• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

CorporalCaptain said:
Do you mean all citizens of the United States, who participate in online discussion, lack humility, or only some, especially that you may have in mind in particular? I'm an American and a natural born citizen of the United States. I'm posting online. You don't think my previously posted positions quoted here to be reasonable and tolerant? The first quote was a direct response to something you had posted.
Click to expand...

I'm an American and a natural born citizen of the United States as well and I'm posting online - just thought I'd point that out, again.

To be honest I didn't make up a list of targets when I wrote that. Regularly on this board I note that much as I observe when I encounter other Americans on trips back to the States there is an overabundance of - I guess it's "national pride" which seems to blind people to the possibility that others on this planet may have different values or points-of-view from themselves and, more importantly, they might be valid.

I can't be bothered to go through the thread again to find the example, but honestly, implying (or stating outright) that any nation that doesn't have an equivalent of the First Amendment to The Constitution in its laws is crypto-fascist? I mean, there's not much point in having a discussion any more is there?
 
RJDiogenes said:
We've been over this. Dogs can't enter into contracts.
Click to expand...

Only because you don't know dog-speak.

I also want to run around naked in public. Go to work naked. Just like nature/God created me. Why can't I do that?


And btw... where can I actually marry three women?
 
I didn't say that it was legal, I said you have the right. But you already know all this.
 
Because somebody passed a law. This is basic stuff. Are you working up to a point or do you just enjoy boring me?
 
Are you kidding me? You've never heard of laws that infringe on Human Rights? :rommie:
 
RJDiogenes said:
Are you kidding me? You've never heard of laws that infringe on Human Rights? :rommie:
Click to expand...

So is banning the burqa now usual or unusual? And should people protest against it or should they just live with it, as there are hundreds or even thousands of other rights that have been infringed by law much longer.
 
JarodRussell said:
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.
Click to expand...
Like what, bribing state officials? I'd like to see a short list of examples.

The only big one I can think of is the nudity taboo, which is not universally shared but I think we can call it a human consensus.

Sean Aaron said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not remotely the same. Circumcision may be part of someone's culture; it may be an expressive act. But circumcision isn't purely expressive. And although they also have expressive dimension, neither is punching someone in the face nor a suicide bombing. Come on.

I can't be bothered to go through the thread again to find the example, but honestly, implying (or stating outright) that any nation that doesn't have an equivalent of the First Amendment to The Constitution in its laws is crypto-fascist? I mean, there's not much point in having a discussion any more is there?
Click to expand...
No, as it goes without saying. Although since fascism is a pretty specific thing, let's say "potentially repressive."

In any event, I'll state for the record that there are no such things as natural rights. There's better and worse ways of organizing people and natural resources, is all. And regimes with a nearly-absolute protection of speech and expression has been proven through history and example to be better than censorship regimes.

Shaytan said:
Subcommander R. said:
3. Of those, only America was created specifically for the purpose of freedom (religious at first).
Click to expand...

Historical background...
Our Révolution was also anticlerical because of the oppressive nature of the catholic church in the country.
We can't react the same way Americans do with religions, it's logical. To us, Americans are irrationally silly with their extremist view of religion. It's not a problem, it's funny to watch that from this side of the ocean and it's your country, you do whatever you want :lol:
Click to expand...

What extremist view? Our government is secular.

France reacted to religion with Turreau and the hell columns. The United States reacted by removing the state from anything to do with religion.

Two hundred thousand dead people militate pretty strongly against the rationality of the French model there.
 
Last edited:
JarodRussell said:
RJDiogenes said:
Are you kidding me? You've never heard of laws that infringe on Human Rights? :rommie:
Click to expand...

So is banning the burqa now usual or unusual? And should people protest against it or should they just live with it, as there are hundreds or even thousands of other rights that have been infringed by law much longer.
Click to expand...
Gosh, you're right. We should accept any unjust law because there are other unjust laws and have been unjust laws in the past. There's a plan to build a better future. :rommie:
 
Myasishchev said:
What extremist view? Our government is secular.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure, on the paper, and god bless America :lol:

France reacted to religion with Turreau and the hell columns. The United States reacted by removing the state from anything to do with religion.

Two hundred thousand dead people militate pretty strongly against the rationality of the French model there.
Click to expand...

I'd go even further in the past : why not the Saint Bathelemy or the time when it was in good taste to burn a few Jews to avoid the plague ? :lol:

Lot of things happened since 1793 and believe me, when it comes to beat ourselves with our history, we're the best.
But comparing 1793 and 2011 in France is completely silly :lol:
 
I'll say this: 1793 was a long time coming. When the dam broke the fury was immense, simply because it had been without an outlet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top