Don't know what to think about the Burqa law in France.

[RJDiogenes]

Why is bestiality ok only if an animal can agree to it? We keep animals enslaved without their direct consent.

We mass murder them without their direct consent, too.

The words "enslavement" and "murder" only apply to Humans (or similarly intelligent life forms). It is okay to keep animals as pets or use animals as food; it is not okay to abuse or indiscriminately kill them. And none of this has anything to do with the fact that they can't enter into a legal contract.

LOL, stop patronizing all the women. You remind me of this:

 

[T'Girl]

I have yet to see a known female poster say "hey, I would love to share a man with many other women."

Because you can't say that you are FOR polygamous unions unless you don't mind being in the less desirable situation of being the multiple wo(men).

But if you combine legal polygamous marriage with legal gay marriage, you could have a marriage with (example) a half dozen men but no women or conversely a half dozen women but no men. What happens to your position then?

I was in relationships once with two men at the same time who were room mates (shared a two bedroom condo), neither seemed to feel like they were in an "desirable situation," I certainly didn't. Wasn't a marriage though.

 

[JarodRussell]

The words "enslavement" and "murder" only apply to Humans (or similarly intelligent life forms). It is okay to keep animals as pets or use animals as food; it is not okay to abuse or indiscriminately kill them. And none of this has anything to do with the fact that they can't enter into a legal contract.

Quite convenient as humans made that rule.

Morale debates are inherently absurd.

 

[KJbushway]

Surprised to hear that Bill Maher was against it.
I do believe it is taking away a freedom to wear a hat basically.
To me its just an attempt to feel better at the rising muslim growth in European nations.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The words "enslavement" and "murder" only apply to Humans (or similarly intelligent life forms). It is okay to keep animals as pets or use animals as food; it is not okay to abuse or indiscriminately kill them. And none of this has anything to do with the fact that they can't enter into a legal contract.

Quite convenient as humans made that rule.

Morale debates are inherently absurd.

You mean "moral," and, no, debates about morality are not absurd. Morality is part of reality. It only becomes absurd when people create rules and customs based on prejudice or ignorance and call them morality.

 

[Sean Aaron]

Just because they are doing it doesn't mean they have any right to. Its simply mob rule.

And I would hope the legal system would strike it down and allow people their rights. Otherwise we deal with another suppression of rights. If we're very lucky, the internal outcry will cause it to be reversed.

Your line is prejudice. You should apologize for it.

Rights are legal abstractions defined by society, though I suppose you may be referring to some kind of religious belief in transcendent rights, which I don't share in.

If the law is overturned I expect it will be from without France by the European Court of Human Rights; I seriously doubt you'll find people protesting against this law in the streets as I expect it has popular support.

And yes I'll happily cop to bigotry against people who cover their faces in public if that makes you feel happy. Still not apologising.

No. Luckily, you're on the wrong side of History. The very reason America was founded was to oppose your brand of ideology.

Last time I checked the world wasn't America. I think history still has to determine if the USA is a short-lived anomaly or not...

 

[Subcommander R.]

Just because they are doing it doesn't mean they have any right to. Its simply mob rule.

And I would hope the legal system would strike it down and allow people their rights. Otherwise we deal with another suppression of rights. If we're very lucky, the internal outcry will cause it to be reversed.

Your line is prejudice. You should apologize for it.

Rights are legal abstractions defined by society, though I suppose you may be referring to some kind of religious belief in transcendent rights, which I don't share in.

If the law is overturned I expect it will be from without France by the European Court of Human Rights; I seriously doubt you'll find people protesting against this law in the streets as I expect it has popular support.

And yes I'll happily cop to bigotry against people who cover their faces in public if that makes you feel happy. Still not apologising.

No. Luckily, you're on the wrong side of History. The very reason America was founded was to oppose your brand of ideology.

Last time I checked the world wasn't America. I think history still has to determine if the USA is a short-lived anomaly or not...

Rights are innate, NOT determined by the government.

When something has popular support it merits even more scrutiny. Frequently, as is the case here, it turns out to be the majority oppressing the minority.

Its obvious your prejudice stems to the root and not the manifestation. If you were tolerant of other cultures you would welcome their free practice. Instead you're promoting intolerance. I have the distinct feeling that its Muslims you dislike rather than people at costume parties, dressing up for fun, bikers too lazy to take off a helmet at the gas station, people bundled up against the cold, etc.

Its simply a law targeting a culture with the intent of destroying it, possibly with the moronic idea of promoting women's rights (see how free you are now that we've told you what you can and can't wear?).

The US has lasted far longer than each French Republic. Yet do you question the likelihood of France surviving cohesively?

The world isn't the US, but in many ways the US is the world. Walk through Washington DC, New York, Los Angeles, and you'll see people of all faiths, cultures, creeds, orientations, occupations. And its been that way for centuries. A haven for everyone in the world hoping for a better life.

Do we have flaws? Hell yes we do. But we also have unrivaled freedoms of religion, speech, and expression.

 

[Sean Aaron]

Rights are innate, NOT determined by the government.

The very concept of "rights" is a human fabrication, though I'd love to see you argue your right to life and freedom with a wild animal before it tears you apart.

Its obvious your prejudice stems to the root and not the manifestation. If you were tolerant of other cultures you would welcome their free practice.

I am tolerant, but my tolerance has limits as clearly does yours or are you looking to make female circumcision legal in America? Think carefully about your answer lest you appear to be some kind of bigot as well.

Its simply a law targeting a culture with the intent of destroying it

I see you have no problem with hyperbole...I suppose if your culture was based solely around covering yourself from head to toe, then yes, but I seriously doubt having to pay a fine is going to result in the destruction of anything.

The US has lasted far longer than each French Republic. Yet do you question the likelihood of France surviving cohesively?

Banning the niqab is now going to destroy the Fifth Republic? What are you talking about?

Do we have flaws? Hell yes we do. But we also have unrivaled freedoms of religion, speech, and expression.

"Flaws" is putting it mildly, but regardless of how wonderful you think it is, you're still in the global minority with the degree of "freedom" you're espousing.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Rights are innate, NOT determined by the government.

While I somewhat agree, but there are two problems with this statement.

First, you have to agree which rights. Even if you buy the idea about natural rights, you have to admit the definition of which rights are inalienable is strictly cultural. Most Americans consider the possession of firearms a right; I don't. I consider heath care a right; many Americans don't. So, which is which? As you see, it's not that simple.

Second, I'm not sure I agree with the idea of "natural" rights in general. Rights are social and cultural constructs, and that makes them both precious and frail. They are "innate" by virtue of being a human being in a human society, not of being a human being full stop. A lone human in the wilderness has no rights.

The US has lasted far longer than each French Republic.

Actually, I think you are mixing up the current incarnation of the French state with France. France has been around much longer, and it's defined much more by a shared idea of a common culture than by the current organization of the state.

The world isn't the US, but in many ways the US is the world. Walk through Washington DC, New York, Los Angeles, and you'll see people of all faiths, cultures, creeds, orientations, occupations. And its been that way for centuries.

And I'm sorry to say, but that's mostly bullshit. Sure, your colonial beginnings makes for a different study than Old Europe, but what makes your society inherently different than, say, Australia, Canada or New Zealand? You are falling victim to the ever-so-common mistake of American exceptionalism.

 

[JarodRussell]

The words "enslavement" and "murder" only apply to Humans (or similarly intelligent life forms). It is okay to keep animals as pets or use animals as food; it is not okay to abuse or indiscriminately kill them. And none of this has anything to do with the fact that they can't enter into a legal contract.

Quite convenient as humans made that rule.

Morale debates are inherently absurd.

You mean "moral," and, no, debates about morality are not absurd. Morality is part of reality. It only becomes absurd when people create rules and customs based on prejudice or ignorance and call them morality.

Of course debates about morality are absurd. Nature is immoral and unfair. Attempts of humans finding moral in things is just attempts of whitewashing the horrific parts of reality.

"Humane slaughter" of animals, for instance. That's just ridiculous. I enjoy a good steak, but I also don't whitewash the process. An animal got slaughtered and butchered for my enjoyment. And it's a horrible death for the animal, it always is. That's bad. It's not okay just because they are less intelligent. But I live with that fact and I don't attempt to gloss over it with some moral argument about how they had such a good and lucky life and other bullshit.

Or take capital punishment for another example. Suddenly it's good to kill a human being. Just because he/she killed others. It's not good, it never was and it never will be. The state murders someone. And it's a pretty sick death. Electric chair, disgusting. Gas chamber, horrible, that's what the Nazis did, too. Injection, don't get me started.

Take death. Natural causes. Unnatural causes. It hits everyone, randomly. Some "had it coming", some "died too young", some "had lived a good life". Humans always talk it away to get more comfortable with it. A murderer who suffers from a stroke: no biggy. Someone who had no family or friends: who cares. But the family father who died in a car accident, now that's worse. A man who gets killed by a lion is a horrible tragedy, the gazelle that died the other day is "the symbiotic relationship between the predator and its prey." How romantic.



That the is some sort of moral justification to be found in all of this is just an artificial idea that makes people more comfortable with life and themselves. It is inherently absurd.


What does that have to do with banning the burqa? Not much. Except that the whole debate is ridiculous because there are a lot of other things forbidden in Western culture which are perfectly normal in other cultures and vice versa. Nobody complains about these.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Take death. Natural causes. Unnatural causes. It hits everyone, randomly. Some "had it coming", some "died too young", some "had lived a good life". Humans always talk it away to get more comfortable with it. A murderer who suffers from a stroke: no biggy. Someone who had no family or friends: who cares. But the family father who died in a car accident, now that's worse. A man who gets killed by a lion is a horrible tragedy, the gazelle that died the other day is "the symbiotic relationship between the predator and its prey." How romantic.

Hey. Well said.

 

[Subcommander R.]

Rights are innate, NOT determined by the government.

The very concept of "rights" is a human fabrication, though I'd love to see you argue your right to life and freedom with a wild animal before it tears you apart.

Its obvious your prejudice stems to the root and not the manifestation. If you were tolerant of other cultures you would welcome their free practice.

I am tolerant, but my tolerance has limits as clearly does yours or are you looking to make female circumcision legal in America? Think carefully about your answer lest you appear to be some kind of bigot as well.



I see you have no problem with hyperbole...I suppose if your culture was based solely around covering yourself from head to toe, then yes, but I seriously doubt having to pay a fine is going to result in the destruction of anything.

The US has lasted far longer than each French Republic. Yet do you question the likelihood of France surviving cohesively?

Banning the niqab is now going to destroy the Fifth Republic? What are you talking about?

Do we have flaws? Hell yes we do. But we also have unrivaled freedoms of religion, speech, and expression.

"Flaws" is putting it mildly, but regardless of how wonderful you think it is, you're still in the global minority with the degree of "freedom" you're espousing.

1. Animals aren't sentient; you're manufacturing talking points.

2. If the woman choses to do it, then its her right.

3. Do you deny this is targeting cultural practice and will result in the destruction of it?

4. You were speculating the US wouldn't survive, I pointed out you aren't making the same speculation about other countries (governments to be precise, personally I consider them one and the same). Even ones that are younger with more turbulent regional/cultural histories. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

5. So because everyone else doesn't value individual freedom, neither should I? That sounds incredibly foolish.

First, you have to agree which rights. Even if you buy the idea about natural rights, you have to admit the definition of which rights are inalienable is strictly cultural. Most Americans consider the possession of firearms a right; I don't. I consider heath care a right; many Americans don't. So, which is which? As you see, it's not that simple.

Second, I'm not sure I agree with the idea of "natural" rights in general. Rights are social and cultural constructs, and that makes them both precious and frail. They are "innate" by virtue of being a human being in a human society, not of being a human being full stop. A lone human in the wilderness has no rights.

Actually, I think you are mixing up the current incarnation of the French state with France. France has been around much longer, and it's defined much more by a shared idea of a common culture than by the current organization of the state.


And I'm sorry to say, but that's mostly bullshit. Sure, your colonial beginnings makes for a different study than Old Europe, but what makes your society inherently different than, say, Australia, Canada or New Zealand? You are falling victim to the ever-so-common mistake of American exceptionalism.

1. Thats why we have documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are some values we all share. Religious freedom, freedom of speech, the right to fair legal treatment. I have trouble seeing anyone argue against those.

2. You might not be grasping the concept (no offense). Natural rights don't refer to bears in the woods, they refer to humanity without governments. And if you accept Locke's principles, then we do have natural rights.

3. I consider government to be the issue he brought up, so it is the one I addressed. If the US government fell next week we'd still have cheese burgers and country music and be independent. I'm simply discussing governmental stability and questioning why he assumes it to be the case elsewhere but not in the US.

4. I think you need to study up on American history, particularly in the late 1800s. We had an influx of dozens of cultures. We still do, you can drive in my state of California to Indian, Vietnamese, Dutch, Chinese, and other communities within a few hours. All equal under the law and freely practicing their traditions. And everywhere you see Mexican culture and the European cultures that have been present for a long time. I realize my country has a tendency to fuck things up, but I don't understand the psychology of why we're disliked to such varying extents. It seems every good thing we have to offer has to be criticized or denied. It gets a little old at times. Even our multicultural uniqueness gets denied?

 

[iguana_tonante]

Well, I have to say I'm rather disappointed you ignored most of the points raised here and instead went for the usual "why does everybody hate America?" Still, I'll try and reply to some of your comments.

1. Thats why we have documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are some values we all share. Religious freedom, freedom of speech, the right to fair legal treatment. I have trouble seeing anyone argue against those.

Principles are good like that: in principle. It gets more complicated when applied to reality. Freedom of (and from) religion? Good. Now, since there is no religious commandment to wear a burqa but it's a strictly cultural practice, it should be treated as any other cultural practice. Let's say, for example, nudism. If nudists can't go around with their goodies in plain sight because it's deemed inappropriate by the majority of the population, I don't see how concealing your face can't be disallowed if the majority of the population consider it inappropriate. Now, are you ready to say that nudists are an oppressed minority and should be able to run around buck naked and are you willing to engage in the same level of outrage at their negated rights? Because if you don't, I'm afraid I'm going to call you the H-word.

2. You might not be grasping the concept (no offense). Natural rights don't refer to bears in the woods, they refer to humanity without governments. And if you accept Locke's principles, then we do have natural rights.

If you re-read what I wrote, I think that's exactly what I said: humans have inherent rights as members of a society. Obviously, there are no humans without society, and there is no society without government, so talking about "humanity without governments" is like talking about "squares without four sides".

4. I think you need to study up on American history, particularly in the late 1800s. We had an influx of dozens of cultures.

O RLY? I don't think I have to school me about history. I never denied the peculiarity of the US compared to Europe (in fact, I highlighted it). I denied its uniqueness with regards to immigration, compared to other formerly colonial countries like Canada or Australia.

We still do, you can drive in my state of California to Indian, Vietnamese, Dutch, Chinese, and other communities within a few hours. All equal under the law and freely practicing their traditions. And everywhere you see Mexican culture and the European cultures that have been present for a long time.

And this is different from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or even the highly multicultural Greater London and Grand Paris... how?

I realize my country has a tendency to fuck things up, but I don't understand the psychology of why we're disliked to such varying extents. It seems every good thing we have to offer has to be criticized or denied. It gets a little old at times.

I suppose it gets old just like having Americans coming and saying "Your laws are stupid, wrong and evil. Now, this is how you should do it. Just like us."

Now, if you remember how this particular discussion started, it went like this:

Captain America: "Law wrong. France bad. US good. You do like US. Much better."
Marquis de France: "Well, now, let's not say anything harsh here. I know you don't agree but that's how we do things here. Beside, you shouldn't throw any stone here, because your score is not perfect either."
Captain America: "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA!!111!"

Maybe if you stop taking any hint of criticism (or even discussion) as an attack, we could have a serious discussion about it.

 

[RJDiogenes]

No. Luckily, you're on the wrong side of History. The very reason America was founded was to oppose your brand of ideology.

Last time I checked the world wasn't America. I think history still has to determine if the USA is a short-lived anomaly or not...

It's yet to be determined if Humanity is a short-lived anomaly. Nevertheless, America was founded on Enlightenment principles that themselves hearken back to earlier enlightened periods in History. These principles have been adopted by many other countries and cultures around the world; some are even now fighting for their rights and freedom. The trend of History for the past several centuries has been toward a freer and more accepting society, and that trend will continue into the future, unless we get hit with another dark age. Whether you call it America or not, American principles represent the future.

Quite convenient as humans made that rule.

Morale debates are inherently absurd.

You mean "moral," and, no, debates about morality are not absurd. Morality is part of reality. It only becomes absurd when people create rules and customs based on prejudice or ignorance and call them morality.

Of course debates about morality are absurd. Nature is immoral and unfair. Attempts of humans finding moral in things is just attempts of whitewashing the horrific parts of reality.

"Humane slaughter" of animals, for instance. That's just ridiculous. I enjoy a good steak, but I also don't whitewash the process. An animal got slaughtered and butchered for my enjoyment. And it's a horrible death for the animal, it always is. That's bad. It's not okay just because they are less intelligent. But I live with that fact and I don't attempt to gloss over it with some moral argument about how they had such a good and lucky life and other bullshit.

Or take capital punishment for another example. Suddenly it's good to kill a human being. Just because he/she killed others. It's not good, it never was and it never will be. The state murders someone. And it's a pretty sick death. Electric chair, disgusting. Gas chamber, horrible, that's what the Nazis did, too. Injection, don't get me started.

Take death. Natural causes. Unnatural causes. It hits everyone, randomly. Some "had it coming", some "died too young", some "had lived a good life". Humans always talk it away to get more comfortable with it. A murderer who suffers from a stroke: no biggy. Someone who had no family or friends: who cares. But the family father who died in a car accident, now that's worse. A man who gets killed by a lion is a horrible tragedy, the gazelle that died the other day is "the symbiotic relationship between the predator and its prey." How romantic.



That the is some sort of moral justification to be found in all of this is just an artificial idea that makes people more comfortable with life and themselves. It is inherently absurd.


What does that have to do with banning the burqa? Not much. Except that the whole debate is ridiculous because there are a lot of other things forbidden in Western culture which are perfectly normal in other cultures and vice versa. Nobody complains about these.

I have no idea what the hell you're trying to prove.

 

[Sean Aaron]

1. Animals aren't sentient; you're manufacturing talking points.

Like many you appear to confuse sentience with human intelligence which isn't really correct. Sentience means the ability to experience distinct emotional states and that's well established in many animals; pretty well universal in our fellow mammals.

Rights are a concept created by humans; it's not subject to debate.

2. If the woman choses to do it, then its her right.

Apparently not in France, it isn't.

3. Do you deny this is targeting cultural practice and will result in the destruction of it?

Yes, it's a fine, not a death sentence. Stop being so goddammed dramatic.

4. You were speculating the US wouldn't survive, I pointed out you aren't making the same speculation about other countries (governments to be precise, personally I consider them one and the same). Even ones that are younger with more turbulent regional/cultural histories. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

No, you're right I missed that. No I wouldn't make that speculation about other countries; other countries aren't represented here by people proclaiming their divine gift to humanity.

5. So because everyone else doesn't value individual freedom, neither should I? That sounds incredibly foolish.

No, because everyone else doesn't value individual freedom you shouldn't expect them to, and in keeping with your apparent respect of all the world's cultural traditions you should respect their right to restrict the expression of people within their national borders.

4. I think you need to study up on American history, particularly in the late 1800s. We had an influx of dozens of cultures. We still do, you can drive in my state of California to Indian, Vietnamese, Dutch, Chinese, and other communities within a few hours. All equal under the law and freely practicing their traditions.

Uh, I think you need to study up on American history: remember the anti-Chinese laws in California? You know the ones that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional, but were still in effect in California for years afterwards, because anywhere west of the Mississippi could thumb their nose at the Supreme Court as they couldn't actually enforce their rulings in the western territories?

Please spare us the lectures. The United States is far from paradise. The rhetoric is about the only thing that is perfect, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ No one is claiming that the US is a perfect paradise. The best we can do is err on the side of caution. Better to risk allowing speech that is too offensive than to stifle speech that isn't. To put it another way: Criminal law is, or at least should be, structured such that it's better to let 10 guilty people go free than to imprison 1 innocent.

As for anti-Chinese laws: Those may have been unenforceable back when they were passed, but not now. Current technology and law makes it realistic to enforce laws equally in all parts of the country.

 

[6079SmithW]

Interestingly enough there was an article about this law in the campus newspaper today. Several interesting points were made.

One, the West lecturing Muslims about Western freedom and liberalism and yet denying Muslims free choice in cultural expression. Two, Sarkozy "protecting" women by telling them how they can dress regardless if said women actually feel oppressed by the burqa.

Three, I feel this point to be poignant: "Through their action, France is demonstrating that freedom is not a universal right, but a privilege only reserved for a select few."

Now, this is an opinion column, and everyone of course is going to have a different opinion, especially if they come from a different culture. I think the most objective thing for me to say is that if this kind of law were ever brought up in the U.S. I would not vote for it.

I think the two major issues are the nature of rights and the whole "melting pot/tossed salad" analogy for multicultural societies. With regards to rights, some believe they are innate (from God/nature) while others believe they are handed out by society/the government. The obvious american bias is that they are innate. This can be extended to individual liberty versus societal responsibility, with americans again leaning towards the individual.

The cultural aspect is the real kicker because from what I've heard regarding demographic trends by 2050 muslims will be a significant group in europe, just as hispanics are becoming more so in america. My point is this whole argument might be mute by then if muslims have a significant voice in terms of number of residents to overturn such laws at the ballot.

 

[KJbushway]

^ No one is claiming that the US is a perfect paradise.

Thats for dang sure.

 

[Subcommander R.]

1. Animals aren't sentient; you're manufacturing talking points.

Like many you appear to confuse sentience with human intelligence which isn't really correct. Sentience means the ability to experience distinct emotional states and that's well established in many animals; pretty well universal in our fellow mammals.

Rights are a concept created by humans; it's not subject to debate.

2. If the woman choses to do it, then its her right.

Apparently not in France, it isn't.



Yes, it's a fine, not a death sentence. Stop being so goddammed dramatic.



No, you're right I missed that. No I wouldn't make that speculation about other countries; other countries aren't represented here by people proclaiming their divine gift to humanity.

5. So because everyone else doesn't value individual freedom, neither should I? That sounds incredibly foolish.

No, because everyone else doesn't value individual freedom you shouldn't expect them to, and in keeping with your apparent respect of all the world's cultural traditions you should respect their right to restrict the expression of people within their national borders.

4. I think you need to study up on American history, particularly in the late 1800s. We had an influx of dozens of cultures. We still do, you can drive in my state of California to Indian, Vietnamese, Dutch, Chinese, and other communities within a few hours. All equal under the law and freely practicing their traditions.

Uh, I think you need to study up on American history: remember the anti-Chinese laws in California? You know the ones that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional, but were still in effect in California for years afterwards, because anywhere west of the Mississippi could thumb their nose at the Supreme Court as they couldn't actually enforce their rulings in the western territories?

Please spare us the lectures. The United States is far from paradise. The rhetoric is about the only thing that is perfect, but that doesn't make it true.

1. Concepts can only be realized, not created. IMO of course.
2. Which is still wrong.
3. Poll tax? Does that sound good to you? After all, its just a tax...
4. Talk about mischaracterizing. Sounds like you're just bitter and dislike Americans. Cowboy up and admit it, you'll feel better. None of us have mentioned divinity at all, and we haven't exactly been leaping onto rooftops and proclaiming anything. Just providing the basic facts.
5. So you're saying that I should promote injustice in the name of tolerance? Weren't you the same one screaming about banning the KKK?
6. I'm a history major and know all about my country. You apparently are unable to tell the difference between the past and the present. I'm talking about the America of today and the best you can do is go back a hundred years? If we back the UK up then you were still subjugating a third of the world, but none of us is foolish enough to claim that makes the UK today some imperial power. That was simply irrelevant.

 

[Subcommander R.]

Well, I have to say I'm rather disappointed you ignored most of the points raised here and instead went for the usual "why does everybody hate America?" Still, I'll try and reply to some of your comments.

1. Thats why we have documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are some values we all share. Religious freedom, freedom of speech, the right to fair legal treatment. I have trouble seeing anyone argue against those.

Principles are good like that: in principle. It gets more complicated when applied to reality. Freedom of (and from) religion? Good. Now, since there is no religious commandment to wear a burqa but it's a strictly cultural practice, it should be treated as any other cultural practice. Let's say, for example, nudism. If nudists can't go around with their goodies in plain sight because it's deemed inappropriate by the majority of the population, I don't see how concealing your face can't be disallowed if the majority of the population consider it inappropriate. Now, are you ready to say that nudists are an oppressed minority and should be able to run around buck naked and are you willing to engage in the same level of outrage at their negated rights? Because if you don't, I'm afraid I'm going to call you the H-word.

2. You might not be grasping the concept (no offense). Natural rights don't refer to bears in the woods, they refer to humanity without governments. And if you accept Locke's principles, then we do have natural rights.

If you re-read what I wrote, I think that's exactly what I said: humans have inherent rights as members of a society. Obviously, there are no humans without society, and there is no society without government, so talking about "humanity without governments" is like talking about "squares without four sides".

O RLY? I don't think I have to school me about history. I never denied the peculiarity of the US compared to Europe (in fact, I highlighted it). I denied its uniqueness with regards to immigration, compared to other formerly colonial countries like Canada or Australia.

We still do, you can drive in my state of California to Indian, Vietnamese, Dutch, Chinese, and other communities within a few hours. All equal under the law and freely practicing their traditions. And everywhere you see Mexican culture and the European cultures that have been present for a long time.

And this is different from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or even the highly multicultural Greater London and Grand Paris... how?

I realize my country has a tendency to fuck things up, but I don't understand the psychology of why we're disliked to such varying extents. It seems every good thing we have to offer has to be criticized or denied. It gets a little old at times.

I suppose it gets old just like having Americans coming and saying "Your laws are stupid, wrong and evil. Now, this is how you should do it. Just like us."

Now, if you remember how this particular discussion started, it went like this:

Captain America: "Law wrong. France bad. US good. You do like US. Much better."
Marquis de France: "Well, now, let's not say anything harsh here. I know you don't agree but that's how we do things here. Beside, you shouldn't throw any stone here, because your score is not perfect either."
Captain America: "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA!!111!"

Maybe if you stop taking any hint of criticism (or even discussion) as an attack, we could have a serious discussion about it.

I responded to the points, and very mildly implied there was a certain degree of dislike. Lets just say I can't really see you wearing an "I Love New York' shirt. The fact that you've tried to make that the whole issue shows it hit a nerve. If you have a problem with my country thats something for a different thread.

1. They aren't equivalents. The middle east is a fusion of culture and religion, and amongst the relevant cultures the burqa and niqab are viewed as (and are) religious garments. If you religion commands you walk around with your junk out then do it. Just don't make up some bullshit 'religion' solely to do it. I'm also for using discretion. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

2. Reread Locke, none of that is what he said. Society is the sum of agreement amongst individuals. Government is giving society an embodiment and authority over individuals. When you take those both away and you simply have people living, there are certain understood facts. Even (maybe especially) if they come from fear of retaliation, there is a basic understanding. Hobbes differed, but you'll find Locke had more influence on republican thought. No offense, but you missed the boat with the squares.

3. Of those, only America was created specifically for the purpose of freedom (religious at first). We lack a long-dominant culture like European nations (which doesn't stop some douchebags from being intolerant, but at least makes them look more ridiculous), and we haven't had to occupy nations under an empire to have immigrants. Despite being further away than many countries, we have a lot of immigration and extremely long lines waiting for citizenship. Of all those, we're closest to Canada but much higher profile. And with a very different history.

4. Should I just put on a cowboy hat, stick wheat in the corner of my mouth, and play this up for kicks? Apparently every time an American takes a moral standard and uses a comparison to his own laws we're being evil. Again I have to ask why such a response would come so harshly if you actually liked us?

Seriously, you seem to be using an inordinate amount of rude sarcasm and simplistic generalizations. So I will ask you now: do you dislike America? Answer candidly, I'd at least like to know if your biting tone is universal or reserved for a select few national origins.

And I will state for the record that I like France (and Italy as well. Your food is lovely and your history is rich.). If a French citizen had a problem with an American law and suggested emulating the French model I'd be happy to listen, not complaining and making generalizations. Thats because I like the French.