French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-08-2016, 11:15 PM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
(26-08-2016 10:45 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  
Quote:Are people completely unaware of Godwin's law here? Well, let me explain it to you. It goes like this. Once you mention Hitler as an unrelated talking point or make a bad comparison with the Nazis in a discussion, you lost the argument and the conversation is over.

Godwins law doesn't apply here sorry the analogy is spot on


Quote:The jews were never a real threat, Hitler was either delusional or psychopathic in their regard. First of all, they were always a few million people, they almost never create any sort of problems as a community and their beliefs are pretty mild in practice. Islam loses on all of these points.


Define a "real threat " And yup just like most Islamophobia are delusional about the threat Islam posses. Yup and Muslims are only a few million in europe yup and the vast majority of Muslims aren't causing problems and can be just mild in practice as Judaism Christianity i know moderate Muslims i know liberal Muslims i know progressive Muslims i also know plenty of loony Jews who think Muslims should be wiped out and have a less then nice opinion of Christians. Proving a little concept called nuances (sadly something i find least among anti semites and Islamophobes who seem to thrives of tribalism nativism and group think)


The fact that you can have atheist Jews on the one hand and apostate corpses on the other should tip you off that there's an essential difference to take note of here.
[/quot

Cultural Muslims look it up i don't have to because i know plenty

Hmm... I can see who I'm arguing with here. Yup.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2016, 11:26 PM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
(26-08-2016 11:15 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  
(26-08-2016 10:45 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  Godwins law doesn't apply here sorry the analogy is spot on




Define a "real threat " And yup just like most Islamophobia are delusional about the threat Islam posses. Yup and Muslims are only a few million in europe yup and the vast majority of Muslims aren't causing problems and can be just mild in practice as Judaism Christianity i know moderate Muslims i know liberal Muslims i know progressive Muslims i also know plenty of loony Jews who think Muslims should be wiped out and have a less then nice opinion of Christians. Proving a little concept called nuances (sadly something i find least among anti semites and Islamophobes who seem to thrives of tribalism nativism and group think)


The fact that you can have atheist Jews on the one hand and apostate corpses on the other should tip you off that there's an essential difference to take note of here.
[/quot

Cultural Muslims look it up i don't have to because i know plenty

Hmm... I can see who I'm arguing with here. Yup.

I'm too stoned to reply to either of you right now, but basically, you're both right.

... Now if only I can hold my thought in my head until the morning. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Aliza's post
26-08-2016, 11:39 PM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
(26-08-2016 11:15 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  
(26-08-2016 10:45 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  Godwins law doesn't apply here sorry the analogy is spot on




Define a "real threat " And yup just like most Islamophobia are delusional about the threat Islam posses. Yup and Muslims are only a few million in europe yup and the vast majority of Muslims aren't causing problems and can be just mild in practice as Judaism Christianity i know moderate Muslims i know liberal Muslims i know progressive Muslims i also know plenty of loony Jews who think Muslims should be wiped out and have a less then nice opinion of Christians. Proving a little concept called nuances (sadly something i find least among anti semites and Islamophobes who seem to thrives of tribalism nativism and group think)


The fact that you can have atheist Jews on the one hand and apostate corpses on the other should tip you off that there's an essential difference to take note of here.
[/quot

Cultural Muslims look it up i don't have to because i know plenty

Hmm... I can see who I'm arguing with here. Yup.

wow you really got me there how could i match such genius Rolleyes

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OrdoSkeptica's post
26-08-2016, 11:40 PM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
(26-08-2016 11:26 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(26-08-2016 11:15 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  Hmm... I can see who I'm arguing with here. Yup.

I'm too stoned to reply to either of you right now, but basically, you're both right.

... Now if only I can hold my thought in my head until the morning. Consider


night night Thumbsup

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like OrdoSkeptica's post
27-08-2016, 12:02 AM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
While most Muslims are just another batch of people with some crazy religious ideas that they impose on themselves and do not expect others to follow, the fundamentalists among them are more dangerous than fundamentalists of other "brands" because of a willingness to use violence as a means of attaining their social/religious goals. Extremist Christians and Jews can be violent, but typically are not (at least not for those reasons), and instead use social pressure to attain the conformity of culture they desire.

But even without violence, the power of social pressure to enforce conformity should not be underestimated. We do the same thing in Western countries, when it comes to things like men wearing pants instead of tunics/dresses-- when I was in a live action role-playing group, I made a character who was based on the ancient Greek hoplites, and wore my first tunic (which looked an awful lot like what we in the American South refer to as a "sun dress", except for being only one color) to my absolute delight. It's the most comfortable thing I've ever worn; I could not for the life of me figure out why this wasn't a standard thing for men everywhere! And yet I knew quite well that if I wore it outside the context of the LARP gatherings, I'd be ridiculed or become a social pariah. So really, I didn't have that option, even if no rednecks beat me up for not wearing the "right" clothes for my sex/gender.

We must recognize that for most Muslim women, wearing a hijab is no stranger (or less expected of themselves) than Christian women wearing a bra. Most of them could go without it, freely, but they simply don't want to-- either they like the look or they feel it would be unladylike to do otherwise.

There is absolutely a problem with radical Islamists and their treatment of women, especially their willingness to stoop to violence to enforce their social norms, even after they come to Western (liberalized) nations, but I don't think the "what to do about it" list should include forcing them to give up their bras, so to speak. Seriously-- imagine the discussion if France said that women could no longer wear bras because they're oppressive to women. We'd think they were insane!

What to do about it should more likely follow a pattern of the way we try to handle other types of domestic violence, putting out educational propaganda that tells everyone that they're not required to wear it to be a good Muslim in a Western nation, and ensuring that top-notch programs are in place for women who are afraid of the men in their lives and feel they cannot make other choices.

Izel is quite right; the current method is morally indistinguishable from the problem it purports to "solve", as forcing women to wear or not to wear a clothing item is the same sort of oppression.

Also, I'd rather see more women in headscarves than in bras... I guess that's why I like Audrey. Smile

"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
[+] 10 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
27-08-2016, 02:57 AM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
(27-08-2016 12:02 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Seriously-- imagine the discussion if France said that women could no longer wear bras because they're oppressive to women. We'd think they were insane!

[...]

Also, I'd rather see more women in headscarves than in bras... I guess that's why I like Audrey. Smile

I'm all for unsnapping a bra ... brah.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
27-08-2016, 05:02 AM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
(25-08-2016 10:36 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(25-08-2016 09:26 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  Yes, but the actual reasons for the bans matter.

If you're fighting against a psychopath, you don't stop to establish the rules for the fight, you go for the kill. And no, I don't mean to conflate Muslims with psychopaths, only Islamism.

I do agree with you that it's very unlikely to achieve its apparent goal, but I still think the mere gesture of it might end up helping a lot.

The reasons mattered to the 13th century church that banned pointed shoes. It was all about sex and power. If it didn't matter they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of banning them.

There's a very long history of this stuff. Jews were made to wear a star of David on their lapel before and during the WW II. They were then tattooed with a number. In in the Middle ages Jews were required to wear a conical hat.

People have migrated all over the world and whenever they end up their traditional costume is regarded as suspect because it represents something odd and unacceptable. And people don't even have to migrate anywhere for this shit to happen. For a time some American Indians tribes weren't allowed to wear their traditional Native garments. They were made to wear shirts, pants and western shoes because they were considered uncivilized and violent.

What's the difference between the tunic the lady on the beach was wearing and this...

[Image: 658e90145d325050d5d6c6002962220c.jpg]

They're both tunics.

This one's smiling
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2016, 05:34 AM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
(25-08-2016 10:59 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  It's about the fact that Muslim women are generally not free in any relevant meaning of the word to wear what they want. They are coerced by their communities to dress in a certain way. That is what this law is preventing. To confuse that with something like the plight of the Jews under antisemitic laws is to completely miss the point.

I guess the irony is lost here. Now they are coerced by the state to dress a certain way.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Tomasia's post
27-08-2016, 07:15 AM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
(25-08-2016 10:36 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  What's the difference between the tunic the lady on the beach was wearing and this...
[Image: 658e90145d325050d5d6c6002962220c.jpg]

They're both tunics.



I'm sorry, but if you can't differentiate the significance of each of these outfits, then you must be missing the point of the whole debate...


[Image: burkini-2-vogue-24aug16-rex_320x480.jpg]


Your image shows a free-spirited woman, unfettered by male-dominated, millennia-old religious dogma. She's dressed as she prefers—her particular style of clothing is her choice, and not that of her husband or brothers. Her outfit is stylish, feminine, in tune with current female fashions, looks attractive to the eye, and is more than appropriate as casual beachwear for summertime.

On the other hand, my image shows a repressed woman, kowtowing to the unrealistic demands of her male peers, subjugated by the oppressive, tyrannical dogma of a Dark Ages religion. Her attire is totally inappropriate for a summer beach; it obviously stays wet for some time and clings to the body—which must be pretty uncomfortable from what I know of full-body wet clothing (and ignoring any drowning issues). Additionally (in Australia at least) there's been a marked increase in childhood rickets and adult osteomalacia due to vitamin D insufficiency, caused by a lack of exposure to sunlight by constantly veiled Muslim women. [Medical Journal of Australia, 2012; 196 (7): 466-468 ]

The claims by these oppressed woman who wear the "burkini" that it's solely their choice are either deliberately lying, or have been brainwashed by their religious leaders. What young woman wants to voluntarily wear a bunch of daggy-looking wet rags on an Aussie beach in the middle of summer?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
27-08-2016, 07:28 AM
RE: French Birkini (Dance's and Revs' threads merged)
That thing on the beach is just crazy.

Why can't people just apply common sense? Why not have a law about covering one's face in places where facial recognition matters to law enforcement?

The whole thing is not about Islam or Muslims or anything - it's about millions of surveillance cameras in stores being rendered pointless.

And it's about evolution - yes it is. "Darwin was particularly interested in the functions facial expression as evolutionarily important for survival. He looked at the functions of facial expression in terms of the utility of expression in the life on the animal and in terms of specific expressions in species. Darwin deduced that animals were communicating feelings of different emotional states with specific facial expressions. He further concluded that this communication was important for the survival of animals in group-dwelling species; the skill to effectively communicate or interpret another animal’s feelings and behaviors would be a principal trait in naturally fit species."

Any regulation beyond keeping the face recognizable under normal circumstances is just crazy.

[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
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: