Banning the Burqa?

[KichigaiNeko]

You know I hate it when I HAVE to agree with you kilic.

Having said that; of the few Islamic women I have spoken to IRL, many look askance at my inquiry to the whole "Burqa" issue. On the net I find that the countries of origin are also active in banning the item of clothing as backward and sexist, totally inappropriate with the 21st Century and current situations in these countries. Not being able to investigate this further on a personal level is why I must resort to these findings.

[NoMoreFaith]

We should weigh people customs using logic and reason, then decide which customs are worthy of respect. If you simply respect everything, your respect is worthless.

I do not think respect means, what you think it means.

There is a difference between "admiration" respect, of which there is none, and "Due regard for the rights of others" respect. I think you are getting them confused.

It's a good job you have a crusade, it just wouldn't do to consider what these women will be subjected to if their means for presenting themselves in society according to their deeply held (and stupid) religion is removed.
I'm sure all the strict islamic women will just run around the streets in hot pants, extolling your virtues for fighting for their rights.

I'm sure none of them will be forced to live indoors, none of them will be abused purely because another man looked at THEM, and I'm sure NONE of them will be subject to violence and hatred if they refuse to comply (like in France, where violence against women in burqas has risen exponentially.. don't you think it's SUPER how this law has made people feel justified in beating up women in the street just because of what they wear).

No, its going to be hot pants, and freedom from oppression for all the women I'm sure.

The facts of the matter, like drug use, addressing the symptoms instead of the cause doesn't resolve the fundamental problem in the oppression of these women.
You also compare the choice to wear a burqa with smoking crack, and women staying with men who beat them.

Ignoring the false analogy fallacy, do you also think that jailing the users is the most effective way to solve the drug war?
Shouldn't you be restricting the supply and focusing on jailing the drug dealers? Addressing the bigger causes that leads people into drugs in the first place?

If a woman stays with her husband who beats her, would you make it illegal for her to stay with him if she chooses, or force her to leave her husband by law?
No, again.. you address the causes, you provide a sound framework for women in abusive relationships to escape, through financial, housing and security measures to give them a bedrock for making that escape.

People have this utterly back to front. Instead of banning the burqa, you simply need to ensure your legislation makes sure it is illegal to force someone to wear a burqa against their will, and a protective network to allow for an escape for abused women (just like abusive relationships).

EDIT: To simplify my point, if you were forced by your family to wear trousers, do you think they should make trousers illegal, or make it illegal for them to force you to wear them.

[Tiberius]

My argument is from the fact that they are not welcome in their country of origin and have no historic root in the "Western Nations". So why support them?

Because some people want to wear them, and they do not harm anyone if not worn against the wearer's will.

Just as Prince Harry can wear a Nazi uniform to a party why should someone not be able to wear a 'Burqa'? Is spurious to all that the 'Burqa' implies...the abuse and subjugation of women

Only in your eyes. In other's eyes, they are a necessary item of clothing. We both have our opinions, and of course opinions can shape the law. The difference between us is that as a Libertarian, I don't let my personal views on something affect what policy should be in place regarding it. This is why I am for legal drug use despite not using drugs, and why I support the burqa as an item of clothing.

---

Joking aside, I could give a shit about its origins. I care about how it's used today. It's used to oppress women right now. That's what counts, not history lessons.

It's also used how it was originally used, as an item of clothing. That was my point.

Plenty of women also choose to stay with a man who beats them. Plenty of people choose to smoke crack. I don't see how some number of people making what I consider a poor choice makes my argument fail. Could you clarify how it does?

It fails because in the case of a woman choosing the burqa, there is no right being violated. Sure, you might hold that she is being oppressed, but she is oppressing herself if it is her choice to wear it. That is still her choice, and shouldn't be prohibited. Your comparison with wife beating just doesn't compare, unless of course the beating is requested (and there are plenty of healthy relationships where it is, believe me). Context is important. I don't have anything against someone smoking crack either; as long as the only person you are harming is yourself.

You made a declarative statement. I'll repost the posts of yours that I could find on the subject of respecting customs and relgion. I may have missed another post of yours on this subject, though, so feel free to let me know if I did (your initial claim will still be imbecilic, though):

Yes, when needed then of course face coverings should be removed, but customs and religions should be respected.

This statement was in the context of when face coverings should be removed. That is, when face coverings are required to be removed (i.e. for identification by the police) then customs and religions should be respected. If it is custom for the husband to be present for the removal of the veil, he should be called in. If only women police officers are allowed to see the woman without her veil, then only women police officers should be used, etc.

Your customs should be respected, just as anyone's should be. Obviously there are exceptions, there always are, but for the most part, people's customs are their own, and shouldn't have to be torn apart. Your attitude of "tolerance yes, respect no" doesn't conform with your final demand that the religious can "go take a hike" if their clothing is banned. That isn't at all tolerant.

Note the "obviously there are exceptions" which you ignored.

Please let me know how I manufactured a straw man argument here. I'm fucking dying to know. You made a moronic statement and I called you on it.

My position has always been (not just in this thread, but in other parts of this forum) that unless someone's rights are being infringed, there is no reason to prohibit certain behaviour. Your strawman was presenting a quote mine as my entire argument. You ignored the context of my "customs and religions should be respected" and presented it as if I was actually arguing that point, when I never did.

Calling you on your bullshit is not a straw man argument. I can link you to the Wikipedia article on straw man arguments if it'll help you educate yourself, though.

No, but taking a quote out of context and implying that I am arguing it is. No need to link me to the Wikipedia article; I have read it many times before.

Customs are just things people do. The fact that something is a custom gives you absolutely no hint as to whether it is a good thing or a bad thing.

Exactly why I was referring to specific customs, and noted there were exceptions in a general sense.

When you say customs should be respected

I didn't say this generally. I said it in the context of full face coverings.

you're stating that we should respect things people do purely because people do them.

Nope.

It's ridiculous, and a statement like that has no business coming from one who presumes to be logical and rational.

Exactly why I didn't make it.

We should weigh people customs using logic and reason, then decide which customs are worthy of respect. If you simply respect everything, your respect is worthless.

Finally we agree on something.

[KichigaiNeko]

Thank-you NMF. Here we DO have such a framework for these women. Nothing is 'Easy', but it IS there none the less, and many are opting for it.

[Jinkies]

Ignoring the false analogy fallacy

Could you point this out? You keep calling me on using fallacies, and you keep being absolutely full of shit. I'm honestly interested in knowing what you considered a false analogy and why.

---

Your comparison with wife beating just doesn't compare, unless of course the beating is requested (and there are plenty of healthy relationships where it is, believe me). Context is important. I don't have anything against someone smoking crack either; as long as the only person you are harming is yourself.

I did not compare wearing a burqa to beating your wife, which I'm not saying you do (or don't do, I don't know you). I was listing stupid things people do. Two things are not necessarily being compared simply because they are in the same post.

You made a declarative statement. I'll repost the posts of yours that I could find on the subject of respecting customs and relgion. I may have missed another post of yours on this subject, though, so feel free to let me know if I did (your initial claim will still be imbecilic, though):

This statement was in the context of when face coverings should be removed. That is, when face coverings are required to be removed (i.e. for identification by the police) then customs and religions should be respected. If it is custom for the husband to be present for the removal of the veil, he should be called in. If only women police officers are allowed to see the woman without her veil, then only women police officers should be used, etc.

You seem to place some non-negligible value on acts because they customs. You are aware that customs are just things people do, right? That means you are giving value to things simply because people do them. That is ridiculous.

Note the "obviously there are exceptions" which you ignored.

Unless you retract your main statement about customs having some inherent value due to being customs, it doesn't matter what else you follow it with. That view is illogical.

Please let me know how I manufactured a straw man argument here. I'm fucking dying to know. You made a moronic statement and I called you on it.

My position has always been (not just in this thread, but in other parts of this forum) that unless someone's rights are being infringed, there is no reason to prohibit certain behaviour. Your strawman was presenting a quote mine as my entire argument. You ignored the context of my "customs and religions should be respected" and presented it as if I was actually arguing that point, when I never did.

"Quote mine?" I posted literally everything you wrote on the subject in this thread. What the fuck did I mine? Regardless, there is absolutely no context in which your statement is not moronic. It doesn't matter if you have more arguments that are tangentially related if your basic premise is full of shit. Customs don't have value purely due to being customs. There must be a reason that they are worthwhile or not. You have abandoned reason and give them value for no reason at all. Apparently that Wiki link won't help, since it appears your problem is a failure to agree with reality instead of ignorance of the definition of straw man.

As for you not actually arguing that point, that's irrelevant. It's a viewpoint that you stated that you have and which colors your perception of this issue. Your faulty reasoning is undermining the rest of your argument, since you aren't evaluating the variables in a logical, rational way.

Calling you on your bullshit is not a straw man argument. I can link you to the Wikipedia article on straw man arguments if it'll help you educate yourself, though.

No, but taking a quote out of context and implying that I am arguing it is. No need to link me to the Wikipedia article; I have read it many times before.

There is no context for that quote to be taken out of, and it's bullshit to claim that there is. You stated that customs and religion deserve respect. There is no context wherein that statement is not idiotic.

Customs are just things people do. The fact that something is a custom gives you absolutely no hint as to whether it is a good thing or a bad thing.

Exactly why I was referring to specific customs, and noted there were exceptions in a general sense.

Bullshit. Your words didn't say this and there was nothing to imply that you were only talking about the one very narrow instance. Regardless, even if you were (which I don't buy), it doesn't make your statement any less moronic. You are still valuing customs without reason.

you're stating that we should respect things people do purely because people do them.

Nope.

I'd link you to a Wiki article on critical thinking, but it would work about as well as it does with creationists.

It's ridiculous, and a statement like that has no business coming from one who presumes to be logical and rational.

Exactly why I didn't make it.

It's not my fault if you say illogical things and fail to understand why they're illogical. Always strive to improve, though. I have the highest hopes for you.

We should weigh people customs using logic and reason, then decide which customs are worthy of respect. If you simply respect everything, your respect is worthless.

Finally we agree on something.

Unfortunately that statement is completely at odds with your original statement. Which is wrong? Are customs worthy of respect without needing a reason as you previously claimed, or do they need a reason to be respected? Your claims are contradictory.

[NoMoreFaith]

Ignoring the false analogy fallacy

Could you point this out? You keep calling me on using fallacies, and you keep being absolutely full of shit. I'm honestly interested in knowing what you considered a false analogy and why.

Asserting that people are full of shit doesn't prove anything except that you like to make assertions.

Clearly, choosing to take crack, and choosing to wear a burqa are not true analogs.

1. Burqa's are not addictive
   
2. Wearing a burqa does not support other forms of crime.
   
3. Nobody (with maybe some exceptions) is forced to use crack.
   
4. Burqa's do not physically harm the individual (unless you wish to argue a vitamin D potential deficiency due to lack of sunlight)

Now, if you disagree with me, what you should do, is list why you feel these are analogous entities.
If the entities share aspects A & B, then there is a probability they will also share aspect C.
What I argue is that they do not similar aspects, therefore C is an unreasonable logical extrapolation, therefore a false analogy.

Oh, and for bonus points, since the negative connotations with taking crack cocaine are not analogous with wearing a burqa, we can potentially add appeal to emotion on the logical fallacy bingo you're playing.

So far you have called opinions bullshit and imbecilic, and if that is the case, you should be able to present a rational, and logical refutation of the argument.

So far we've ticked off strawman, false analogy, and potentially a few appeals to emotion, so when it comes to debating, you aren't really shining a light for logic and reason yourself.

Now, instead of puffing your chest out and making unfounded assertions, maybe you should actually try addressing the arguments I made so we can have a rational debate.

If I wanted someone to blindly assert superior knowledge, calling anyone who disagrees an imbecile without providing deductive or physical evidence to refute the argument, then I'll go argue with a creationist.

[Tiberius]

I did not compare wearing a burqa to beating your wife, which I'm not saying you do (or don't do, I don't know you). I was listing stupid things people do. Two things are not necessarily being compared simply because they are in the same post.

I'm aware of that, yet you were using them to support your main argument, which you were including the burqa in:

I don't see how some number of people making what I consider a poor choice makes my argument fail. Could you clarify how it does?

In your view, smoking crack is a poor choice, as is wearing a burqa, correct? If not, what was the point of mentioning them in a post about burqas?

You seem to place some non-negligible value on acts because they customs. You are aware that customs are just things people do, right? That means you are giving value to things simply because people do them. That is ridiculous.

Yes, I'm aware what customs are just things people do. I don't give value to things simply because people do them, I simply hold that there is no reason to take value away from things (like customs) if they are not violating the rights of others, or impeding justice. A person demanding that they can only show their face to women police officers does not impede justice unless there are no women police officers about. A person has a right to their own customs; the police (or anyone for that matter) do not have a right to interfere with those customs if they can help it. That is not ridiculous; that is simply the only fair thing to do in a society filled with people from different backgrounds who have different customs.

Unless you retract your main statement about customs having some inherent value due to being customs, it doesn't matter what else you follow it with. That view is illogical.

I'm not going to retract something I never stated, it would be pointless.

"Quote mine?" I posted literally everything you wrote on the subject in this thread. What the fuck did I mine?

You took the context out of my quote in order to strawman my position. I said:

Yes, when needed then of course face coverings should be removed, but customs and religions should be respected.

You then went on to characterize my argument as:

customs and religions should be respected.

That, my friend, is a quote mine and a strawman. I never said "customs and religions should be respected." as a general argument about all customs and religions. I said it quite clearly about face coverings.

Regardless, there is absolutely no context in which your statement is not moronic.

Yet you yourself have said that some customs should be respected if they are logical and reasonable, so clearly there is a context in which "my" statement is not moronic, unless you hold that your own position is also moronic?

It doesn't matter if you have more arguments that are tangentially related if your basic premise is full of shit. Customs don't have value purely due to being customs.

I never said they did have inherent value. I'm still not sure where value even came into this; it certainly isn't a basic premise of my argument.

You have abandoned reason and give them value for no reason at all.

No I haven't.

Apparently that Wiki link won't help, since it appears your problem is a failure to agree with reality instead of ignorance of the definition of straw man.

In what way do I "disagree with reality"? I believe it is you who is ignorant of what a strawman is; that or you don't understand how you cannot simply take something out of context and apply it as if I'd argued it that way. I repeat, at no point in this discussion did I make the claim "customs and religions should be respected" on its own.

As for you not actually arguing that point, that's irrelevant. It's a viewpoint that you stated that you have and which colors your perception of this issue.

Except I didn't state that viewpoint, which is what I've been trying to get across to you for a while now. Go and read my posts again. I never stated "customs and religions should be respected" on its own.

Your faulty reasoning is undermining the rest of your argument, since you aren't evaluating the variables in a logical, rational way.

You haven't even pointed out any faulty reasoning yet. You've strawmanned my argument using a quote mine, and are again strawmanning me by claiming I am putting value on customs when I haven't even mentioned values at all.

There is no context for that quote to be taken out of, and it's bullshit to claim that there is.

Do you not understand there is a difference in context between:

Yes, when needed then of course face coverings should be removed, but customs and religions should be respected.

and

customs and religions should be respected.

If you don't understand the change of context from something very specific (i.e. pertaining only to face coverings) to something very generic (pertaining to everything), then you need to study the English language more.

You stated that customs and religion deserve respect.

Again, no I didn't.

Bullshit. Your words didn't say this and there was nothing to imply that you were only talking about the one very narrow instance. Regardless, even if you were (which I don't buy), it doesn't make your statement any less moronic. You are still valuing customs without reason.

My words did say this. I've quoted myself multiple times now. I am not valuing customs without reason; I have spent this entire thread going on about the reasons why I think burqa wearing should be a respected custom. It (generally) does not harm anyone, and it is none of my business what other people wear. Those are just two of my many arguments for it. If you want to debate them, feel free to do so.

I'd link you to a Wiki article on critical thinking, but it would work about as well as it does with creationists.

I studied critical thinking at school. You clearly didn't pay attention. You have been called out on your logical fallacies by people other than myself. They are as plain as daylight to see, though apparently not by you.

It's not my fault if you say illogical things and fail to understand why they're illogical. Always strive to improve, though. I have the highest hopes for you.

I never said they weren't illogical; I said I didn't say them. You are quote mining and strawmanning my argument.

Unfortunately that statement is completely at odds with your original statement. Which is wrong? Are customs worthy of respect without needing a reason as you previously claimed, or do they need a reason to be respected? Your claims are contradictory.

I never claimed they didn't need a reason to be respected. My "original statement" is a quote mine by you. Nothing I've said so far contradicts itself.

[Jinkies]

Could you point this out? You keep calling me on using fallacies, and you keep being absolutely full of shit. I'm honestly interested in knowing what you considered a false analogy and why.

Clearly, choosing to take crack, and choosing to wear a burqa are not true analogs.

Could you point out where I compared wearing a burqa and smoking crack? I seem to recall never once in my life doing that. I'd love to be proven wrong, though, so feel free to hop to. I did include a couple of poor decisions people make in an earlier post, one of which was smoking crack. As I pointed out to Tiberious when he failed Reading Comprehension 101 in the same way earlier, though, two things being in the same post does not mean that they are being compared.

[Tiberius]

Jinkies,

Seriously dude, in response to me saying many women choose to wear the burqa, you wrote:

Plenty of women also choose to stay with a man who beats them. Plenty of people choose to smoke crack.

Yes, being in the same post doesn't necessarily mean they are being compared, but you clearly were. Your use of the word "also" displays this as a comparison. What else does the "also" refer to, if not my original statement about women choosing to wear burqas?

[Shell B]

Oh, this conversation has wandered into the realm of the ridiculous. Let's stop oppression by removing people's rights to wear the clothing of their choosing! A more contradictory statement would be hard to come by. When feminists decided bras were oppressive, we didn't ban them. Corsets aren't banned. Long skirts aren't banned and if you don't think that women got beat for showing a little ankle back in the day, you are sorely misinformed. Islam is not the only manner of oppressing women. Women become oppressed when people start legislating their rights by taking away their rights. Make it illegal to force a woman to wear something she does not want to wear, by all means. Don't make it illegal for her to choose her own clothing. For pity's sake. The concept is not difficult to understand.

---

Just to be clear, women still have a right to stay with men who beat them, if they want. We should have that right. I should be allowed to do whatever the fuck I want in that regard.