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

[Davros]

I just want to get you to understand that the clothes are not the problem. This law attacks the wrong end of the situation.

"My way to see things is the only way people should think"...If only it was just a cliché
But thank you to illustrate, someone had to do it and you were one of the best candidate.

If that is what you got from my posts, you could not have misunderstood more.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

But the lackadaisical Slav isn't smart enough to kill that many people so quickly. It was us! USSSS!

I mean, yes, it was the Communists.

NEVER in my life have I seen Holocaust lined up beside creationism, 9/11 conspiracies and moon landings.

Well, Holocaust deniers and September 11th truthers have been pretty closely aligned since roughly September 12th, 2001.

I think Creationists and Holocaust deniers have a lot in common in how their methodologies work and how they try and discredit what they oppose. Both attempt to use a version of the genetic fallacy that if they can find errors within their opponents claims, that invalidates their opponents whole position. Creationists will point to disagreements among scientists as to how natural selection works or a few fossil frauds in history to discredit all evolutionary theory. Holocaust deniers will point to urban myths such as soap made from Jews or quibbling about numbers to deny the Holocaust ever happened.

Though I acknowledge and abhor the crimes of my country, I don't fear a return of Jim Crow or native genocide in America. Why should a European fear a return of Nazism? Is it really that likely?

Are you serious? Did you not notice how the ENTIRE WORLD sat on their hands during the genocide in Rwanda? Or the way that many of the people holding hands against Israel in the "Israel-Palestine Debate" have no problems calling for Israel's destruction without so much as a shoulder shrug from their comrades? Don't kid yourself.

Permitting the use of hate speech is tantamount to legitimising it; moreso if you actively defend it's use. If you think the best way to deal with the KKK is via civil lawsuits knock yourself out. Myself I feel better about those kinds of organisations being banned and their membership actively rooted out and imprisoned.

Is this based on a principle though? I mean do you have an actual set of criteria that any group must meet to be formally considered one worthy of imprisonment so you are not just basing this on a consensus of opinion?

 

[Subcommander R.]

And who is to say what culture is 'superior'? Making a judgment would be rather arrogant.

I believe the following:

Freedom is objectively BETTER than tyranny.

Democracy is objectively BETTER than dictatorship.

Secular government is objectively BETTER than theocracy.

Social and political equality of the sexes is objectively BETTER than keeping women in an inferior position.

If that's arrogance, so be it. To quote Bill Maher, "Don't get so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance."

Thats governmental structure for the most part, not culture. What we're looking at here is a conflict between a culture that wishes to conceal the face and one that wishes to see it.

I guess at the root of it all, my problem with this is that they went out of their way to create a law targeting a small group. It wasn't a matter of conforming to and abiding by the current rules, its using the law to force a small group to change.

 

[Trekker4747]

It's also forbidden to run around naked in public. Stupid ruling. Why can't we just be free and do what we want?

Dunno. Why can't we?

The actual percentage of the population that would look good naked is surprisingly small. I personally wouldn't mind if everyone was built like Brad Pit or Kelly Brook, but we all know what a typical American actually looks like.

Based on the people I see every day? Excluding all people over the age of 50 I'd say at least half of the women I wouldn't mind seeing in some state of undress.

 

[JarodRussell]

It's also forbidden to run around naked in public. Stupid ruling. Why can't we just be free and do what we want?

because some cultural requirement that isn't even part of Islam is making them do it

That's the problem. Ask 3 Muslims and you get at least 4 interpretations of Islam.

But this isn't even part of ANY Islam, that I'm aware of. It's strictly a *cultural* thing, that has nothing to DO with religion.

Hm... what's your point? If it's just a cultural thing, how can anyone draw the religious freedom card in the debate?

And who is to say what culture is 'superior'? Making a judgment would be rather arrogant.

I believe the following:

Freedom is objectively BETTER than tyranny.

Democracy is objectively BETTER than dictatorship.

Secular government is objectively BETTER than theocracy.

Social and political equality of the sexes is objectively BETTER than keeping women in an inferior position.

If that's arrogance, so be it. To quote Bill Maher, "Don't get so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance."

Funny is that a democracy can also heavily limit freedom, or be a theocracy. Or that a dictatorship can grant the citizens unlimited freedom.

 

[Sector 7]

"You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on we're all damaged. I fear that today..."
- Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie

I feel this quote, while from a television series, is appropriate to the conversation here. After all, it is Star Trek Canon; we must take The Canon seriously. Seriously, sometimes our favorite show can teach a lesson.

I still believe covering the face to be unacceptable in a post 9/11 society. However, I do believe in their freedom to wear the headwear which does not cover their face, since it does not obscure their identity. As for the rest of the outfit, anyone should be able to wear the outfit/costume of choice.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Even though the US has gone astray, our original principles and evolution were modeled on the same general principles as the French Republic. I'd like to think we aren't so different.

:raises hand:

History question here: you're not talking about the regime that resulted from the French Revolution, are you? Surely you mean something prior or else that statement wouldn't make sense...

 

[Myasishchev]

It's also forbidden to run around naked in public. Stupid ruling. Why can't we just be free and do what we want?

Dunno. Why can't we?

The actual percentage of the population that would look good naked is surprisingly small. I personally wouldn't mind if everyone was built like Brad Pit or Kelly Brook, but we all know what a typical American actually looks like.

It'd be a good incentive to maintain the old physical appearance.

And hell, after a few weeks, you wouldn't notice anyone except the truly gross, anyway. If you grew up with it, you'd never notice it at all.

It's weird that we started off without clothes, and developed the technology to protect ourselves, and now that we no longer need the protection most of the time, we cling to it as if it were instinct.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There's no reasonable difference between a "post-9/11" and "pre-9/11" society. The phrase itself is trivial, political cant.

I understand why Vonnegut was so completely disgusted in the last years of his life, though.

 

[JarodRussell]

Dunno. Why can't we?

The actual percentage of the population that would look good naked is surprisingly small. I personally wouldn't mind if everyone was built like Brad Pit or Kelly Brook, but we all know what a typical American actually looks like.

It'd be a good incentive to maintain the old physical appearance.

And hell, after a few weeks, you wouldn't notice anyone except the truly gross, anyway. If you grew up with it, you'd never notice it at all.

It's weird that we started off without clothes, and developed the technology to protect ourselves, and now that we no longer need the protection most of the time, we cling to it as if it were instinct.

We're supposed to have evolved above that. We're also not humping like apes anymore. Beware of boobs, they are bad for you.

And why the hell is there a law that prevents me from marrying two or three women? Where's my freedom?

 

[Subcommander R.]

Even though the US has gone astray, our original principles and evolution were modeled on the same general principles as the French Republic. I'd like to think we aren't so different.

:raises hand:

History question here: you're not talking about the regime that resulted from the French Revolution, are you? Surely you mean something prior or else that statement wouldn't make sense...

It makes perfect sense. We share common principles from the very inception. Both are based on Enlightenment thought (consent of the governed, the social contract, liberty, etc) and both were to shake off monarchy. The difference is that distance meant America never had to resort to the kind of violence that happened in France.

 

[Davros]

I still believe covering the face to be unacceptable in a post 9/11 society.

What about ski masks or Halloween or other such costumes?

 

[Trekker4747]

There's no reasonable difference between a "post-9/11" and "pre-9/11" society. The phrase itself is trivial, political cant.

I understand why Vonnegut was so completely disgusted in the last years of his life, though.

This. On September 12th we were exactly as safe as we were on September 10th. September 11th the terrorists just got lucky.

I'd even argue that even today we're no more "safe" than we were on 9/10. It's just that 9/11 scared everyone into panic mode and everything spiraled down from there.

 

[Myasishchev]

The actual percentage of the population that would look good naked is surprisingly small. I personally wouldn't mind if everyone was built like Brad Pit or Kelly Brook, but we all know what a typical American actually looks like.

It'd be a good incentive to maintain the old physical appearance.

And hell, after a few weeks, you wouldn't notice anyone except the truly gross, anyway. If you grew up with it, you'd never notice it at all.

It's weird that we started off without clothes, and developed the technology to protect ourselves, and now that we no longer need the protection most of the time, we cling to it as if it were instinct.

We're supposed to have evolved above that. We're also not humping like apes anymore. Beware of boobs, they are bad for you.

I can't parse what you actually mean here. At least one of those is sarcastic and it seems like it negates the other statements.

And why the hell is there a law that prevents me from marrying two or three women? Where's my freedom?

This I think I get. Do you have any reason for opposing polygamy, or should anything that squicks you be illegal?

There was once a valid social reason to ban polygamy; since we no longer even attempt, or wish to attempt, to limit sexual and romantic conduct to a single person, I don't see any compelling reason to continue trying to uphold an archaic definition of marriage.

 

[scotpens]

And why the hell is there a law that prevents me from marrying two or three women? Where's my freedom?

There’s no law that prevents you from living under the same roof as two women, five women, or a whole slew of concubines. There’s no law that says you can’t have sex with said women according to whatever schedule can be worked out. But marriage is defined by law, and the law doesn’t call such an arrangement marriage.

If you think marriage as a civil institution should be done away with altogether, that’s a different topic.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

What about ski masks or Halloween or other such costumes?

Laws that restrict or prohibit the public wearing of masks in the U.S. often predate 9/11 by decades or more, and vary from state to state. They are already on the books and they have been for decades, so to be honest I seriously doubt the burqa or niqāb was on the minds of the people who wrote those laws. The main motivation behind preexisting state anti-mask laws seems to be to attempt to hamper attempts by criminals to remain unidentified. I wonder when a high profile court case involving a burqa or niqāb and one of the state anti-mask laws will hit the news here.

Since this thread began, I've been trying to put together an authoritative list of the state laws about mask wearing, and their histories, for discussion, but I haven't had time to get very far. Perhaps someone could take up the task.

 

[Sean Aaron]

Is this based on a principle though? I mean do you have an actual set of criteria that any group must meet to be formally considered one worthy of imprisonment so you are not just basing this on a consensus of opinion?

If you have an organisation which actively promotes discrimination against a group of people then it should not be sanctioned in any way: parade permits, public speaking, whatever. I don't think people need to necessarily be imprisoned just for belonging to the British National Party, for example, but if you were to parade up and down the high street shouting racial epithets then I'd expect you to be fined at a minimum.

The only reason the BNP escaped a ban as a political party was a court ruling that they needed to amend their membership rules which discriminated against membership on the basis of national origin or ethnicity. They did and there's actually some whackjob Asian (of Indian descent) who joined in the past few years. I'm a bit disappointed that they acquiesced frankly as I think they should be banned, but they did toe the line.

 

[Myasishchev]

Is this based on a principle though? I mean do you have an actual set of criteria that any group must meet to be formally considered one worthy of imprisonment so you are not just basing this on a consensus of opinion?

If you have an organisation which actively promotes discrimination against a group of people then it should not be sanctioned in any way

All political organizations promote discrimination against (or for) a group of people. That's why political organizations exist.

 

[infinix]

There was once a valid social reason to ban polygamy; since we no longer even attempt, or wish to attempt, to limit sexual and romantic conduct to a single person, I don't see any compelling reason to continue trying to uphold an archaic definition of marriage.

Being in a marriage and being able to sleep with whoever you want, whenever you want are two mutually exclusive things. If you want to be married, be married to one person. If you want the freedom to enjoy sex anyway you wish, don't get married.

I don't see why there is a need to advocate abolishing the institution of marriage.

 

[Myasishchev]

Being in a marriage and being able to sleep with whoever you want, whenever you want are two mutually exclusive things.

Feh. Maybe with that attitude, they are.