French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2016, 06:15 AM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
I just watched that Penn Jillette video earlier today.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2016, 06:53 AM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
The problem I can see is that who makes the determination what is too much or too little? What kind of message is this sending where a woman is told what she can wear at home and then told what she can't wear outside her home? I support the rule that the face can't be covered for ID purposes, but this just seems silly.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2016, 07:11 AM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2016 07:15 AM by Naridar.)
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
The burkini should be

Generally allowed between 11AM-3PM or UV index 6 or higher or for Fitzpatrick skin types I-III
Except for cup size above C for whom it's disadvised Tongue
Except for BMI over 30 for whom it's MANDATORY Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Naridar's post
28-08-2016, 07:42 AM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
(26-08-2016 04:51 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  Yes, Audrey Hepburn wearing a scarf = modern day Muslim woman wearing a burka

Nope. False comparison. Hepburn chose to wear scarves in the 1950s, as did Grace Kelly and numerous other female actors of the time. It was in no way intended to cover, per se, or hide their femininity, or—critically—kowtow to an oppressive, paternalistic religious regime. It was intended to exemplify their natural feminine attributes, not hide them from the views of unrelated males other than their husbands.

And the burka is not—as you imply—a "modern" garment. Its wearing began around 700BCE.

"O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their outergarments close around themselves; that is better that they will be recognized and not annoyed. And God is ever Forgiving, Gentle".
— Qur'an, Surah 33 (Al-Ahzab), Verse 59

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2016, 07:52 AM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2016 08:01 AM by Dom.)
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
This is sooo not about what people of what background wear.

It's all about facial recognition.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2016, 08:09 AM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
(28-08-2016 07:52 AM)Dom Wrote:  This is sooo not about what people of what background wear.

It's all about facial recognition.

Bullshit, it has never been about that. Burka bans have always been backlash for a growing unease by white europeans about the growing north african/middle eastern population in traditionally white countries and the Burkini is most definitely not about facial recognition as the face is uncovered.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
28-08-2016, 08:16 AM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
(28-08-2016 08:09 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(28-08-2016 07:52 AM)Dom Wrote:  This is sooo not about what people of what background wear.

It's all about facial recognition.

Bullshit, it has never been about that. Burka bans have always been backlash for a growing unease by white europeans about the growing north african/middle eastern population in traditionally white countries and the Burkini is most definitely not about facial recognition as the face is uncovered.

I am not talking about the OP, which is just obvious sexual harassment in my book. What bothers me most about that is that the other ladies just sat there watching. WTF?

I was obviously talking about covered faces. Facial recognition isn't an issue for uncovered faces.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
28-08-2016, 08:22 AM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
(28-08-2016 08:16 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(28-08-2016 08:09 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Bullshit, it has never been about that. Burka bans have always been backlash for a growing unease by white europeans about the growing north african/middle eastern population in traditionally white countries and the Burkini is most definitely not about facial recognition as the face is uncovered.

I am not talking about the OP, which is just obvious sexual harassment in my book. What bothers me most about that is that the other ladies just sat there watching. WTF?

I was obviously talking about covered faces. Facial recognition isn't an issue for uncovered faces.

Yes but no ban has ever been about that. It has always been in backlash to a terrorist attack to punish someone. Just look at Bemore or ExcitedPenguin or any number of other posters who were this any other group would be foaming at the mouth about government overstep but because it is those "filthy muslims" they deserve to get ground by the bootheel.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2016, 09:23 AM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
(27-08-2016 11:33 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(27-08-2016 02:23 PM)bemore Wrote:  The poison of islam has taken root here and it is growing. How do you stop an oppresive, ungiving ideology that is given free reign to flourish?

I would go with education -- making sure that schools impart the precepts of liberal demoncracy as being more important than anything else.

Of course, that would require the government to behave in strict accordance with those precepts.

We here in the US have seen about 1.7 million Muslim immigrants between the years 1992 and 2012. Granted that we are a more homogeneous destination than Europe (and therefore have, perhaps, a tighter cultural core), and granted that that rate is much lower than what Europe is currently experiencing, we haven't seen too many problems arising from those immigrants.

This is, I think, in part to a national outlook focused on integration of immigrants, a phenomenon with which we have much experience. Because we generally accept them into our communities without making demands on their conforming immediately to our sociocultural mores, Muslims may feel less defensive, and more willing to accept the precepts of tolerance that we try to impart. It is admittedly a process that is far from perfect, and there are certainly enough bigots fighting a rearguard action against such openness -- but I think avoiding laws aimed (directly or indirectly) at Muslims goes a long ways towards engendering good will.

This is surely an imperfect comparison, given the many differences between the various European cultures and the monolithic American culture, but I think there are good ideas which may be gleaned from our experience, of which applying the law equally across all demographics is perhaps the most important. Imperfect as we are doing that in a racial context, in the religious context, we're quite successful, and I think that shows. We offer opportunity, not oppression.

Yes, this is true. Except for the 5.4 million Native Indigenous people in the US, 245 million of us are immigrants here. Our country is just 240 years old and this is all we've known as a country, just one wave of immigration after another.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
28-08-2016, 09:59 AM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
(28-08-2016 08:22 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(28-08-2016 08:16 AM)Dom Wrote:  I am not talking about the OP, which is just obvious sexual harassment in my book. What bothers me most about that is that the other ladies just sat there watching. WTF?

I was obviously talking about covered faces. Facial recognition isn't an issue for uncovered faces.

Yes but no ban has ever been about that. It has always been in backlash to a terrorist attack to punish someone. Just look at Bemore or ExcitedPenguin or any number of other posters who were this any other group would be foaming at the mouth about government overstep but because it is those "filthy muslims" they deserve to get ground by the bootheel.

Even if so, it should not prevent us from looking at the issue rationally.

Apart from the fact that facial recognition is becoming more and more important in our technology based society, millions of small business owners rely on surveillance cameras to deter people from robbing without facial covering, and the shop owner is duly alarmed then if someone with facial covering enters. Could get you shot dead if you wore a ski mask in a convenience store.

And on an entirely different note, we and all social animals have evolved to search for and react to facial recognition and expression. It is an innate need of ours to be able to see the face of persons we interact with. In the absence of that, we become confused and disturbed. That is not going to change anytime soon, it's hardware.

In cultures where women's faces are covered, this is actually the real point of it. Only close family can see the woman as a relatable person. To the rest of the world, she is an object. But that is beside the point here.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: