existing rules to accomodate them, but let's face it, clothing as long as it meets the basic standards of public decency is a personal business of the wearer. Otherwise we're getting into the fashion police territory reserved for for Iranian Basij and the Taliban Ministry of the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.
Louis VI the Fat
08-13-2009, 14:54
Me and my friends recently converted to animism. We went to the swimming pool dressed like this. We were banned. :furious3:
https://img30.imageshack.us/img30/3516/yalipeniskokers.jpg (https://img30.imageshack.us/i/yalipeniskokers.jpg/)
Or, in other words, societies have basic dress codes of what is appropriate attire. We are all forced to abide by it. If not by law, then by social convention.
Societies also change. I can not wear Celtic clothing of 2500 years ago. One hundred years ago, a woman in pants would create outrage. Currently, the dress codes of new cultures are assimilating. Assimilation is always a two-way process, a new common dress code will be formed. This assimilation is not a peaceful process. Never has been. The right of men to have long hair in the sixties, of women to wear trousers in the early 20th century - all was done through struggle, bans, moral outrage.
Currently, new cultures are changing publicly accepted dress codes too. Alas, moving them in a reactionary direction. In Paris north or east, a women can not walk the streets in a skimpy summer dress anymore. It is just not worth it, not worth the hassle. The influence of new cultures has managed to destroy a cherished French tradition too: women no longer bathe topless. They don't feel comfortable anymore. I can not begin to describe my grief over this.
You're right. Allow everything that a culture somewhere finds OK. Knives under cots? Sure, why not. Dogmatic teaching from a young age? It works abroad, why not here? Never offend others sensibilities, so everyone must take shoes off before entering a house of Mosque. Mustn't let police work offend anyone. Polygamy? Well, rather legalise it than cause any offence. Cutting sheep's throats in the back garden? Well, if their grandfathers did it we can't change them can we? Church bells causing offence? Better stop them too whilst we're at it. The Queen is defender of the Faith. Clearly that's discrimination. Better scrap that too.
~:smoking:
What the devil are you wittering on about :laugh4: We are talking about the right of people to wear whatever clothes they like.
Church bells causing offence eh? That sounds like a classic example of a news agenda puff-piece. I'd love you to find the actual story behind that. You sound like you have swallowed a year's subscription to the Daily Mail. A lot of unsubstantiated nonsense masquarading as 'British culture in crisis'.
Once again I ask - what about your life has been compromised in any way by people wearing hijab?
That's not a problem really
Yet it is, for every beard demanding special treatment there is an army of the inquisitors of the leftist church with their unlimited funds to swing their juridical wrecking ball. It has become less worse lately since we are kinda fed up at this point and the leftist church in the end only cares about their own comfortable existance and the funds might be less fat next round.
The influence of new cultures has managed to destroy a cherished French tradition too: women no longer bathe topless. They don't feel comfortable anymore. I can not begin to describe my grief over this.
HA when it comes to that civilization is much intact here. You can never have our boobs.
I have no time for their imaginary friends, when you are tresspassing meet the dogs. The only way we can make this work is by being perfectly clear, this is us, you are welcome here but this is not your country it is ours and we do things our way. So if some beard demands 5 prayer breaks a day they won't make theirselves very popular. Ask it to me and I will give him a spot where there is absolute certainty that while he is praying to mecca everybody will be looking at his butt. If you can't take a healthy dose of rudeness you definately don't belong in the Netherlands, we don't like to be told what to do.
You don't even see the paradox :laugh4:
You don't belong in the Netherlands if you don't like to be told what to do - but here's what you must do or you should leave.
Ahhh the far right. It would be amusing if it didn't lead to violence.
Or, in other words, societies have basic dress codes of what is appropriate attire. We are all forced to abide by it. If not by law, then by social convention.
Alright, let's take a chick in a full islamic dress with a hijab and stuff and compare her to a Catholic nun. Both are covered, both do it out of devotion to God. Nobody would ever give a nun a hard time over the way she is dressed.
Vladimir
08-13-2009, 15:00
Gosh i felt like a feminist for a minute there.
There's no shame in that. I've considered myself a lesbian for years.
Alright, let's take a chick in a full islamic dress with a hijab and stuff and compare her to a Catholic nun. Both are covered, both do it out of devotion to God. Nobody would ever give a nun a hard time over the way she is dressed.
Nuns don't swim in their habit/robe thing.
An excellent point rvg.
What if I decide that I am the high priest of the giant love goat monkey comet religion that I have just made up. My religion stipulates that I wear ski goggles and a fur coat at all times. Should I be taunted and abused by Fragony?
Taliban and their anti-female laws.
It is denigrating to women. I don't know if you can revoke the privilege unless you infringe on personal freedoms. The women don't complain because that is their culture but as soon as they gain some freedom from their male oppressors i am sure they won't want to wear the burkha. i mean it doesn't really look very convient, must really mess with your peripherals.
Gosh i felt like a feminist for a minute there.
I don't think Fragony and Rory give a toss about women's rights. They are just scared of the filthy foreigners.
I don't think Fragony and Rory give a toss about women's rights. They are just scared of the filthy foreigners.
And I think this thread should be closed. You are talking with your leftist reflexes not with us. And to be fair, this whole burkini deal comes from a rightist reflex.
Nuns don't swim in their habit/robe thing.
What does this discussion have to do with swimming?
Louis VI the Fat
08-13-2009, 15:12
NSFW:
Should this be allowed? They are religious symbols!:
https://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3879/37599240.jpg (https://img5.imageshack.us/i/37599240.jpg/)
And this? A clear religious symbol of gender identity, like the burka:
https://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9836/607078988d7c97f8252.jpg (https://img5.imageshack.us/i/607078988d7c97f8252.jpg/)
And if yes, then this too? After all, it is just a stylized, westernised version of a religious symbol, like the burkini:
https://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9035/latexsheathpants1947855.jpg (https://img5.imageshack.us/i/latexsheathpants1947855.jpg/)
Allow it all? After all, what about freedom of religion, or anti-immigrant fascism!
Or should we accept that we have dress codes in public?
Being naked generally goes against the public decency laws almost across the entire globe. Being covered from head to toe does not violate public decency laws.
Being naked generally goes against the public decency laws almost across the entire globe. Being covered from head to toe does not violate public decency laws.
Perfectly normal here to us, every woman bathes topless here. Seeing a woman being covered from head to toe is much more offensive to us trust me.
Well, Idaho, frankly, I don't care about whatever non existant religion and silly non existant example you invent to compare the burka with.
Burka = symbol and tool of oppression of women = away with it.
It's just common sense in my book.
rory_20_uk
08-13-2009, 15:22
I don't think...
It was good up to this point, then verbal diarrhoea got the better of you.
~:smoking:
Perfectly normal here to us, every woman bathes topless here. Seeing a woman being covered from head to toe is much more offensive to us trust me.
Okay, so you won't mind seeing a Papuan dude cavorting on the streets of Amsterdam with nothing except a tube on his schlong?
It was good up to this point, then verbal diarrhoea got the better of you.
~:smoking:
So in the absence of any reasoned argument you just go for a cheap dig.
I take that as you formally conceeding the point.
Okay, so you won't mind seeing a Papuan dude cavorting on the streets of Amsterdam with nothing except a tube on his schlong?
I don't care what people wear. Live and let live.
Louis VI the Fat
08-13-2009, 15:29
Being naked generally goes against the public decency laws almost across the entire globe. Being covered from head to toe does not violate public decency laws. The examples show that modesty and gender vary widely across the globe.
If France had fifteen million Papua and Amazonian immigrants, instead of Africans and Muslims, we'd be having an entirely different debate.
The right to wear less, instead of more, would be contented. The penis sheath, instead of the Burqa, would be central to discussion about immigrant gender roles and their expression through fashion. 'Man must be allowed to show their manly virility', instead of 'women must be allowed to show their female modesty'.
The woman of this story is a French convert. She is challenging the right to wear a stylized, western variant of exotic attire. It is not all that different from me demanding the right to wear the stylized, western variant of New Guinean clothing to a swimming pool. In fact, I am seriously considering getting a couple of guys together and turning up at a swimming pool dressed in penis sheats. I'll make sure to convert to animism too.
It looks bizarre what I posted, but it is not. It serves to illuminate some underlying mechanisms in the debate.
Okay, so you won't mind seeing a Papuan dude cavorting on the streets of Amsterdam with nothing except a tube on his schlong?
Ever been to Amsterdam :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I don't think Fragony and Rory give a toss about women's rights. They are just scared of the filthy foreigners. <- Idaho
So in the absence of any reasoned argument you just go for a cheap dig. <- Idaho, two minutes later!
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/picardheadeskt.jpg
Scotty, bring him soup
Well, Idaho, frankly, I don't care about whatever non existant religion and silly non existant example you invent to compare the burka with.
Burka = symbol and tool of oppression of women = away with it.
It's just common sense in my book.
How about french cinema? That's oppressive to women. 90% of it is about some ugly old bloke getting off with some pretty young woman :laugh4:
The examples show that modesty and gender vary widely across the globe.
If France had fifteen million Papua and Amazonian immigrants, instead of Africans and Muslims, we'd be having an entirely different debate.
The right to wear less, instead of more, would be contented. The penis sheath, instead of the Burqa, would be central to discussion about immigrant gender roles and their expression through fashion. 'Man must be allowed to show their manly virility', instead of 'women must be allowed to show their female modesty'.
The woman of this story is a French convert. She is challenging the right to wear a stylized, western variant of exotic attire. It is not all that different from me demanding the right to wear the stylized, western variant of New Guinean clothing to a swimming pool. In fact, I am seriously considering getting a couple of guys together and turning up at a swimming pool dressed in penis sheats. I'll make sure to convert to animism too.
It looks bizarre what I posted, but it is not. It serves to illuminate some underlying mechanisms in the debate.
If it were my swimming pool, you'd get your penis sheath served for dinner :smash:
Djeez, there is a special occasion for wearing ridiculous clothes in public: carnaval.
The rest of the year you dress properly in public and ridiculous only on private parties with lots of booze.
No burka.
How about french cinema? That's oppressive to women. 90% of it is about some ugly old bloke getting off with some pretty young woman :laugh4:
Your application for the Ministery of Fail has been accepted. Third hall, first room on the left, remember it's non drooling area, thank you for your cooperation.
There is another thread here that has a name perfectly suited to this one.
What about bridal veils? Should those be banned too? After all, they serve exactly the same purpose: concealment. Or better yet: gimp suits. Those conceal *everything* under a thick layer of leather.
Instead of worrying about burkas and such, we should be focusing on a much more offensive trend, overweight people in tight clothing. Spandex is a privilege, not a right. :yes:
What about bridal veils? Should those be banned too? After all, they serve exactly the same purpose: concealment. Or better yet: gimp suits. Those conceal *everything* under a thick layer of leather.
I really don't care, that's just fashion to me, as I said, but Idaho's mind mentally blocks that I said that. All fresh and fruity for Idaho, oh you marry your 12 year old daughter to a mullah in Childrapistan, how very exotic that just screams for intercultural dialogue since we did that 200 years ago, we can really learn from eachother.
Muslims are like Pokemon to some, they got to love them all.
I really don't care, that's just fashion to me, as I said, but Idaho's mind mentally blocks that I said that. All fresh and fruity for Idaho, oh you marry your 12 year old daughter to a mullah in Childrapistan, how very exotic that just screams for intercultural dialogue since we did that 200 years ago, we can really learn from eachother.
Muslims are like Pokemon to some, they got to love them all.
You don't get it do you dearest Fraggles. The debate is not about what happens elsewhere. It's about the nature of our society. And fundamental to that society is freedom of conscience, religion and dress.
You don't get it do you dearest Fraggles. The debate is not about what happens elsewhere. It's about the nature of our society. And fundamental to that society is freedom of conscience, religion and dress.
Yeah, we have that.
In that case people should be free to dress in burqas.
It's xenophobic rascism and that's all there is to it. People fear different, and they're different so they must be assimilated ASAP.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-13-2009, 16:37
Cultural relativism is such a cop out.
It's xenophobic rascism and that's all there is to it. People fear different, and they're different so they must be assimilated ASAP.
__________________
So you translate "I don't like it because it denigrates the women" into "I hate and fear the brown foreigners"?
rory_20_uk
08-13-2009, 16:40
It's xenophobic rascism and that's all there is to it. People fear different, and they're different so they must be assimilated ASAP.
It's not xenophobia as it was never stated that those abiding by different cultural norms are irrationally feared.
It's not racism as no allusion to any specific race has been made.
So, the post is categorically wrong. :laugh4:
~:smoking:
It's xenophobic rascism and that's all there is to it. People fear different, and they're different so they must be assimilated ASAP.
I wouldn't call it racism. I think Fragony perceives islam as a threat to the West, and I actually agree with him. I think that islam is the largest threat to the western way of life. However, I do not consider the curtailing of simple personal liberties to be a good way of stopping islam. Yes, it must be dealt with, but let's leave burqa out of this. Burqa is merely a visible symptom of an underlying disease. You deal with the disease and the symptom will go away.
rory_20_uk
08-13-2009, 16:42
You don't get it do you dearest Fraggles. The debate is not about what happens elsewhere. It's about the nature of our society. And fundamental to that society is freedom of conscience, religion and dress.
So, when I get a husband directing me as to the healthcare of his wife this is OK? Not yet a statistical sample, but so far only those with one religion appear to be making these demands.
~:smoking:
So, when I get a husband directing me as to the healthcare of his wife this is OK? Not yet a statistical sample, but so far only those with one religion appear to be making these demands.
~:smoking:
I would say that has nothing to do with clothing. 100 years ago in this country women were considered chattels of their husbands - and they didn't have burkhas on. You are confusing two issues.
It's not xenophobia as it was never stated that those abiding by different cultural norms are irrationally feared.
It's not racism as no allusion to any specific race has been made.
So, the post is categorically wrong. :laugh4:
~:smoking:
You can't deny the second half of my post though.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-13-2009, 16:50
I would say that has nothing to do with clothing. 100 years ago in this country women were considered chattels of their husbands - and they didn't have burkhas on. You are confusing two issues.
That's right, they had corsets.
This topic reminds me of
http://www.thelocal.se/20250/20090624/
Women in Malmö have been given the right to bathe topless in the swimming pools of Sweden's third largest city.
[...]
The Bara Bröst network swept to prominence in late 2007 after two bare-breasted young women were called ashore by a lifeguard at a swimming pool in Uppsala. When they refused to cover up, they were asked to leave the premises.
Speaking to The Local at the time, Ragnhild Karlsson, 22, explained the womens' motives for swimming without bikini tops.
"It's a question of equality. I think it's a problem that women are sexualized in this way. If women are forced to wear a top, shouldn't men also have to?"
Outraged by what they regarded as discrimination, a group of women in southern Sweden made a show of solidarity by establishing the network, whose name translates as both "bare breasts" and "just breasts".
This should be followed up by a ban, since bikinis reduces women's natural potential to be distinct individuals. :smash:
In many cultures that have never heard about feminism, women walking topless is considered the norm.
-
I think some of the fashion Louis linked to really is as manly as fashion theoretically can get; it's only banned because we live in misandric societies. :beam:
Rhyfelwyr
08-13-2009, 16:56
What the :daisy:, I am terrified by some people's attitutude in this thread. What right do secular authorities have telling religious people what their beliefs are? Like the example where someone said covering the face is not in the Koran... I'm still pretty sure it's in the hadiths, which is why we don't see Shi'ite Iranian women wearing these veils... then again I could be wrong, which is why we should ask a Muslim and not try to tell them what they believe. Or if we don't want to go down that line, maybe I can ban Catholics from following their traditions, it's not in the Bible after all, Sola Scriptura everybody. And that's not just me trolling the RCC, this is more or less what we are doing to Sunni Muslims here.
As for Louis example, I don't think it works because the laws demanding you cover your private areas are quite reasonable, there's a reason why (most) native peoples living in exotic jungles still go to the trouble of covering them up, its human nature not a cultural thing that anyone is imposing. So as long as you are dressed in such a manner that you won't terrify people, it's up to you.
And what is with the "burka's are denigrating to women" argument? So, are we going to liberate these women by telling them what they can and cannot do for their own good? Mummy state knows what is best for you, eh?
rory_20_uk
08-13-2009, 17:04
I would say that has nothing to do with clothing. 100 years ago in this country women were considered chattels of their husbands - and they didn't have burkhas on. You are confusing two issues.
Removing the burkhas was often one of the things I wasn't allowed to do. And justifying today by drawing comparison with what we now consider unjustifiable hardly adds weight to your argument.
You can't deny the second half of my post though.
They want to live here. I think that that it is fair to expect assimilation. If not, move on.
Hadiths? Aren't they the extra bits tacked on afterwards? In public I agree that there is not a right to restrict, but there should be in government buildings, offices, schools, hospitals etc.
~:smoking:
In that case people should be free to dress in burqas.
No, because security comes first, if Ali el Hakbar el Boomski comes to town he has 100% freedom of movement and we can't have that. As for the rest, have your way, just don't expect a very sympethatic reaction from me when you are walking around like a relic from whateveritwas.
"Hey, lady. Don't wear that."
"Why?"
"Because no man should be able to tell you what to do."
"What?"
"Yes, that's a good girl. Now wear this skimpy bikini to make you look pretty."
HoreTore
08-13-2009, 17:21
Hadiths? Aren't they the extra bits tacked on afterwards? In public I agree that there is not a right to restrict, but there should be in government buildings, offices, schools, hospitals etc.
So....
You want the muslim women to stay away from schools, hospital, government buildings, etc?
Yes, that's a nice way to improve their situation....
No, because security comes first, if Ali el Hakbar el Boomski comes to town he has 100% freedom of movement and we can't have that. As for the rest, have your way, just don't expect a very sympethatic reaction from me when you are walking around like a relic from whateveritwas.
*facepalm*
Terrorist steryotypes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McB9tsabPn0)? Are you serious?
Vladimir
08-13-2009, 17:29
This topic reminds me of
http://www.thelocal.se/20250/20090624/
This should be followed up by a ban, since bikinis reduces women's natural potential to be distinct individuals. :smash:
In many cultures that have never heard about feminism, women walking topless is considered the norm.
-
I think some of the fashion Louis linked to really is as manly as fashion theoretically can get; it's only banned because we live in misandric societies. :beam:
That's because Swedes are Stupid (http://www.thelocal.se/21208/20090810/).
:laugh4:
No, because security comes first, if Ali el Hakbar el Boomski comes to town he has 100% freedom of movement and we can't have that. As for the rest, have your way, just don't expect a very sympethatic reaction from me when you are walking around like a relic from whateveritwas.
I don't think you need to worry about a would-be-bomber hiding behind a burqa. If a suicide bomber decides to attack, he'll be clean shaven, dressed in the most casual western attire and would attract zero attention.
rory_20_uk
08-13-2009, 17:35
"Than you for coming in to see me Ms Fatwa"
"No problem headteacher"
"There have been some concerns regarding your teaching of the class"
"Yes?"
"It's concerning the garment that you are wearing that is removing all facial features..."
"I hope you're not telling me what to wear? How DARE you be so intolerant! People from my country can get imprisoned or stoned for criticising the dress!!!"
"Oh, I'm very sorry, but the thing is the children are deaf, and find it hard to bond with a tower of black cloth..."
~:smoking:
So....
You want the muslim women to stay away from schools, hospital, government buildings, etc?
Yes, that's a nice way to improve their situation....
They can improve their situation by not covering theirselves all up, do we have any obligations to not let them screw up? No cookies for the unwilling. I don't want to ban these clothes, except the burkha, but no wealthfare when you dress up like a pinguin because you have chosen to not to be of any use to us, sort it out yourselve then, just because you were born doesn't mean you deserve to have a life.
I don't think you need to worry about a would-be-bomber hiding behind a burqa. If a suicide bomber decides to attack, he'll be clean shaven, dressed in the most casual western attire and would attract zero attention.
In a burkha he can attract zero attention much much easier, if something is going on, good luck finding out who is who where and when.
Ser Clegane
08-13-2009, 17:39
Intermission
It would be great if this thread could continue without making personal attacks, making wild assumptions about the views of your "opponent" and resorting to stereoptypes.
I am currently quite tempted to close this one, but I have not completely given up the hope that this could continue as a meaningful (and civilised) discussion.
Thanks
End of intermission
HoreTore
08-13-2009, 17:41
*facepalm*
Terrorist steryotypes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McB9tsabPn0)? Are you serious?
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
GOLDEN!!
In a burkha he can attract zero attention much much easier, if something is going on, good luck finding out who is who where and when.
Yes, zero attention. In Afghanistan. Elsewhere, he/she will stick out like a sore thumb. The 9/11 attackers, the London bombers were all dressed in western clothes.
Yes, zero attention. In Afghanistan. Elsewhere, he/she will stick out like a sore thumb. The 9/11 attackers, the London bombers were all dressed in western clothes.
Yes, but that is because they had to infiltrate into a certain society, but a society isn't that hard to infiltrate if people are allowed to cover up their faces and all look exactly the same. If I would have any bad intentions I would welcome it like the second comming of the lack of christ.
This should help http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4032
Great idea. Really.
InsaneApache
08-13-2009, 18:11
The influence of new cultures has managed to destroy a cherished French tradition too: women no longer bathe topless. They don't feel comfortable anymore. I can not begin to describe my grief over this.
It's the end of civilisation as we know it. Over to the Octo-squids. :sweatdrop:
Yes, but that is because they had to infiltrate into a certain society, but a society isn't that hard to infiltrate if people are allowed to cover up their faces and all look exactly the same. If I would have any bad intentions I would welcome it like the second comming of the lack of christ.
This should help http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4032
Great idea. Really.
You do realize that in America you are allowed to wear burqas, so your argument is not valid. Terrorists might be fanatics, but they are not idiots. Burqa might conceal your face, but the outfit itself is so controversial that every cop is guaranteed to watch you like a hawk. In fact, if *I* were a terrorist, I'd hire a couple of hookers to put on burqas and walk around as a distraction for cops, while I would meld with the crowd and do whatever it was that I planned on doing.
You do realize that in America you are allowed to wear burqas, so your argument is not valid. Terrorists might be fanatics, but they are not idiots. Burqa might conceal your face, but the outfit itself is so controversial that every cop is guaranteed to watch you like a hawk. In fact, if *I* were a terrorist, I'd hire a couple of hookers to put on burqas and walk around as a distraction for cops, while I would meld with the crowd and do whatever it was that I planned on doing.
So when you put yourself in their mind you have already found a use for them, and yet my argument isn't valid?
So when you put yourself in their mind you have already found a use for them, and yet my argument isn't valid?
Of course it isn't valid. You were putting terrorists behind those burqas. I was putting hookers.
Vladimir
08-13-2009, 18:34
What does this discussion have to do with swimming?
So, why did this discussion turn away from advocating that women remove their clothes before getting wet?
Of course it isn't valid. You were putting terrorists behind those burqas. I was putting hookers.
And someone could be putting terminators under it. If I would be running a criminal/terrorist organisation, well, well that's just me how would you do it. To have your guys running the streets with absolute freedom of movement because of absolute concealment of my organisation, pure bliss. And you allow that all because you don't want to insult people who build their houses from mud and camelshit had they not lived in a civilization.
And someone could be putting terminators under it. If I would be running a criminal/terrorist organisation, well, well that's just me how would you do it. To have your guys running the streets with absolute freedom of movement because of absolute concealment of my organisation, pure bliss. And you allow that all because you don't want to insult people who build their houses from camelshit had they not lived in a civilization.
How often do you see people wearing burqas? In order for a burqa to be a viable tool of concealment, it has to be common. So, what's the share of burqa enthusiasts in Dutch society?
How often do you see people wearing burqas? In order for a burqa to be a viable tool of concealment, it has to be common. So, what's the share of burqa enthusiasts in Dutch society?
I have never seen one in my life, but is that the point.
I have never seen one in my life, but is that the point.
Has burqa been illegal all these years? If not, then what's the purpose of banning something that isn't a problem anyway?
Has burqa been illegal all these years? If not, then what's the purpose of banning something that isn't a problem anyway?
I don't know how big the problem is in France, but in Belgium it isn't that uncommon that criminals wear them. The burkha just isn't here thankfully.
Still, the question stands: why ban burqas in the Netherlands if they aren't a problem there? I mean, when you pass a law, you expect it to accomplish something. What exactly would this kind of law accomplish if it were passed?
Crazed Rabbit
08-13-2009, 19:02
You don't get it do you dearest Fraggles. The debate is not about what happens elsewhere. It's about the nature of our society. And fundamental to that society is freedom of conscience, religion and dress.
Indeed. And I do not believe these women wearing burqas are free to do any of that. They are pressured into doing so by their relatives and their imported culture.
THAT is the point - that these women are not making a completely free decision to wear a burqas. It is a symbol of the repression of women.
Banning the burqa is therefore is therefore an attempt to fight this repression of women and introduce more western values - ie. of equality.
CR
Still, the question stands: why ban burqas in the Netherlands if they aren't a problem there? I mean, when you pass a law, you expect it to accomplish something. What exactly would this kind of law accomplish if it were passed?
No need to ban them in the Netherlands all the considerations I have made are already covered by Dutch law. I am making a case for why they shouldn't be allowed.
No need to ban them in the Netherlands all the considerations I have made are already covered by Dutch law. I am making a case for why they shouldn't be allowed.
Are burqas allowed in the Netherlands?
Are burqas allowed in the Netherlands?
Not sure. By law certainly not because someone is concealed. As far as I know we don't have them here.
Not sure. By law certainly not because someone is concealed. As far as I know we don't have them here.
Wait a minute, are you telling me that in The Netherlands you are required by law to have your face visible at all times?
Wait a minute, are you telling me that in The Netherlands you are required by law to have your face visible at all times?
On the streets yes. I think you can pull of wearing a jason mask on the streets for forever, but it's in essence illegal. There is a huge difference between theory and practise here, just about everything is illegal but it's allowed nevertheless.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-13-2009, 19:27
Wait a minute, are you telling me that in The Netherlands you are required by law to have your face visible at all times?
§ 14‑12.8. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public property.
No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina. (1953, c. 1193, s. 7.)
§ 14‑12.11. Exemptions from provisions of Article.
§ 14‑12.8. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public property.
No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina. (1953, c. 1193, s. 7.)
§ 14‑12.11. Exemptions from provisions of Article.
I credit The Klan for that law.
I credit The Klan for that law.
We don't have those either. It's just common sense.
France has this law, every western country does as far as I know, so they can skip the whole religion part and just ban the burkha because we can simply do it. If we don't, maybe I should start wearing a jason mask go to the bank and demand equal treatment just for fun? The bhurka can be banned just because of the principle of equal treatment.
Tribesman
08-13-2009, 19:51
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
According to the women that wear them, they're making a statement on the superiority of the Islamic culture, and hoping to promote a migration towards it in their new Western home
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Foreign people look and act different and native people don't like it.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
People should come to the country to meld with the society, not do what they or their ancestors did in their own.
If they don't like it - leave.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
What a load of bollox.
Did none of you notice that Carole is a French citizen of French ancestry.:oops:
Actually since two of you are British is it a good time to mention that this week in the name of decency a rather large British business has banned people from wearing swimming trunks in its swimming pools .
I wonder if they are going to reintroduce the tradtional Victorian bathing costumes and bring back strict sex segregation for swimming amenities in the name of culture
We don't have those either. It's just common sense.
France has this law, every western country does as far as I know, so they can skip the whole religion part and just ban the burkha because we can simply do it. If we don't, maybe I should start wearing a jason mask go to the bank and demand equal treatment just for fun? The bhurka can be banned just because of the principle of equal treatment.
*shrug* what is forbidden in North Carolina is not forbidden in New York or Michigan. Anyway, why I suppose that banning burqas under the mask provision might not violate the letter of the law it would most certainly violate the spirit of the law.
HoreTore
08-13-2009, 19:52
§ 14‑12.8. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public property.
No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina. (1953, c. 1193, s. 7.)
§ 14‑12.11. Exemptions from provisions of Article.
Hmmmmmm....
South Carolina is quite warm, right? Something tells me you won't see that law in Alaska, for example...
Hmmmmmm....
South Carolina is quite warm, right? Something tells me you won't see that law in Alaska, for example...
Typical "Laws Gone Wild" situation. Was originally put in to prevent Klansmen from rallying, now you can't wear a respirator without getting a citation.
Vladimir
08-13-2009, 19:54
Did none of you notice that Carole is a French citizen of French ancestry.:oops:
Yep.
Religious converts are often worse than those born into the religion. They are so desperate to prove themselves.
Anyway, why I suppose that banning burqas under the mask provision might not violate the letter of the law it would most certainly violate the spirit of the law.
Well not using every means at your disposal to end crap like this wouldn't be in the spirit of humanity. Personally I would rather shoot them.
Well not using every means at your disposal to end crap like this wouldn't be in the spirit of humanity. Personally I would rather shoot them.
Foreal? That's harsh.
Tribesman
08-13-2009, 20:01
Well not using every means at your disposal to end crap like this wouldn't be in the spirit of humanity
Ah desperate measures needed for the preservation of decent humanity .
That kinda sounds familiar.
Personally I would rather shoot them.
Initially that was the thought of those who last spun that line of yours on the continent , in the end they worked out that gas was much better.
Nobody said that, that's just silly and avoiding the real issue.
Let's call a spade a spade. It's not about 'safety' or "hygiene'.
No, burka's should be disallowed because they are denigrating for the women wearing them. It's a clothing designed to make women unrecognisable objects and to mark them as inferior beings. Away with the burka, it's a disgrace.
Person's choice. The person should have the choice not to wear them, not necessarily be "banned". However, it should fit in with clothing standards, such as health or safety regulation.
On the other hand, there are certain biniki's being banned because it is clothing designed to make women sexual objects and mark them as inferior beings for a man's pleasure. Away with the bikini, it's a disgrace.
Foreal?
No of course not.
HoreTore
08-13-2009, 20:08
Person's choice. The person should have the choice not to wear them, not necessarily be "banned". However, it should fit in with clothing standards, such as health or safety regulation.
On the other hand, there are certain biniki's being banned because it is clothing designed to make women sexual objects and mark them as inferior beings for a man's pleasure. Away with the bikini, it's a disgrace.
Clothing? That's a secondary issue when it comes to womens rights. The primary issue is economic independence. Without that, none of the other stuff is possible, nor is it even relevant. Without economic independence, the woman remains a slave. You can make her well trained and well dressed, but she will still be a slave.
First get her an income. Then you can worry about all the other stuff.
Clothing? That's a secondary issue when it comes to womens rights. The primary issue is economic independence. Without that, none of the other stuff is possible, nor is it even relevant. Without economic independence, the woman remains a slave. You can make her well trained and well dressed, but she will still be a slave.
First get her an income. Then you can worry about all the other stuff.
Yep. Equal opportunity and equal pay. The rest will follow on its own.
Clothing? That's a secondary issue when it comes to womens rights. The primary issue is economic independence. Without that, none of the other stuff is possible, nor is it even relevant. Without economic independence, the woman remains a slave. You can make her well trained and well dressed, but she will still be a slave.
First get her an income. Then you can worry about all the other stuff.
Well that isn't a very realistic course of events now is it, why would one hire a blue sack without eyes when one can hire something that resembles a human being.
Well that isn't a very realistic course of events now is it, why would one hire a blue sack without eyes when one can hire something that resembles a human being.
Well, an example would be to service other blue sacks in a blue sack neighborhood. In that case it would totally make sense to hire a blue sack for the job.
This is starting to sound kinky.
I would like to think that qualifications and personal qualities would overcome something as petty as a persons appearance.
Samurai Waki
08-13-2009, 20:28
... :laugh4:
What a silly thread.
Well, an example would be to service other blue sacks in a blue sack neighborhood. In that case it would totally make sense to hire a blue sack for the job.
Doing what. Put it at the garbage with the rest of the trash who can see the difference anyway, it's blue, no eyes, a sack, swoosh bye. I can't believe how you guys are trying to wrap a civilized society around this just to make extreme backwardness more pleasing to the eye.
This is starting to sound kinky.
I would like to think that qualifications and personal qualities would overcome something as petty as a persons appearance.
Well, allthough he worded it "Fragonesque", I kinda agree with Fragony.
An employer won't hire you if you constantly want to wear a burqua.
For some jobs, it's probably just not safe, and in other jobs you have dresscodes (banks, law firms, stores, ...).
So, by insisting to constantly be allowed to wear the burqua, you exclude yourself from many job opportunities. Which also addresses HoreTore's point about being able to get an income.
Welcome in the real world :shrug:
Well, allthough he worded it "Fragonesque", I kinda agree with Fragony.
An employer won't hire you if you constantly want to wear a burqua.
For some jobs, it's probably just not safe, and in other jobs you have dresscodes (banks, law firms, stores, ...).
So, by insisting to constantly be allowed to wear the burqua, you exclude yourself from many job opportunities. Which also addresses HoreTore's point about being able to get an income.
Welcome in the real world :shrug:
Of course there are jobs where all that loose clothing would make you unemployable if you insisted on wearing it, and I accept that some companies have dress codes, in much the same way that someone with excessive tats or peircings would stop them getting the said job, but it was their choice, and they didn't get the job :shrug:
Doing what. Put it at the garbage with the rest of the trash who can see the difference anyway, it's blue, no eyes, a sack, swoosh bye. I can't believe how you guys are trying to wrap a civilized society around this just to make extreme backwardness more pleasing to the eye.
Oh, I'm not making any excuses for wearing a blue sack. From the purely business perspective though, the blue sacks' cash is the same color as yours. Thus, if buying stuff from a store staffed with their fellow blue sacks will cause them to spend more, it only makes sense to staff the store accordingly. *shrug* business is color blind and deity-neutral.
Of course there are jobs where all that loose clothing would make you unemployable if you insisted on wearing it, and I accept that some companies have dress codes, in much the same way that someone with excessive tats or peircings would stop them getting the said job, but it was their choice, and they didn't get the job :shrug:
Well, probably going a bit off topic here, but if your choice makes it practically impossible to get a job, should you be allowed to get unemployment benefits?
We don't feel pity with the lazy guy who doesn't leave his bed to go looking for a job. How about the religious woman who dresses herself as such that it's impossible for her to get a job. Should she get unemployment benefits?
Tribesman
08-13-2009, 20:43
Welcome in the real world
Ah the real world .
So say France where this story is from, it has the staggering amount of about 300 people who wear Burquas, which is a hell of a lot from a population of a paltry 65 million .
If I recall correctly from one of the many Netherlandistan topics about the new Fundamentalist Islamist State of Holland they have about 50 people who wear them.
It really is a big issue isn't it:dizzy2:
Ah the real world .
So say France where this story is from, it has the staggering amount of about 300 people who wear Burquas, which is a hell of a lot from a population of a paltry 65 million .
If I recall correctly from one of the many Netherlandistan topics about the new Fundamentalist Islamist State of Holland they have about 50 people who wear them.
It really is a big issue isn't it:dizzy2:
When you look at it that way: no, it's a non-issue, like most symbolic issues.
The importance lies in the symbolic value :shrug:
When you look at it that way: no, it's a non-issue, like most symbolic issues.
The importance lies in the symbolic value :shrug:
Is there any other way of looking at it?
business is color blind and deity-neutral.
Yeah sure how much use do you have for this,
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/boerka3_200_tcm44-207254.jpg
No place for her chez Fragony's, I don't want a pityfull creature like that around me they aren't human to me. They have done a great job I have zero pity zero compassion for her dead or alive I don't care because it was never alive anyway. But then again could have been Nada, if she is no thanks to you.
Yeah sure how much use do you have for this,
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/boerka3_200_tcm44-207254.jpg
No place for her chez Fragony's, I don't want a pityfull creature like that around me they aren't human to me. They have done a great job I have zero pity zero compassion for her dead or alive I don't care because it was never alive anyway. But then again could have been Nada, if she is no thanks to you.
Look, nobody is obligating you to hire her. That doesn't mean however that there are no job opportunities for people like her. If some gothapotamus with a bunch of nose rings and tattooed from head to toe can find some sort of employment, then the blue sack is not worse off.
Look, nobody is obligating you to hire her. That doesn't mean however that there are no job opportunities for people like her. If some gothapotamus with a bunch of nose rings and tattooed from head to toe can find some sort of employment, then the blue sack is not worse off.
I don't see a ringlord being dragged into a machine because he has long sleeves. And I can see neither having a job where they have to deal with people.
I don't see a ringlord being dragged into a machine because he has long sleeves. And I can see neither having a job where they have to deal with people.
Call center is a perfect example of a blue sack-friendly employment. Or network administration.
Actually, rings are terribly dangerous around heavy machinery. My uncle lost the end of his finger becuase he forgot to take off his wedding ring, he's lucky that's all he lost.
Tribesman
08-13-2009, 21:17
Look, nobody is obligating you to hire her.
Wouldn't it be funny if that French woman in the article sent a job application to Frag, she would obviously make it past the first hurdle as he only throws job applications straight in the bin if he thinks the name sounds arab .
Poor old Frag might get his legal comeuppance when he actually met her and coundn't keep his bigotry under control.
Rhyfelwyr
08-13-2009, 21:42
If you feel the burka or praying 5 times a day gets in the way of them doing a job properly, then of course I don't reckon the government ought to be making you ignore that when it comes to hiring them.
But we are talking about banning any use of a form of dress here, this isn't about their ability to integrate with others this is a private matter. So what if it stops them getting a job, who's going to tell us what's respectable? Tracksuits don't look great at job interviews, maybe all those people on benefits should be banned from wearing them. And those hippies with their long hair, the ought to be made to cut it nice and respectable if they want food coming in. And people shouldn't allowed to be fat, that could be a disadvantage when seeking work. In fact why don't we just have a government approved dress code that will mean nobody has an excuse for not trying to get a job...
Meneldil
08-13-2009, 21:47
What the :daisy:, I am terrified by some people's attitutude in this thread. What right do secular authorities have telling religious people what their beliefs are? Like the example where someone said covering the face is not in the Koran... I'm still pretty sure it's in the hadiths, which is why we don't see Shi'ite Iranian women wearing these veils... then again I could be wrong, which is why we should ask a Muslim and not try to tell them what they believe.
You are, at no point the Kuran specifically states that women should cover their face. It only became an issue with the emergence of islam as a way to create an identity (ie. early 20th).
In any case, you can ask whatever you want to 'muslims', I doubt you'll get any correct answer since every imam has his own ideas about what's correct and what's not, about what's orthodoxy and what's not. You have numerous muslim people claiming that at no point the Prophet asked women to wear veil or anything else, while you have other guys claiming that women shouldn't show any part of their body.
Furthermore, as I stated earlier, the secular authority have all rights to tell people what they should and shouldn't wear. They can believe in any kind of fairy tale crap they want, as long as it stays within the private sphere. The swimming pool is obviously not a private sphere. So goodbye burkas.
It is not, I repeat, it is not a private matter. It is a societal matter. Just like anything that bears some cultural value is not a private matter when you expose it on the public scene. Wearing religious symbols in public has been widely disregarded/prohibited for almost a century in France. Once again, it wasn't only done to discriminate catholics, but also to allow protestant, jews and eastern christians (mostly armenians) to live their religion freely. Said protestants, jews and other religious minorities mostly accepted the new rules with their pro's and con's. Muslims have to realize that, if they want their religion to be protected according to our laws, they have to abid to said laws, even when they don't like it.
As for Louis example, I don't think it works because the laws demanding you cover your private areas are quite reasonable, there's a reason why (most) native peoples living in exotic jungles still go to the trouble of covering them up, its human nature not a cultural thing that anyone is imposing. So as long as you are dressed in such a manner that you won't terrify people, it's up to you.
Seeing a women wearing a burka terrify me, and I'm dead serious. Does that make it a good reason to ban them?
And what is with the "burka's are denigrating to women" argument? So, are we going to liberate these women by telling them what they can and cannot do for their own good? Mummy state knows what is best for you, eh?
Mummy state doesn't know what's best for them, but it knows what's best for society. Allowing this kind of thing to happen is obviously not good for society, and more widely, for women. Once again, I suggest you do some readings on the french concept of laïcité, 1905, and things like that. If you don't like it, fine, nobody asked you to live in France. If they don't like it, they can move to England.
@Fragony. I unfortunately have never heard of a kid wearing a cross at school getting kicked out. You can either blame it on some ethnocentered/racist view (as in, catholics can wear their religious symbols, muslims cannot), or the fact that nobody cares about wearing a cross at school (deeply catholic people go to catholic private schools usually). I've never ever seen anyone wearing a cross, from elementary school to university.
Seeing a women wearing a burka terrify me, and I'm dead serious. Does that make it a good reason to ban them?.
The burqa ban essentially penalizes people for minding their own business. That is utterly unacceptable in a free society.
HoreTore
08-13-2009, 21:54
An employer won't hire you if you constantly want to wear a burqua.
So, by insisting to constantly be allowed to wear the burqua, you exclude yourself from many job opportunities. Which also addresses HoreTore's point about being able to get an income.
Surprise, surprise:
A lot of employers will hire you, burka or not.
Call center is a perfect example of a blue sack-friendly employment. Or network administration.
Yeah I guess it possible, face for the radio type of thing, but why would I take one of these shambling sleepingbags over someone who isn't such a miserable excuse for a human being. Ah society, If you can't leave the desert behind you should be herding your goats and loving your wives, or the other way around, or both, even at the same time, but not here but in the desert where you come from. There is no place in this society for these peasants as long as they insist to be the useless parasites they are.
Tribesman
08-13-2009, 22:17
someone who isn't such a miserable excuse for a human being.
A lot of people find that racist bigots are miserable excuses for human beings.
A lot of people find that racist bigots are miserable excuses for human beings.
How do you know it's racist, did you pull of that blue rag and saw what's beneath? What color of the rainbow are they hiding?
Yeah I guess it possible, face for the radio type of thing, but why would I take one of these shambling sleepingbags over someone who isn't such a miserable excuse for a human being. Ah society, If you can't leave the desert behind you should be herding your goats and loving your wives, or the other way around, or both, even at the same time, but not here but in the desert where you come from. There is no place in this society for these peasants as long as they insist to be the useless parasites they are.
A lot of people find that racist bigots are miserable excuses for human beings.
How do you know it's racist, did you pull of that blue rag and saw what's beneath? What color of the rainbow are they hiding?
Well now that I've finally clued into what's going on I feel rather stupid. Fragony is obviously sitting there having a good laugh at all of us who thought he was being serious :whip:
EDIT
Seriously though, bad form for dragging the joke on so long when we all thought you were serious :thumbsdown:
Tribesman
08-14-2009, 00:18
Fragony is obviously sitting there having a good laugh at all of us who thought he was being serious
Perhaps you should have become more familiar with Frags views on muslims arabs and immigrants before you wrote that.
Furunculus
08-14-2009, 01:05
What the :daisy:, I am terrified by some people's attitutude in this thread.
i agree, but i don't want any legislation banning acts on discrimination* on the grounds of inability to trust.
* using the dictionary definition of the word.
Furunculus
08-14-2009, 01:14
*shrug* business is color blind and deity-neutral.
rubbish, business is whoring yourself out in the most attractive way possible, turning up to a sales meeting looking like an outcast from scooby-doo will win you no orders unless you have something pretty damned special.
hard to build a personal relationship from behind a barrier.
Furunculus
08-14-2009, 01:15
The burqa ban essentially penalizes people for minding their own business. That is utterly unacceptable in a free society.
agreed.
Louis VI the Fat
08-14-2009, 01:54
The burqa ban essentially penalizes people for minding their own business. That is utterly unacceptable in a free society.This is France. :wink:
In America, there are laws governing public dress codes in public too. Mainly considering being covered up properly. In the privacy of your home, you can do as you please. On Times Square, you will get arrested for wearing nothing but a thong.
In France, there are laws too. You can not wear ostentatious religious symbols in certain places. Public religious display is not protected by freedom of religion. Yes, that sounds weird to Americans. And we for our part think America is a weird theocracy. Such is the nature of cultural differences. Papuans for their part, think we both are really weird.
Freedom of religion in America means that as soon as a person claims 'religion' as the reason for dress or behaviour, he is off the hook. In France, freedom of religion means that the government grants no privilidge to religion over other thought. That is, a Darth Vader suit is not allowed as swimming attire, a burkini is not either. Whereas in America, the latter could probably succesfully claim freedom of religion. That is, the believer in God is granted a governmental privilige over the believer in the force. One man's thoughts are better protected than another one's. That is utterly unacceptable in a free society.
I...agree with the French.
On Times Square, you will get arrested for wearing nothing but a thong.
Tell that to The Naked Cowboy.
Louis VI the Fat
08-14-2009, 03:36
Tell that to The Naked Cowboy.They arrested me!! :furious3:
They arrested me!! :furious3:
You was arrested in Times Square dressed in nothing but a thong?!
But I agree with what Louis said as I said it in my own point too. The reason it is being banned isn't because it is religious where, it is just part on a wider ban and that is the correct way of it being. So for example, while some people in here want to ban burka's because they are symbolic of Islam (boo to them), them being banned due to full cover clothes to health and safety is acceptable.
Death Vader suit or Burka, if it breaks the rules, it breaks the rules.
Louis VI the Fat
08-14-2009, 04:31
You was arrested in Times Square dressed in nothing but a thong?!Long story...
Earlier that afternoon, I was sunbathing in Central Park. Wearing my Papua penis thingy. Then these two girls came up to me. One was blond, the other had red hair. Which looked stunning in the NY sunset. They commented on my book by Camus that I was reading, l’Étranger. It turned out the blond girl was studying French literature at Princeton. The redhead was her friend from Trois-Rivières, a city in Québec. Such good fortune! It always pays to pretend to read interesting books when trying to score chicks.
Anyway, long story short. They were really into me, so I invited them over for dinner. We took a cab to Fifth Avenue. With hindsight, I remember the taxi-driver looking at me funny. But he was a recent Pakistan immigrant, so he probably thought this was normal. And hey, it was NY, so lord knows this was just another load of passangers for him. He must've seen worse on a daily base.
He dropped us off at this great restaurant that I picked out for my girls. I ate there the night before, it served real authentic American food, delicious. What was it called again? Ah yes, Wendy's. Probably the name of the chef cook. Odd that they have female chefs in America.
Darn though, I wasn't allowed in. Now you see, it was one of those nice Indian summers they have over there, so I didn't pack a whole lot of clothes. I went up in my hotel room, and changed to my urban casual wear: a gold coloured thong, with dollar sign print. That I had left over from when I was working in this strip club on the Boulevard de Clichy, in the seedy area around the Moulin Rouge.
When I got down, the driver said the girls had left already. Then I received a text message from them. (No, I won't say where I kept my phone) They already went up to their appartment near Times Square, to prepare the jacuzzi for me. The message concluded: 'Hurry up, Cowboy!'.
So I ran over there. Halfway, I met this huge Texan from San Antonio. At least 246lbs. I wrestled him and managed to take his cowboy hat and boots. Then I proceed to Times Square. As I was waiting for the traffic lights, a group of Japanese women started cheering. I danced and paraded around for them a bit. A big succes! Soon, tens, hundreds of women stood in a large circle around me. All shouting 'Go Naked Cowboy!' I danced, received my tips, gave a little private performance for this elder woman walking her poodle 'fluffy', which smelled of sweet perfume, and his hair cut to resemble a little Shetland Pony. She was waving a hundred dollar bill, so I wanted to do give her a 'special' performance. I walked to the middle of Times Square, climbed onto this van that was stuck in the traffic jam I created, and started to *censored* when suddenly I smelled the distinct smell of donuts behind me....
Banquo's Ghost
08-14-2009, 07:36
There was an interesting discussion in this thread somewhere, but despite Ser Clegane's request, it got somewhat lost.
Now we'll never find out what happened to Louis and the perfumed poodle.
:closed:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.