Lusankya wrote:At least two people have interpreted your "and not further pollute the genepool here" as being racist.
And that's being considerate and not worrying about your implication that the two girls may not have had any right to protest the legislation, on account of their skin not being brown enough (even though one was a Muslim herself, not that that matters).
So fucking what? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Julhelm IS racist... so what? That's not an excuse for you and others to plug your ears and go "LA LA LA!!! YOU'RE RACIST!!! I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN ANYMORE!!!"
There's way too much of that in debates, even on this board that supposedly loves logic and proper debate techniques above all else.
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
hongi wrote:It means that Juhelm's arguments should be looked at in context of his racist views.
Bullshit. You're off on an ad hominem about how racist he is, as if that somehow invalidates the argument itself.
If Adolf Hitler was arguing for Aryan purity, you wouldn't get to say "Hitler's racist! We win!" You still have to prove, using logical debate, why he's wrong. Perhaps the problem is that you can't, so you're going for cheap points by playing the racism card...
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
Constructing strawmen is poor form. I didn't say that we should dismiss his arguments out of hand, I said that they should be looked at in context. Why is he making these arguments? Is his argument based on racist assumptions that he holds?
Questions like that need to be asked. Carrying on from your Hitler example, if we had the opportunity to debate Hitler on the topic of whether Jews control the world, we wouldn't ignore his racism, because his arguments stem from his racism.
hongi wrote:Constructing strawmen is poor form. I didn't say that we should dismiss his arguments out of hand, I said that they should be looked at in context. Why is he making these arguments? Is his argument based on racist assumptions that he holds?
Questions like that need to be asked. Carrying on from your Hitler example, if we had the opportunity to debate Hitler on the topic of whether Jews control the world, we wouldn't ignore his racism, because his arguments stem from his racism.
The problem is once someone screams racism logic all but flies out the window, as it has in this thread. Now Julhelm is spending his time saying stupid shit like "I'm dating an Asian chick; I can't be racist!"
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
I do not judge anyone based on the color of their skin. I do, however, reserve the right to dislike groups of people if I feel their culture and values are completely at odds with my own. This group happens to include religious and political fanatics like evangelicals, islamists, ultraoorthodox jews, nazis and other such assorted nutters.
Does disliking middle eastern culture make me a racist when my own home is a blend of two different cultures? No, it doesn't. Does hating the islamists who would oppress their women with garb that strip them of any and all personal identity make me a racist who think all arabs are untermench? Fuck no if it does.
Once the law is in force, a woman who chooses to defy the ban will receive a fine of 150 euros (£125) or a course of citizenship lessons. A man who forces a woman to go veiled will be fined 30,000 euros (£25,000) and serve a jail term.
...to me clearly implies that the law is designed not to punish women, but rather the men who would force them into wearing the garb. That the woman gets fined 150 euros is obviously a way to still get at the men even if they claim "Oh but she chose to wear it out of free will".
As for the idea that we can't ban this garb because of "freedom of expression" that's just nuts. We already limit freedom of expression so that people cannot walk around naked in public or do other acts of extremism that society deems intolerable. Claiming religion or culture shouldn't change anything.
It seems to me that banning the burqa will simply cause men who make their women wear burqas stop those very same women from actually leaving the house.
So you follow up with further legislation requiring those women to attend language or citizenship courses. Then you have another way of getting to those men. We cannot allow women to be stripped of their rights to equality.
How about this: the women make use of their existing rights as free citizens. There are laws against spousal abuse, against being held against their will et cetera. The women have their rights to equality - they need only make use of them. In order to stop the oppression of women, it's necessary to engage them in information campaigns, not in forced dress codes or forced classes. The idea that one needs to strip women of their rights to wear particular kinds of clothing and force them to follow certain classes in order to know what's good for them is incredibly paternalistic.
Julhelm wrote:As for the idea that we can't ban this garb because of "freedom of expression" that's just nuts. We already limit freedom of expression so that people cannot walk around naked in public or do other acts of extremism that society deems intolerable.
Julhelm wrote:As for the idea that we can't ban this garb because of "freedom of expression" that's just nuts. We already limit freedom of expression so that people cannot walk around naked in public or do other acts of extremism that society deems intolerable.
^These are also wrong. For the same reasons.
Uh no. Nudity laws are there to protect other people from you, not you from other people, there are places you can go and expose yourself in public, which is fine, but a lot of people choose not to go to those areas because they don't want to be subjected to that.
Well, having now slept on it, I've realized I've been unreasonable and that there's been some communication issues between me and Julhelm. I'm withdrawing from the discussion - and sorry for calling you a racist.
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
Drone wrote:Uh no. Nudity laws are there to protect other people from you, not you from other people, there are places you can go and expose yourself in public, which is fine, but a lot of people choose not to go to those areas because they don't want to be subjected to that.
This can of worms has been opening in many other threads, but I'll just ask a simple question: Who does nudity 'hurt' that causes it to require legal 'protection'? Zed might be a little hopelessly idealistic, but he has a point, there is no reason other than prudish tradition (which really isn't a valid reason at all) to ban nudity in any public place.
Gaian Paradigm: Because not all fantasy has to be childish crap. Ephemeral Pie: Because not all role-playing has to be shallow. My art: Because not all DA users are talentless emo twits. "Phant, quit abusing the He-Wench before he turns you into a caged bitch at a Ren Fair and lets the tourists toss half munched turkey legs at your backside." -Mr. Coffee
Drone wrote:Uh no. Nudity laws are there to protect other people from you, not you from other people, there are places you can go and expose yourself in public, which is fine, but a lot of people choose not to go to those areas because they don't want to be subjected to that.
This can of worms has been opening in many other threads, but I'll just ask a simple question: Who does nudity 'hurt' that causes it to require legal 'protection'? Zed might be a little hopelessly idealistic, but he has a point, there is no reason other than prudish tradition (which really isn't a valid reason at all) to ban nudity in any public place.
Why exactly is "prudish tradition" not a valid reason to maintain what the vast majority of society considers to be acceptable? Especially when it's applied equally across all genders, races, etc. as it is in the US?
Zed wrote:How about this: the women make use of their existing rights as free citizens. There are laws against spousal abuse, against being held against their will et cetera. The women have their rights to equality - they need only make use of them. In order to stop the oppression of women, it's necessary to engage them in information campaigns, not in forced dress codes or forced classes. The idea that one needs to strip women of their rights to wear particular kinds of clothing and force them to follow certain classes in order to know what's good for them is incredibly paternalistic.
I'm gonna make the prediction that this whole thing is going to backfire in the long run and just fan the fires between immigrants and natives rather than helping anyone. But then I've sorta resigned myself to accepting that things are just gonna go to hell anyway on this point.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.
Zed wrote:How about this: the women make use of their existing rights as free citizens. There are laws against spousal abuse, against being held against their will et cetera. The women have their rights to equality - they need only make use of them. In order to stop the oppression of women, it's necessary to engage them in information campaigns, not in forced dress codes or forced classes. The idea that one needs to strip women of their rights to wear particular kinds of clothing and force them to follow certain classes in order to know what's good for them is incredibly paternalistic.
I'm gonna make the prediction that this whole thing is going to backfire in the long run and just fan the fires between immigrants and natives rather than helping anyone. But then I've sorta resigned myself to accepting that things are just gonna go to hell anyway on this point.
Again, the focus of the legislation is obviously to get at the men. It has nothing to do with stripping the rights of women when these women have their rights unlawfully stripped from them by male relatives to begin with.
Julhelm wrote:
Again, the focus of the legislation is obviously to get at the men. It has nothing to do with stripping the rights of women when these women have their rights unlawfully stripped from them by male relatives to begin with.
Prove it. Prove that the <2000 women who wear the niqab (26% of them converts to Islam) are forced to do so by male relatives. We have had examples of Muslim women wearing the niqab of their own free will. If it is the case that they are being forced into it, surely that would count as domestic abuse, and you could contact the French police forces with your evidence, non?
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
Bakustra wrote:Prove it. Prove that the <2000 women who wear the niqab (26% of them converts to Islam) are forced to do so by male relatives. We have had examples of Muslim women wearing the niqab of their own free will. If it is the case that they are being forced into it, surely that would count as domestic abuse, and you could contact the French police forces with your evidence, non?
Does mental conditioning ring a bell to you? Also when it comes to converts, why should we treat them as any different from other people who willingly allow themselves to get brainwashed by religious sects. If you ask one of those underage LDS wives if the sex was concensual they'd surely claim so but that doesn't mean we should put any weight to what they say as they have clearly had their view of the world twisted.
Why is it that everybody assumes that women living under a belief system that in its radical form is blatantly oppressive of women do these things out of free will and not because they've been conditioned from childhood to believe that is the only way?
*Edit: Oh, and I don't have to prove a damn negative. Why don't you look at Afghanistan or Pakistan and ask yourself if those women are wearing burqas out of free will. As for domestic abuse that crime tends to be notoriously difficult to prosecute as abused spouses have a tendency to withdraw their complaints or even lie in defence of their spouses. Why? Because they've been mentally conditioned into being dominated and stripped of their self esteem.
Translation of Julhelm's claims: the women don't believe what we want them to believe, therefore we must make them believe what we want them to believe - because what we want them to believe is what is best for them.
Zed wrote:Translation of Julhelm's claims: the women don't believe what we want them to believe, therefore we must make them believe what we want them to believe - because what we want them to believe is what is best for them.
What is so wrong about that statement? It all depends on the values at hand. Would you say that reeducating Germans after WWII was a bad thing as well?
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
