Anonymous
01/11/2015 20:45
Subject: terrorist attack in Paris
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let me get that straight: An uncovered woman is against social customs inside the Islamic world, so we must respect that.
Yet a woman who has her face covered is against social customs everywhere outside of the Islamic world yet we cannot possibly respect that?
Logic fail.
It is - if you want to be exactly like Saudi Arabia. You both think it's OK to ban something citing "social customs."
So, you are saying we should be like the Saudis?
No, I'm saying that those who support the ban on niqabs in France citing "social customs" are no different from Al-Saud, and should stop pretending that they are.
do you support the ban on polygamy in the US? if so, on what ground?
Anonymous
01/11/2015 20:43
Subject: terrorist attack in Paris
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let me get that straight: An uncovered woman is against social customs inside the Islamic world, so we must respect that.
Yet a woman who has her face covered is against social customs everywhere outside of the Islamic world yet we cannot possibly respect that?
Logic fail.
It is - if you want to be exactly like Saudi Arabia. You both think it's OK to ban something citing "social customs."
So, you are saying we should be like the Saudis?
No, I'm saying that those who support the ban on niqabs in France citing "social customs" are no different from Al-Saud, and should stop pretending that they are.
By that same logic, then shouldn't the Saudis and other Muslim nations also be following this and not be insisting on women being covered, not having a ban on uncovered women?
Anonymous
01/11/2015 20:40
Subject: Re:terrorist attack in Paris
Anonymous wrote:
also, by your logic, if anything goes or we are like the Saudi, then 45 old men should be allowed to marry 9 year old little girl. They do it in Yemen, why should not they do it if they move to France or the USA? or polygamy, the US is a really oppressive regime since it does not allow a man who moves from Saudi Arabia to New York to marry multiple women, as he would like to do.
and the majority does rule. interracial marriages were illegal in a lot of states in the US until relatively recently until public opinion changed, same thing for abortion, gay marriage and so on
You must be very young or incapable of abstract thinking. If France bans a particular way of dressing using "social customs" as a reason, then they are exactly like Al-Saud who prescribes a particular way of dressing using "social customs" as a reason.
You also missed the point on majority rule. The ban on interracial marriages was immoral even while it was legal. I guess you believe things only become immoral when the majority decides so? So slavery was perfectly during the time when the society believed that it was the natural order of things? Or was it always immoral, even if prohibiting it would have been against the majority opinion?
Anonymous
01/11/2015 20:36
Subject: terrorist attack in Paris
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let me get that straight: An uncovered woman is against social customs inside the Islamic world, so we must respect that.
Yet a woman who has her face covered is against social customs everywhere outside of the Islamic world yet we cannot possibly respect that?
Logic fail.
It is - if you want to be exactly like Saudi Arabia. You both think it's OK to ban something citing "social customs."
So, you are saying we should be like the Saudis?
No, I'm saying that those who support the ban on niqabs in France citing "social customs" are no different from Al-Saud, and should stop pretending that they are.
Anonymous
01/11/2015 20:35
Subject: Re:terrorist attack in Paris
Anonymous wrote:
I know what a burka is, so I am not sure why you think I don't (it's not a hijab or a niqab for instance). I never said that integrating into a society I as easy as accepting their dress code. but adopting a dress code that is totally out of sync with the society you live in will prevent you from integrating.
prohibition of wearing something that totally covers one's face is not a human right issue, like slavery, freedom to practice a religion.
I think that you don't know what a burka is because you keep bringing it up as unacceptable in France. The Afghan presence in France is miniscule, and most of them have been completely assimilated, so banning a burka wasn't necessary, simply because it's not found in France. What France banned was face-covering headgear - a group of which a burka is but one element.
Anonymous
01/11/2015 20:27
Subject: terrorist attack in Paris
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let me get that straight: An uncovered woman is against social customs inside the Islamic world, so we must respect that.
Yet a woman who has her face covered is against social customs everywhere outside of the Islamic world yet we cannot possibly respect that?
Logic fail.
It is - if you want to be exactly like Saudi Arabia. You both think it's OK to ban something citing "social customs."
So, you are saying we should be like the Saudis?
Anonymous
01/11/2015 20:26
Subject: terrorist attack in Paris
Anonymous wrote:I still tend to be very skeptical that there are that many Muslim women who actually cover their faces out of genuine personal choice as opposed to it being what they think is expected of them. They've put the will of others before their own.
If that's how they want to live, that's their prerogative. It's not your job to reform them. Clearly, some Muslim women have no difficulty not covering. You simply cannot conceive of women who think differently from you, and want different things.
Anonymous
01/11/2015 20:24
Subject: terrorist attack in Paris
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let me get that straight: An uncovered woman is against social customs inside the Islamic world, so we must respect that.
Yet a woman who has her face covered is against social customs everywhere outside of the Islamic world yet we cannot possibly respect that?
Logic fail.
You are not supporting a woman's right to be equal. You're supporting a man's need to continue to oppress and brainwash women through the use of religion (and culture).
Women should be free to express who they are. By DENYING them the privilege of wearing a skirt that hits the knee or by showing off her new hairstyle or by wearing pants with a funky pair of boots, you're not supporting her rights. You're simply too stupid to see the root of the issue - and it's patriarchy married to religion.
If I want, I can wear a maxi skirt and a sweater one day and a mini skirt and tights the next. It's my choice to determine what I want to put on my body. No man - no religion - is telling me what I must wear.
know why? b/c I fucking have a brain that hasn't been shaped to believe that Allah will think I'm a whore if I show off my hair or my arms or my legs or my shoulders
It's bad enough when men oppress women, but when other women keep women down, it's even worse.
brainwashing - There's your simple answer, you buffoon.
Actually, the French government has told French Muslim women what they must wear. They don't seem to care that these women - like you - "fucking have a brain." I guess it's OK with you that the French government is assuming the role of daddy?
You, like so many little white girls before you, think you know better than women elsewhere what they think, what they want, and more importantly, what they NEED to think and want. And like so many little white girls before you, you have been brainwashed to think that a woman who covers MUST be doing this because she's forced - because your little mind cannot conceive of anyone who thinks differently from you, and values different things. You say you respect freedom - but in reality, you respect it only if someone makes the same choices as you. You are as intolerant as Al-Saud.
Anonymous
01/11/2015 20:24
Subject: terrorist attack in Paris
I still tend to be very skeptical that there are that many Muslim women who actually cover their faces out of genuine personal choice as opposed to it being what they think is expected of them. They've put the will of others before their own.
Anonymous
01/11/2015 20:20
Subject: terrorist attack in Paris
Anonymous wrote:Let me get that straight: An uncovered woman is against social customs inside the Islamic world, so we must respect that.
Yet a woman who has her face covered is against social customs everywhere outside of the Islamic world yet we cannot possibly respect that?
Logic fail.
It is - if you want to be exactly like Saudi Arabia. You both think it's OK to ban something citing "social customs."
Anonymous
01/11/2015 20:18
Subject: Re:terrorist attack in Paris
Niqab is full face covering
Anonymous
01/11/2015 20:05
Subject: Re:terrorist attack in Paris
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
well, I want to go around naked but society forces me to wear clothes. is that barbaric? in western countries the governments certainly dictate how little women should expose since generally walking around without with boobs exposed is not allowed. if people can be forced to wear some clothes in secular western countries, I don't see why we cannot outlaw the burka and ask a woman to show at least her face in public (since wearing the burka is not a religious requirement at all, as proven daily by the hundreds of millions of non-burka wearing Muslim women in the world)
Wearing a miniskirt is not a religious requirement either. Can I outlaw that?
sure you can, but then you are voted out and the law is canceled because today in France miniskirst are accepted. the government in France or the US regulates plenty of stuff, if you can use pot, if you can drink alcohol depending on your age, if you can buy weapons and carry them and so on. laws changes with times and based on how a society evolves. wearing a miniskirt or even a bikini was scandalous and probably not allowed in 1900 in France, while now is allowed and perceived as normal, even though you can go to the beach totally dressed and it is also perfectly ok. so the government can certainly prohibit a garment that totally covers a person and makes the person unrecognizable. while women in France and other western European country dress in the most wide variety of ways, all perfectly acceptable (including wearing a veil on their heads), the burka is totally outside of the current social customs of these countries. it is hard to argue with a straight face that if you are a non Muslim woman in France and you are shy and prefer to dress conservatively you wear a burka. people who wear a burka in France do not want to integrate in French society (even the ones who are born there), they live there but act as if they were in Yemen.
First of all, you don't know what a burka is, so go ahead and look it up before you start looking any more ignorant than you are already. And I never knew integrating into a society is as easy as accepting their dress code. You should tell that to the 9/11 hijackers - all wearing Western garb, you know.
OK. Let's follow your logic. An uncovered woman is totally against current social customs in the Gulf Arab countries. Then let's stop calling these governments oppressive because they tell their citizens how to dress. Congratulations, you've just achieved a dubious honor of parity with Al-Saud.
Also, women living by themselves, dating, making their own decisions and forging an independent path is totally against the customs of these societies. Their governments are perfectly in the right for banning all of these.
Openly practicing religions other than Islam is totally against the social customs in the Gulf Arab states. Their governments are completely in the right for banning any open expressions of Christianity, construction of churches, celebrating religious holidays, etc.
Before you embarrass yourself any longer, here's the answer: certain rights are not and should not be subject to majority decisions. If the majority of people voted to bring slavery back, would it be OK to do it? If the state of Alabama wants to ban interracial marriages and have a reasonable hope of achieving a majority decision on this, should they be allowed to do so?
I know what a burka is, so I am not sure why you think I don't (it's not a hijab or a niqab for instance). I never said that integrating into a society I as easy as accepting their dress code. but adopting a dress code that is totally out of sync with the society you live in will prevent you from integrating.
prohibition of wearing something that totally covers one's face is not a human right issue, like slavery, freedom to practice a religion.
also, by your logic, if anything goes or we are like the Saudi, then 45 old men should be allowed to marry 9 year old little girl. They do it in Yemen, why should not they do it if they move to France or the USA? or polygamy, the US is a really oppressive regime since it does not allow a man who moves from Saudi Arabia to New York to marry multiple women, as he would like to do.
and the majority does rule. interracial marriages were illegal in a lot of states in the US until relatively recently until public opinion changed, same thing for abortion, gay marriage and so on
Anonymous
01/11/2015 19:51
Subject: terrorist attack in Paris
Anonymous wrote:Let me get that straight: An uncovered woman is against social customs inside the Islamic world, so we must respect that.
Yet a woman who has her face covered is against social customs everywhere outside of the Islamic world yet we cannot possibly respect that?
Logic fail.
You are not supporting a woman's right to be equal. You're supporting a man's need to continue to oppress and brainwash women through the use of religion (and culture).
Women should be free to express who they are. By DENYING them the privilege of wearing a skirt that hits the knee or by showing off her new hairstyle or by wearing pants with a funky pair of boots, you're not supporting her rights. You're simply too stupid to see the root of the issue - and it's patriarchy married to religion.
If I want, I can wear a maxi skirt and a sweater one day and a mini skirt and tights the next. It's my choice to determine what I want to put on my body. No man - no religion - is telling me what I must wear.
know why? b/c I fucking have a brain that hasn't been shaped to believe that Allah will think I'm a whore if I show off my hair or my arms or my legs or my shoulders
It's bad enough when men oppress women, but when other women keep women down, it's even worse.
brainwashing - There's your simple answer, you buffoon.
Anonymous
01/11/2015 19:42
Subject: Re:terrorist attack in Paris
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
well, I want to go around naked but society forces me to wear clothes. is that barbaric? in western countries the governments certainly dictate how little women should expose since generally walking around without with boobs exposed is not allowed. if people can be forced to wear some clothes in secular western countries, I don't see why we cannot outlaw the burka and ask a woman to show at least her face in public (since wearing the burka is not a religious requirement at all, as proven daily by the hundreds of millions of non-burka wearing Muslim women in the world)
Wearing a miniskirt is not a religious requirement either. Can I outlaw that?
sure you can, but then you are voted out and the law is canceled because today in France miniskirst are accepted. the government in France or the US regulates plenty of stuff, if you can use pot, if you can drink alcohol depending on your age, if you can buy weapons and carry them and so on. laws changes with times and based on how a society evolves. wearing a miniskirt or even a bikini was scandalous and probably not allowed in 1900 in France, while now is allowed and perceived as normal, even though you can go to the beach totally dressed and it is also perfectly ok. so the government can certainly prohibit a garment that totally covers a person and makes the person unrecognizable. while women in France and other western European country dress in the most wide variety of ways, all perfectly acceptable (including wearing a veil on their heads), the burka is totally outside of the current social customs of these countries. it is hard to argue with a straight face that if you are a non Muslim woman in France and you are shy and prefer to dress conservatively you wear a burka. people who wear a burka in France do not want to integrate in French society (even the ones who are born there), they live there but act as if they were in Yemen.
First of all, you don't know what a burka is, so go ahead and look it up before you start looking any more ignorant than you are already. And I never knew integrating into a society is as easy as accepting their dress code. You should tell that to the 9/11 hijackers - all wearing Western garb, you know.
OK. Let's follow your logic. An uncovered woman is totally against current social customs in the Gulf Arab countries. Then let's stop calling these governments oppressive because they tell their citizens how to dress. Congratulations, you've just achieved a dubious honor of parity with Al-Saud.
Also, women living by themselves, dating, making their own decisions and forging an independent path is totally against the customs of these societies. Their governments are perfectly in the right for banning all of these.
Openly practicing religions other than Islam is totally against the social customs in the Gulf Arab states. Their governments are completely in the right for banning any open expressions of Christianity, construction of churches, celebrating religious holidays, etc.
Before you embarrass yourself any longer, here's the answer: certain rights are not and should not be subject to majority decisions. If the majority of people voted to bring slavery back, would it be OK to do it? If the state of Alabama wants to ban interracial marriages and have a reasonable hope of achieving a majority decision on this, should they be allowed to do so?
I know what a burka is, so I am not sure why you think I don't (it's not a hijab or a niqab for instance). I never said that integrating into a society I as easy as accepting their dress code. but adopting a dress code that is totally out of sync with the society you live in will prevent you from integrating.
prohibition of wearing something that totally covers one's face is not a human right issue, like slavery, freedom to practice a religion.
Anonymous
01/11/2015 19:39
Subject: Re:terrorist attack in Paris
Let me get that straight: An uncovered woman is against social customs inside the Islamic world, so we must respect that.
Yet a woman who has her face covered is against social customs everywhere outside of the Islamic world yet we cannot possibly respect that?
Logic fail.
Brilliant!