(January 27, 2020 at 9:57 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 27, 2020 at 9:53 am)Klorophyll Wrote: There are european/american women who wear the hijab by choice, too, you know. So try including this category in your next unproved claim.

It was said above that the hijab is a symbol of the oppression of women. 
Boru

(January 27, 2020 at 10:18 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(January 27, 2020 at 9:57 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It was said above that the hijab is a symbol of the oppression of women. 
Boru

According to whom? People who hate the hijab?

(January 27, 2020 at 10:26 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: All sorts of women all over the world wear scarves.  This is so basic that it's hard to understand why it needs to be said.  No one is fielding an objection to scarves or scarf wearing.  

Are the concepts we're discussing so unfamiliar to any of you that you're drawing a blank as to what else it might be?  Is there sopme reason that it can;t be exactly the objection repeatedly described to you in this thread?

(January 27, 2020 at 10:20 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: No, by people who hate the undeniable fact that some Muslim women are compelled to wear the hijab.

(January 27, 2020 at 9:07 am)Klorophyll Wrote: The hijab is, more importantly, none of your business.

(January 27, 2020 at 9:07 am)Klorophyll Wrote: And curiously they never complain about being oppressed, so I would say you're putting words in their mouths.

(January 27, 2020 at 9:07 am)Klorophyll Wrote: Yeah and that's why they wear the hijab. Thanks for pointing that out.

(January 27, 2020 at 9:07 am)Klorophyll Wrote: She can still have any man she wants while veiled. This is retarded, sir.

(January 27, 2020 at 10:36 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(January 27, 2020 at 10:20 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: No, by people who hate the undeniable fact that some Muslim women are compelled to wear the hijab.

Some Muslim women are also compelled not to wear the hijab. You can always find a group of people compelled to do just about anything.

"Symbol of oppression" is a purely subjective sentence you can keep repeating all day long. Similarly one can simply declare "miniskirts reflect moral decadence" which is subjective too. It's just your word against mine.

(January 26, 2020 at 6:42 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(January 25, 2020 at 7:52 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: In my opinion, people must have the freedom to live as they want unless they are causing harm to somebody else.
Physical harm is identifiable and easy to detect; while psychological harm must be conditioned to its physical conclusion -like causing depression to somebody via constant bullying-.
As long as no harm is caused; things can indeed change or stay the way they are.

Yes, good points. 

"Psychological harm" may be awfully hard to spot, in terms of direct cause-and-effect. And I imagine that when we're causing it our victim may well be trying hard not to show what's happening. 

Freud writes well about this in his Civilization and its Discontents. He points out that we can never reach a final healthy permanent balance. The tension between what society demands and what we want, and the tension among different things that we ourselves want, can't be resolved, only managed. 

But surely the main thing is to avoid inflicting harm when we can possibly avoid it.

Quote:

Quote:People will rebel and get around anything forced on them, unless they are totally convinced with the rule implied. That's why I insist that freedom of choice is "a must".

I studied in a Saudi Wahhabi school and there weren't any girls. Boys resorted to homosexuality -just like the case in prisons-, they got around the rule of "no sex".

Sex is probably the best example. Decrees from above never work. 

Internalized rules, as you say, will operate more effectively. (Freud's description of the Superego is all about this.) I think peer pressure works because the shame it brings on is closer to an internal view than that caused by "higher authority." 

People in Japan often talk about "shame culture vs. guilt culture," where they say that Japanese society tends to be more orderly because it demands (or used to demand) group behavior. Roof-thatching or rice-planting can only be done by the whole village together, and so being ostracized is the worst thing. This contrasts to American culture, where everybody thinks he's Clint Eastwood. That's too simple to be true in every case, but I think it's a useful distinction.