Banning the Burqa?

[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.