terrorist attack in Paris

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ah, yes, I am a Western person. And I have a Western person's bias towards women's rights. (Actually, there are many Eastern cultures who have that view as well, just not yours.) So you dismiss my view because I am Western, though we are talking about this issue in the context of Western society. How very logical.
I do think it's a hard call whether niqabs should be prohibited in public spaces. I don't think it's a good thing if you can walk into a bank or a convenience store in a niqab. We have security cameras for a reason -- to deter crime because the take pictures of peoples' faces, thus increasing the likelihood they will be caught. If it becomes culturally acceptable to walk around with a covered face, then we might as well get rid of that. What idiot wouldn't wear a niqab to rob a store. But we, as a government, have never sought to limit peoples' clothing choices except in the context of nudity or obscenity. So it is a hard step to take. Nonetheless, I think the security risk outweighs whatever expressive value there is to it. And I'd say that if it were some Mormon faction covering their faces as well.

Bank and store robbers already cover their faces and that has nothing to do with niqabs.

yep, and when police see a guy wearing a ski mask in July, they stop and question him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ah, yes, I am a Western person. And I have a Western person's bias towards women's rights. (Actually, there are many Eastern cultures who have that view as well, just not yours.) So you dismiss my view because I am Western, though we are talking about this issue in the context of Western society. How very logical.
I do think it's a hard call whether niqabs should be prohibited in public spaces. I don't think it's a good thing if you can walk into a bank or a convenience store in a niqab. We have security cameras for a reason -- to deter crime because the take pictures of peoples' faces, thus increasing the likelihood they will be caught. If it becomes culturally acceptable to walk around with a covered face, then we might as well get rid of that. What idiot wouldn't wear a niqab to rob a store. But we, as a government, have never sought to limit peoples' clothing choices except in the context of nudity or obscenity. So it is a hard step to take. Nonetheless, I think the security risk outweighs whatever expressive value there is to it. And I'd say that if it were some Mormon faction covering their faces as well.

Bank and store robbers already cover their faces and that has nothing to do with niqabs.

yep, and when police see a guy wearing a ski mask in July, they stop and question him.

Yes, because wearing a ski mask, unless you are protecting your skin from frostbite, is isolating, separating, creepy, and off-putting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.


Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.


Your opinion is not based on facts or reality. The good thing about opinions is that they are just that. The niqab will remain, worn by women who feel liberated by it, and those who just love it.

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't matter whether women love it, feel liberated by it, whether Muslim texts support it, or what Muslima's opinion of it is. It doesn't matter what intent the wearer has or cites. This covering limits interaction with the broader society and reinforces bonds within the faith. Wearing identifying garb and it's effects isn't unique to Islam, it's just that these coverings are extreme.

Really, do you think the Niqab promotes interaction with society or limits it to the select few?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.


Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.


Your opinion is not based on facts or reality. The good thing about opinions is that they are just that. The niqab will remain, worn by women who feel liberated by it, and those who just love it.

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't matter whether women love it, feel liberated by it, whether Muslim texts support it, or what Muslima's opinion of it is. It doesn't matter what intent the wearer has or cites. This covering limits interaction with the broader society and reinforces bonds within the faith. Wearing identifying garb and it's effects isn't unique to Islam, it's just that these coverings are extreme.

Really, do you think the Niqab promotes interaction with society or limits it to the select few?

I think that you have no right to force someone to interact with you if they don't want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.


Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.


Your opinion is not based on facts or reality. The good thing about opinions is that they are just that. The niqab will remain, worn by women who feel liberated by it, and those who just love it.

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't matter whether women love it, feel liberated by it, whether Muslim texts support it, or what Muslima's opinion of it is. It doesn't matter what intent the wearer has or cites. This covering limits interaction with the broader society and reinforces bonds within the faith. Wearing identifying garb and it's effects isn't unique to Islam, it's just that these coverings are extreme.

Really, do you think the Niqab promotes interaction with society or limits it to the select few?

I think that you have no right to force someone to interact with you if they don't want to.

notice how she didn't answer the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.


Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.


Your opinion is not based on facts or reality. The good thing about opinions is that they are just that. The niqab will remain, worn by women who feel liberated by it, and those who just love it.

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't matter whether women love it, feel liberated by it, whether Muslim texts support it, or what Muslima's opinion of it is. It doesn't matter what intent the wearer has or cites. This covering limits interaction with the broader society and reinforces bonds within the faith. Wearing identifying garb and it's effects isn't unique to Islam, it's just that these coverings are extreme.

Really, do you think the Niqab promotes interaction with society or limits it to the select few?

I think that you have no right to force someone to interact with you if they don't want to.

notice how she didn't answer the question.

What difference does it make? No, I don't think the niqab promotes interaction with a broader society. I also don't think it impedes it as much as you would like to pretend. But more importantly, I think that forcing someone to uncover in the name of "broader interaction with society" is an act of violence. It's up to every individual to decide how much interaction with a broader society they would like. As long as they break no laws and do so voluntarily, their lifestyle is none of your business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.


Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.


Your opinion is not based on facts or reality. The good thing about opinions is that they are just that. The niqab will remain, worn by women who feel liberated by it, and those who just love it.

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't matter whether women love it, feel liberated by it, whether Muslim texts support it, or what Muslima's opinion of it is. It doesn't matter what intent the wearer has or cites. This covering limits interaction with the broader society and reinforces bonds within the faith. Wearing identifying garb and it's effects isn't unique to Islam, it's just that these coverings are extreme.

Really, do you think the Niqab promotes interaction with society or limits it to the select few?

I think that you have no right to force someone to interact with you if they don't want to.

notice how she didn't answer the question.

No one has to interact with society except when they want to.

The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect.

--Louis Brandeis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.


Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.


Your opinion is not based on facts or reality. The good thing about opinions is that they are just that. The niqab will remain, worn by women who feel liberated by it, and those who just love it.

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't matter whether women love it, feel liberated by it, whether Muslim texts support it, or what Muslima's opinion of it is. It doesn't matter what intent the wearer has or cites. This covering limits interaction with the broader society and reinforces bonds within the faith. Wearing identifying garb and it's effects isn't unique to Islam, it's just that these coverings are extreme.

Really, do you think the Niqab promotes interaction with society or limits it to the select few?

I think that you have no right to force someone to interact with you if they don't want to.

notice how she didn't answer the question.

What difference does it make? No, I don't think the niqab promotes interaction with a broader society. I also don't think it impedes it as much as you would like to pretend. But more importantly, I think that forcing someone to uncover in the name of "broader interaction with society" is an act of violence. It's up to every individual to decide how much interaction with a broader society they would like. As long as they break no laws and do so voluntarily, their lifestyle is none of your business.

So, first you said the other person's view wasn't based in reality, but then you had to admit that they were actually right, but "it doesn't matter". Okay. Then, you don't know what "violence" means. Move along -- no credibility here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.


Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.


Your opinion is not based on facts or reality. The good thing about opinions is that they are just that. The niqab will remain, worn by women who feel liberated by it, and those who just love it.

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't matter whether women love it, feel liberated by it, whether Muslim texts support it, or what Muslima's opinion of it is. It doesn't matter what intent the wearer has or cites. This covering limits interaction with the broader society and reinforces bonds within the faith. Wearing identifying garb and it's effects isn't unique to Islam, it's just that these coverings are extreme.

Really, do you think the Niqab promotes interaction with society or limits it to the select few?

I think that you have no right to force someone to interact with you if they don't want to.

notice how she didn't answer the question.

No one has to interact with society except when they want to.

The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect.

--Louis Brandeis

I agree with that, but that's not the question. The PP stated that it impedes interaction with society, not that that's why it should be illegal. But that it's motivated by a desire to control women, in party by impeding their ability to interact in society.
I think it's immoral for that reason. Not that it should be illegal for that reason.
I think it should be illegal in public spaces for security reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.


Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.


Your opinion is not based on facts or reality. The good thing about opinions is that they are just that. The niqab will remain, worn by women who feel liberated by it, and those who just love it.

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't matter whether women love it, feel liberated by it, whether Muslim texts support it, or what Muslima's opinion of it is. It doesn't matter what intent the wearer has or cites. This covering limits interaction with the broader society and reinforces bonds within the faith. Wearing identifying garb and it's effects isn't unique to Islam, it's just that these coverings are extreme.

Really, do you think the Niqab promotes interaction with society or limits it to the select few?

I think that you have no right to force someone to interact with you if they don't want to.

notice how she didn't answer the question.

What difference does it make? No, I don't think the niqab promotes interaction with a broader society. I also don't think it impedes it as much as you would like to pretend. But more importantly, I think that forcing someone to uncover in the name of "broader interaction with society" is an act of violence. It's up to every individual to decide how much interaction with a broader society they would like. As long as they break no laws and do so voluntarily, their lifestyle is none of your business.

So, first you said the other person's view wasn't based in reality, but then you had to admit that they were actually right, but "it doesn't matter". Okay. Then, you don't know what "violence" means. Move along -- no credibility here.

I don't know what you mean. Someone said women are jailed for not covering their face in Iran. I corrected them. I am right, factually, since Iran does not require a face cover and never did. What is it that you think I had to admit?

How do I not know what violence means?

I'll decide when to move along, thanks.

[Anonymous]

The poster is right. Iranian women mostly do not cover their faces.

[Anonymous]

Iranian women mostly do not cover their faces.

They are required to cover their heads, however. And, before the Shah left, they wore western dress and mostly did not cover at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The poster is right. Iranian women mostly do not cover their faces.

Iran, of all places, has never required their women to cover faces, either culturally or legally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Iranian women mostly do not cover their faces.

They are required to cover their heads, however. And, before the Shah left, they wore western dress and mostly did not cover at all.

That was true primarily for the urban elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
That's your interpretation. Women who cover their faces may very well believe that you aren't special enough to see them. The sight of their face is reserved only for special people, and you aren't one of them.


Absolutely. In my opinion, these complete coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society and making them only interact with those of their own religious community of believers.

I can see you believe that no woman may actually choose to live like that. You say you want women to have freedom of choice, but in actuality, you only want them to have you-approved choices. If you disapprove of a particular lifestyle, it should not be offered as a choice. Got it.

I never said anything about not allowing women to wear them or whether they choose to wear them. In response to the comment that Niqab wearing women may believe you aren't special enough to see them, I said these coverings serve the purpose of isolating women from broader society. Later I added that the intent doesn't matter, they have that effect.

Someone said I like to pretend that niqabs are more isolating than they are. No, I really think they're pretty isolating, at least in general Western society.