A law has come into force in Belgium banning women from wearing the full Islamic veil in public.
The country is the second European Union nation after France to enforce such a ban. Offenders face a fine of 137.5 euros (£121; $197) and up to seven days in jail.
Two women who wear full veils launched an immediate court challenge, saying the law is discriminatory.
I've asked a friend of mine who live in Belgium to let me know what she thinks of it (she's a journalist so I look forward to her opinion).
(Yes, this is a bit of a stalking horse to keep people out of the Norway thread, but it's still crazy interesting news in its own right)
Back in my security days I once had to stop a woman wearing one from entering a bank. The husband went right off then the manager came out and fortunately backed me up. I believe they should have some rights to wearing them but they shouldn't be above the laws of this country.
Back in my security days I once had to stop a woman wearing one from entering a bank. The husband went right off then the manager came out and fortunately backed me up. I believe they should have some rights to wearing them but they shouldn't be above the laws of this country.
I believe you have every right to identify her upon her entering the bank. A simple lift of the veil for identification purposes is warranted in that circumstance or even in the event of a license/passport photo. Banning it altogether however is just ridiculous.
Women? That's a bit sexist. Anyone should be able to wear them, but like a bike helmet you should have to remove them when entering an area where security is an issue (bank, pizza shop, corner store, post office) or anywhere where you need to be identified :-)
While it annoys me seeing them wearing the bee keeper suits in public, if they want to you shouldn't be allowed to stop them. However going into shops, banks and other such places it should be law that you cannot wear the hood. Can't go in wearing masks or bike helmets so why should you be allowed to wear the face mask part of it?
I believe you have every right to identify her upon her entering the bank. A simple lift of the veil for identification purposes is warranted in that circumstance or even in the event of a license/passport photo.
A Woman could make the identification without infringing on her right to practice her Religion as a Free person in a tolerant Society.
This is just Government playing the people as stupid.
They import millions of Islamists and then they suddenly appear to be 'standing up to Islam" by bullying a tiny minority.
Heavy Immigration has to end but removing the Human Rights of Immigrants makes them 2nd class citizens.
Burqas are simply another Islamic suppression of women's rights. MY wife won't be allowed to express herself in public! she is my property!
My 4th wife gives the best head btw
Gross, so it's now illegal to make ugly women cover their faces in Belgium? That's discriminating against those of us that aren't blind but now probably wish we were.
A Woman could make the identification without infringing on her right to practice her Religion as a Free person in a tolerant Society.
How?
Bugger off with the burqas, I couldn't care less about security concerns, just treat the female gender with some type of equality.
There's a lot of ass backwards religions around but I struggle with the straight up discrimination.
I don't disagree, but surely if you're banning the burqa altogether you're discriminating against fashion based on religion? If a chick WANTS to wear a burqa, she should be allowed, right? Like, now a random chick can't choose to wear a burqa if she wants. I think that's shit.
I think the Burqa worked well in the Middle Eastern deserts when it originated. It probably kept the sand and sun from blasting wifey/s face off. It also gave wifey some degree of privacy when walking around in medieval times when the laws and customs were more precarious.
I see the Burqa as Middle Eastern cultural attire and therefore fairly odd and out of place in Modern Australia.
The Burqa prevents Men other than their husband gazing at her face.
Women can look. When no Men are around there is no need for the Burqa.
No need around Family either.
Religion is pretty much a medieval concept. It was used to keep the population law abiding & in check without requiring massive amounts of enforcement.
Very intelligent social design.
It's been obsolete for a long time now we have the resources & wealth to enforce laws without religion.
Veils for beautiful women so other men wouldn't be tempted to rape them. Irrelevant now. Its unfortunate when Muslim men blame western women for wearing skimpy clothes for their own desire to rape them.
Religion is pretty much a medieval concept. It was used to keep the population law abiding & in check without requiring massive amounts of enforcement. Very intelligent social design.
Or with a positive spin it brought people together, etc.
I agree 'we' are outgrowing religion, that doesn't mean everyone has/will any time soon. Until then 'we' need to be tolerant as do they.
strange how the Burqua became kind of 'mandatory' for all moslem women after the 1970s. I kind of feel sorry for the ones who come to Australia and sweat their tits off in the black burka's during summer... had one woman of about 50 walk into the airconditioned office to get out of the heat, probably woulda died from heatstroke if she didnt.
If a chick WANTS to wear a burqa, she should be allowed, right? Like, now a random chick can't choose to wear a burqa if she wants. I think that's shit.
Do you know a non-Islamic female that wears a burqa?
I can't accept that a female, devoid of religious influence, would ever choose to cover herself to such extent.
Or with a positive spin it brought people together, etc. I agree 'we' are outgrowing religion, that doesn't mean everyone has/will any time soon. Until then 'we' need to be tolerant as do they.
Me neither, but I'm saying that the law is so that she couldn't even if she wanted to.
Since I don't believe in Islam (or any religion), I can't accept it, I don't have much to add to these discussions except a bit of rage at the inequality.
hey python, I'm wondering why that women was allowed to drive in the first place, considering they aren't allowed to in their own country. Seems a bit hypocritical to me
Agree with the general consensus - it seems really strange to me that they would ban wearing it in public at all. But obviously should have to take it off in any situation where identification is needed.
But Judge Jefferies said that he could not be "satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt" that it was Mrs Matthews who made the complaint about a police officer at Campbelltown Police Station. She was wearing a burqa at the time.
He said the prosecution had made their case based on the signature of Mrs Matthews matching that on her statutory declaration, which he said couldn't be proved as absolutely true.
just have a easily removable face guard, out in public go hardcore coverage, enter a bank/security area and remove the face guard so people can see your face at all times. Once you leave then put it back up. Should be as simple stitch job and all this bs about either one way or the other can find a nice bit of even ground.
While a minority of this religion hold the beliefs you scorn, this has nothing to do with the laws of a nation. Should a law be broken, they shall be punished. Should a belief be held, this does not rival law.
If you believe that a country's laws can be rivaled by a belief, you are wrong. The laws will always be there and this is what sets the values of society.
Your little video man seems to devalue the laws of a nation and instead assume that beliefs hold greater influence. The little man is wrong.
Should beliefs break law, the 'breakers' will be incarcerated, no matter their religion.
This is how we work. If a woman chooses not to succumb to beliefs and chooses to follow the law instead, she can. It may not be easy, but neither is any action bounding outside of general and immediate perception.
While a minority of this religion hold the beliefs you scorn, this has nothing to do with the laws of a nation. Should a law be broken, they shall be punished. Should a belief be held, this does not rival law.
Those nations are run by muslims, and muslim law. The way they treat women is influenced by muslim culture. Its extremely primitive and medieval. Where is the evidence that the majority of muslims do not support this?
The problem is, their influence is spreading, and they will want to implement their own religious laws when they gain enough political influence outside of these countries.
hey, i'm as atheist as they come and i personally think if you believe in sky fairys that you probably have something markedly awry inside your skull, however i also believe that it is a person's own business what they choose to believe in. as long as it doesn't affect me, i'm golden.
the bile you shovel out towards religious people is just as bad as the fundies who come to my door and want to talk about jesus, and yell at me when i turn my hose on them.
i also personally think that all the abrahamic religions are irreversibly rooted in the past and that if you live your life based upon the exactly literal interpretation of some chicken scratch in a papryus book from 600 AD, or whenever, then you need your head read.
HOWEVER, i will not judge a person based purely on the fact they go to church or a mosque, or a synagogue, or to pray at Fasta Pasta to the Flying Spaghetti God, or that they don't ear pork and don't drink beer (even though i dearly, dearly love it). i'll judge them based upon how they act and how they interact with me. for instance, match fixah, comes across as a decent enough person, even if i think he is silly because he wants to high five mohammed. I know just as many good people who are christians, as i do those who believe as i do.
Those nations are run by muslims, and muslim law. The way they treat women is influenced by muslim culture. Its extremely primitive and medieval. Where is the evidence that the majority of muslims do not support this? The problem is, their influence is spreading, and they will want to implement their own religious laws when they gain enough political influence outside of these countries.
You see, no matter your views (primitive and medieval), it holds no bearing to this topic. Their influence is NOT spreading. Please show me five recent examples of Muslim beliefs overpowering Western law and not the opposite.
Laws work on a ratchet system (forgetting taxation). Good luck getting them to retreat.
I agree with you. But that isn't happening. It will affect you, in time. Do you care about your kids future? No? then there's nothing more to say.
If you do care, you'll support the discontinuation of Muslim immigration to this country, and rally against any religious groups that try to push their ideologies onto our government, who want to implement their own laws, and have laws exempt from them. Its bad enough that many religions are exempt from tax.
I have always agreed that people can believe what they want, as long as it doesn't affect me or my family & loved ones.
A law has come into force in Belgium banning women from wearing the full Islamic veil in public.
Two women who wear full veils launched an immediate court challenge, saying the law is discriminatory.
Belgium Burqa Ban Bothers Bashful Believers Beginning Big Bitter Barrister Battle?
Pray tell, how are my imaginary children going to be affected by muslim immigration? i'm not talking about your pie in sky doom saying, i'm talking about tangible examples, likely to happen in the next 15-20 years.
You see, no matter your views (primitive and medieval), it holds no bearing to this topic. Their influence is NOT spreading. Please show me five recent examples of Muslim beliefs overpowering Western law and not the opposite.
Laws work on a ratchet system (forgetting taxation). Good luck getting them to retreat
Have you seen the video in the other thread? The Muslim population is increasing exponentially. Their influence is spreading at an incredible rate. Its not long until all politicians are poisoned by Islam influence.
It may not be happening in extreme cases now, but in time, it will. They are trying to get Sharia in now, and it will only get worse.
Pray tell, how are my imaginary children going to be affected by muslim immigration? i'm not talking about your pie in sky doom saying, i'm talking about tangible examples, likely to happen in the next 15-20 years.
I wouldn't be surprised if a muslim cleric would be in every state school by then. Do you want your kid to be a muslim?
Once enough of the population becomes muslim, the government would be forced to implement sharia law or the party loses their seats.
Look up what sharia law is and get back to me.
It may not happen in 20 years, but look at the birth rates. its inevitable.
I'm against banning the burqa out right. If women want to wear it they should be allowed to.
I'm for banning it everywhere they're visible. How are we to know the person behind the mask is a woman? Or who she says she is? They could walk into a store, rob it, waltz on out and no one would have any idea who they were. Or even if they were a woman or some guy dressed as one.
Have you seen the video in the other thread? The Muslim population is increasing exponentially. Their influence is spreading at an incredible rate. Its not long until all politicians are poisoned by Islam influence. It may not be happening in extreme cases now, but in time, it will. They are trying to get Sharia in now, and it will only get worse.
Can you please give me some real world examples which don't only revolve around your fear of the unknown? HINT: You're posting in a thread titled "Belgium Burqua Ban Now in Effect".
the bile you shovel out towards religious people is just as bad as the fundies who come to my door and want to talk about jesus, and yell at me when i turn my hose on them.
Why do you turn your hose on them? Funny as it is, isn't sorry I'm not interested enough?
yeah, i don't think having a muslim cleric in our state schools within 20 years is anything but doomsday bollocks.
we are only just getting a 'chaplaincy' program instituted into our state schools and we've been a nominally christian country since cook landed - not to mention the fact that there is a fair bit of opposition to that also.
if it makes you feel better, i don't turn the hose on them, i actually invite them in for chocolate slice and refreshing ginger beer!
i was using sarcasm/hyperbole to make my point. i'm not interested, i let them know, that is where it ends, unless they continue to push it, then i tell them i'm not interested in more explicit terms.
^ I was essentially going to say that, let's be friends Door. (edit: Except he deleted it >_<, was basically just calling out Moist's "Ho ho ho, what are you Trog, some kind of MUSLEM supporter?" by explaining that, no, he's a mod, and his job is to keep extremely stupid uncited bullshit off the forum)
A while back one of my little sister's friends (who likes to rag on about ze muslems and fuck-off-we're-full intelligence-level style arguments quite a bit on facebook) posted a status along the lines of "you can't wear a motorbike helmet into a shop in Australia so why can muslims wear xxx?" which was followed by a lot of her annoyingly illiterate friends laughing and agreeing "so true!" (why is it that people who make these arguments always seem to carry the mark of suggested substandard intelligence in the form of illiteracy?)
Anywhoo, I decided to give her the benefit of the doubt, since I think that she's just signed up to become a cop or something, or maybe her partner has, either way, she might have had valid security concerns.
I did a google search to see if anybody has ever actually used Muslim face coverings for a robbery (aside from the recent one in France or something which I think occurred only after everybody was raging about the possibility in the media for months) - annnd, apparently it does actually happen (however infrequently), which might be grounds for banning it out of safety concerns (because it's been a demonstrated problem, not because people have said "I don't like it" and reached for theoretical ways in which it might be a threat - ironically I suspect that people only got the idea because of those whingers in the first place, but now it seems that it can't be kept around)
I don't understand why laws should have to impose any restrictions on religion, aside from anything that actually harms another living being.
Agreed, they should have to go through identification checks etc. when warranted.
As far as I am concerned though, I don't see how making wearing a burqa a crime is going to solve anything.
Damn who knows, maybe you'll be getting a $200 fine for wearing hoodies or the old crucifix one day.
Slowly but surely if you keep up with this kind of mentality anything that hides on features may be banned.
People all over the world travel to Madina to study 6+ years in the Sharia faculty to become Scholars in the field, meanwhile vashina sits there telling people to go look up sharia law in wikipedia and then tells people to GET BACK TO HIM so he can cross check the information with Fox news, Channel 9 and ACA and then honor us with his edumacated opinion and fatone ruling.
He might be suggesting that we don't actually understand what Sharia is, that we are working off of false assumptions / bad information.
From what I've heard though, it's fucking terrible. It's not a natural science that is a matter of most informed analysis, unless I've heard entirely wrong/poor representations (which is perhaps all he's suggesting), I want nothing to do with it.
Would you be saying this if they made it illegal to carry around tasers in public or something else which only affected like a dozen people? Why does this bring about such excitement for you? :/
the principle that women wear a burqua to show they should be respected implies women without burquas need not be respected, no matter what they may be like as people.
This is offensive.
the same applies to suit and tie combos for men
I personally am against both.
when i see someone in a burqua I think either they think they are better than me or they are forced to wear it. I don't know whether to be sorry for them or to tell them that they are no better and to take that damned thing off - and get them to tell their men to respect all women on their merits not their clothes. I know some western women's clothing styles that also imply superiority, the women who wear these styles to promote themselves above others are also offensive.
when i see a guy in a suit i know he is trying to make himself look respectable, I often mention that suits are oppression of men, that ties are a redundant anachronism (deliberate tautology for emphasis), that guys should try some new clothing styles for a change.
I can't see a way to write a law that stops people from offending others with clothing. When I was at school they tried to write such a clothing code, and decided to stay with a school uniform to stop such unwanted complications. it's a shame that people want to use clothes this way really cos uniforms suck.
That is a brilliant thought justrev, in my opinion, except I'm not sure if at the end you're condoning the idea of legalising what people can wear (because if so, that's the same as forced burquas is it not?).
I don't think we should legally ban any clothing. It would be nice if people wore clothing to express beauty, or for comfort, or as art rather than to try to make themselves look superior to others.
Yeah, and get rid of tank tops. I'm sick of seeing fat chicks with muffin tops. Bikini's at the beach? That shit offends me, full swimsuit or GTFO.
How dare women, in this day and age, are forced to wear High Heels, do you know the safety concerns that are caused by High Heels? Our society pressure forces them to believe they have to wear high heels at a very high risk to their own personal safety. Disgraceful!
Noone is forcing women to wear high heels. But Mohammed is forcing his 6 wifes to wear a fucking sheet over them so no other muslim can rape them? Because we all know it's the womens fault.
I think you'll find that devoid of social influence no woman would ever choose to wear high heels. They might be making the coice to wear them, but only because we, as a society, have forced them to think that that is the only choice they have!
I'm simply highlighting how stupid some arguments, like those from Chub and Vash, are. Sure, that doesn't detract from the stupidity of thinking there is an invisible sky wizard waiting to strike you down...
What if there was an Aussie bloke who forced his Aussie wife to wear bright pink trackie dacks every day and a balaclava, even in the middle of summer on the beach. This would fall under our domestic abuse laws right?
So if I spend 6 years studying Harry Potter I'm justified in making my wife wear a pointy hat so she can be respected and not at risk of being raped by other magical folk and muggles?
So if I spend 6 years studying Harry Potter I'm justified in making my wife wear a pointy hat so she can be respected and not at risk of being raped by other magical folk and muggles?
Face covering is not part of Sharia, fairly sure you just proved Fixah's point. Naive discussion = always stupid.
Depends Boost. In your example, yeah. He's forcing her.
If he suggested it might look good on her for reasons of "X and Y and the Unicorns Rainbow Farts told me you should", and she chose to wear it, then no.
So if I spend 6 years studying Harry Potter I'm justified in making my wife wear a pointy hat so she can be respected and not at risk of being raped by other magical folk and muggles?
Face covering is not part of Sharia, fairly sure you just proved Fixah's point. Naive discussion = always stupid.
I was going to say "Well that was dumb", but you're the birdman guy and I was watching birdman for the first time in years yesterday.
To continue on that point though, in Indonedia - the biggest Islamic country in the world - they don't do the covering thing. In Malaysia, they declared it not part of Islam. Even Syria has banned it in places.
unfortunately if you made enough noise about it and claimed religions favourite draw card "discrimination" than you very well could demand that you wife wear a pointy hat when in public. just look at the guy in europe (forgot exact country) that was granted the right to wear a strainer on his head because of his pastafarian beliefs.
Depends Boost. In your example, yeah. He's forcing her. If he suggested it might look good on her for reasons of "X and Y and the Unicorns Rainbow Farts told me you should", and she chose to wear it, then no.
Well, yeah. I was going to add that if she doesn't wear what he wanted, there would be repercussions. But I don't know if this is really the case for the muslim women? Whats to stop them saying "nah, fuck ya, I'm wearing this skanky little bikini".
I think you should be able to be forced to remove any head covering that conceals your identity when entering a store, bank, court, government building etc. Basically anywhere there are no motorcycle helmet signs currently.
Otherwise things like this can happen. Your face is an important part of your identity and you shouldn't be allowed to hide it, especially not when talking to the police!
One thing I am massively, massively against is shadow Sharia courts. One legal system for all citizens thanks!
I would fully support their choice to say "nah, fuck ya, I'm wearing this skanky little bikini" I would even encourage it! (assuming they're hot.) If, and only if, her husband/father/brother/random gentleman threatened her or went to physically/mentally harm her, we should step in and kerb stomp that fucker.
Unfortunatly the flaw in this is that the woman would need enough courage/knowledge to step forward and allow her voice to be heard. Luckily in Australia education is offered to everyone, not just young males. This is also why I don't mind that some of out tax is actually spent overseas on Education ventures (like new schools) as I think education is the best way to move away from Religion.
Would you be saying this if they made it illegal to carry around tasers in public or something else which only affected like a dozen people? Why does this bring about such excitement for you? :/
Yeah, and get rid of tank tops. I'm sick of seeing fat chicks with muffin tops. Bikini's at the beach? That shit offends me, full swimsuit or GTFO.
How dare women, in this day and age, are forced to wear High Heels, do you know the safety concerns that are caused by High Heels? Our society pressure forces them to believe they have to wear high heels at a very high risk to their own personal safety. Disgraceful!
Yep this is a troll, but i'll bite regardless.
Theres a big difference. Muslim women are indoctrinated at youth. Adult "normal" women have a choice. They can choose to wear whatever they want, high heels, flat, sneakers, and only bitchy women will criticise them. they have the freedom of choice.
If a Muslim woman decides to not wear her little hood/scarf/ whatever, their family would disown them, they would be ridiculed, and in some cases, physically abused & threatened.
This is one of the many dangers of religion in society.
When you can distinguish between a woman who genuinely wants to wear a burqa vs one who is being forced to because of some sinister reason, then I might support your argument, Vash.
This is one of the many dangers of religion in society.
I don't disagree, but how is the solution banning the burqa?? Don't you see your point is an argument for NOT banning the burqa?
I'm saying that a woman would never want to wear one if she was not indoctrinated at youth by this religion.
She only wants to because it is demanded or expected of her from her muslim family & community.
Back at a work dinner we had a muslim couple show up and we finally got to meet his wife. His wife never wants to come into public, for some reason, and there was the full dress, cant see her hair at all, only her face. Going by her face, she would be the most beautiful girl if she could express herself.
But because this religion is designed upon empowering men over women, the men will not allow their wives to express themselves in public.
Do you see what im getting at? sure, the women might be fine doing it, but thats only because of family indoctrination.
We've seen instances of famous muslim women expressing themselves then getting death threats. just fucking ridiculous.
I'm saying that a woman would never want to wear one if she was not indoctrinated at youth by this religion.
She only wants to because it is demanded or expected of her from her muslim family & community.
Back at a work dinner we had a muslim couple show up and we finally got to meet his wife. His wife never wants to come into public, for some reason, and there was the full dress, cant see her hair at all, only her face. Going by her face, she would be the most beautiful girl if she could express herself.
But because this religion is designed upon empowering men over women, the men will not allow their wives to express themselves in public.
Do you see what im getting at? sure, the women might be fine doing it, but thats only because of family indoctrination.
We've seen instances of famous muslim women expressing themselves then getting death threats. just fucking ridiculous.
Yes, I do see exactly what you're getting at, and I think it's a very important issue to be in the public consciousness. However, you cannot say that every single woman who acts in a certain way is only doing so because of her religion, rather than her personal desires (nor can you really cast an objective value on whether religious behaviours are better than personal desires).
And my point is, again, even if you've raised an important issue, the solution is not banning the burqa.
I'm saying that a woman would never want to wear one if she was not indoctrinated at youth by this religion.
She only wants to because it is demanded or expected of her from her muslim family & community
Prove it. Cite me some studies proving your theory that every single woman wearing the burqah is because of community pressure. Give me some examples, other than your bullshit little story that doesn't give any insight into the matter other than "she wasn't able to express herself in public". That's just based on your own misconception of it, not because that's how people who wear it truly feel about it
Did you even read this line from the link in the OP?
Two women who wear full veils launched an immediate court challenge, saying the law is discriminatory.
To me that sounds like their expressing their opinion against the banning of the burqah. Do you really think their husbands/brothers pressured them to do it by saying "hey burqah bitch, you better appeal this decision otherwise i'm gonna beat your fat ass in the kitchen"? or do you think they are appealing out of their own initiative in order for them to be able to exercise their rights and religious freedom? You'd probably go with the third option of "they're brainwashed" but I can easily say that about you too regarding your narrow minded point of view.
I am involved in organising events, tours, activities, talks, bbq's for Muslim youth and families and i can tell you now some of the ladies (some have recently become Muslim) are very passionate about wearing it yet they're single, have no immediate family members and live on their own, so i doubt there was any male pressure on them to wear it because it was their choice. On the other hand i've come across other (born) Muslim ladies who dress in jeans and a shirt and believe they don't have to wear it but they're actively involved in other community based programs as well. Whatever floats your boat.
My point is, you need to throw away your fat paint brush already and get your head out of the sand. While I don't deny it not happening in some parts of the world its certainly is NOT not all oppression, suppression, indoctrination like you make it out to be. If anything, based on my experience it's the opposite. Go tell someone else about your bullshit lil made up feel-bad story cause i've already unsubscribed from your shitty newsletter of discrimination and hatred.
I am involved in organising events, tours, activities, talks, bbq's for Muslim youth and families and i can tell you now some of the ladies (some have recently become Muslim) are very passionate about wearing it yet they're single, have no immediate family members and live on their own, so i doubt there was any male pressure on them to wear it because it was their choice.
I am 100% behind women who want to wear it being able to. But until you can tell me confidently that 100% of Muslim women have the freedom to make the decision about it themselves I'll still feel uncomfortable about the whole thing, because I'll always have to wonder if they're wearing it under their own free will.
That said I am 100% in favour though of laws that deny people who have their faces covered access to some places. Whether they are men, women, donkeys, or they're wearing burkas, helmets, skimasks, or cream pies have been smooshed all over their face. I think an outright ban is pointless and counterproductive.
Mostly when I see women wearing the full burqa thing I just feel sad. Especially in summer in Brisbane. I feel pretty much the same way when I see nuns wearing black robes and priests wearing the full vestments.
Having read nearly every post in this thread (and other recent similar threads) i just wanted to comment.
2 or so years ago we hosted two girls (as homestay parents) who were visiting from Indonesia. Both were lovely young ladies, friendly, polite, etc.
One professed to being a muslim and one said she was not. (It made for an interesting dinner that first night when the muslim girl ate her dinner using her hand only?!)
Anyway, we had been told by the school that those students who were Muslim would require Halal food and that they would provide same, but we had not received any. When i told my student that we didnt have the Halal stuffs she became quite upset and asked to phone the tour leader (also a muslim).
He immediately came to our house and informed us that the girl who claimed to be a muslim was NOT in fact a muslim because she didnt wear a hearscarf and it wasnt noted on his form that she was a muslim etc. He was quite vocal and umm definite about the whole Muslim thing and i wrote off his attitude about it to different societies / attitudes etc. (But in my opinion he was berating her)
So I now had a crying muslim girl, an adamant tour leader and another girl trying to console her.
Tour leader leaves and we start to talk to both girls - turns out she is a kind of rebellious muslim in that she doesnt wear the scarf but still considers herself muslim to all intents and purposes.
Long story short, i went to the halal butcher at Bracken Ridge and purchased a collection of meat that looked the same as my usual meat and every one was happy.
But the point of the little story in direct response to the rest of the thread - do i think that muslim girls would choose to wear a full body covering tent if they werent pressured into it?
do i think that muslim girls would choose to wear a full body covering tent if they werent pressured into it?
I kind of agree with the counterpoint though, you can find "slutty" clothing for preteens (i'd google and find pic examples, but it would probably put me on some kind of list), do they want to wear this or has society/their parents indoctrinated them?
That said i think the burqua/hijab/religion is stupid, and even if most of the women are forced to wear it, can you take away the rights of people who actually want to?
can you take away the rights of people who actually want to?
This.
Has to be very well sold as a security concern, or else the only foundation that people have to stand on in suggestions for complete banning is xenophobia.
And all I'm saying is that a chick would never want to wear high heels if she was not indoctrinated at youth by our society / TV.
No. Alot of women choose not to wear high heels btw. As in the above posts, a muslim girl not wearing a scarf is seen as not being a muslim.
Do you understand freedom of expression? The limits of that for a muslim woman is the decoration on the material thats covering her. She isn't allowed to show her hair or body.
An interesting question for fixah, if his wife "all of a sudden" said she doesn't want to be a muslim anymore, and him, being a hardcore muslim, would you remain with her? If your son in adult life said, he doesn't want to be a muslim, but a christian, would you support his decision?
If i have kids and they want to be muslim (highly unlikely unless they are influenced at school) then i would support that decision, as hard as it would be.
Imagine a world dominated by Muslims, every woman walking the street in burqas. Sounds like a fucking dull world to me. Oh hey, when you want to go out with a muslim girl, how do you tell if she isn't 60 years old or your age if their in burqas? LOL
I kind of agree with the counterpoint though, you can find "slutty" clothing for preteens (i'd google and find pic examples, but it would probably put me on some kind of list), do they want to wear this or has society/their parents indoctrinated them?
They haven't been indoctrinated, they have been influenced by their friends or by TV/Media. *PLENTY* of girls out there who do not wear slutty clothing.
Big difference. Muslims are indoctrinated at a very young age to basically be forced to be Muslim, as fixahs son will be.
They haven't been indoctrinated, they have been influenced by their friends or by TV/Media.
Big difference. Muslims are indoctrinated at a very young age
.... I literally read this as "They haven't been illogically socially influenced/indoctrinated, they've been illogically socially influenced/indoctrinated" - my internal definitions seems to result in attributing the same essential meaning to those two things, hah.
Not allowed to show pieces of the body here for no logical reason either, why is it so easy to judge others for the exact same thing that we do?
What? Stretching it abit aren't you? Do you want the freedom to show your penis to the world? There are places to express that, you have the freedom to do that as well.
An interesting question for fixah, if his wife "all of a sudden" said she doesn't want to be a muslim anymore, and him, being a hardcore muslim, would you remain with her? If your son in adult life said, he doesn't want to be a muslim, but a christian, would you support his decision?
In all fairness this applies to a large amount of religions.
Do you want the freedom to show your penis to the world?
Could a man walk around in public doing it without bringing penalty down upon himself? Could a woman walk around topless and pantsless?
No? Until you can defend why not, it reeks of suspicious hypocrisy when you're so keen to jump on others for what their clothing rules may be.
All the cultures have their 'indecent exposure' and 'standards of modesty' - none of them make any logical sense. With time, they're slowly being pushed for whatever reasons. Wasn't so long ago here that a a woman would be arrested for not wearing a full bathing suit, so I hear.
What? Stretching it abit aren't you? Do you want the freedom to show your penis to the world? There are places to express that, you have the freedom to do that as well.
I wouldn't care, it's a reasonable argument. There's places that exist where showing your breasts is normal, not to sure about genitals but I wouldn't be surprised if there is.
Could a man walk around in public doing it without bringing penalty down upon himself? Could a woman walk around topless and pantsless?
No? Until you can defend why not, it reeks of suspicious hypocrisy when you're so keen to jump on others for what their clothing rules may be.
Yes, we as civilized humans are required to wear clothing in public. This wasn't a religious creation. we had been covering our privates since we were tribal people.
The reason? Well, to protect the children i suspect. It's also debatable the effects of seeing men & women's genitals from a child's perspective, but we won't know and i doubt there will be any studies conducted.
It's also socially unacceptable. But you've gone from one extreme to the other, people who want to show off their bodies have more than enough freedom to at the gym or beach, hell, you see enough people walking around topless in the city during summer.
People have much more choice to express themselves in our society. Muslim women are restricted entirely upon their interpretation of their religion.
Yes, we as civilized humans are required to wear clothing in public
Huh? Explain.
Without just pulling out vague maybes of how it might affect the children out of your ass as justification this time. (I don't even know what that argument even meant, even then)
There is no logical reason for it, human beings just do it for historical reasons. I'm not dying for a nudist world, I'm just pointing out that we have illogical "you must cover yourself in this way and this way" rules of our own - don't be so quick to judge others who have the same laws but only slightly differently. Not long ago, we were almost identical.
It's also socially unacceptable
Ya think? That's exactly my point. It's socially unacceptable, nothing more, nothing logical - the exact same as these others who you're judging and hypocritically calling nuts.
Thats the thing, it isn't slightly different.
Full burqas remove all identity of that person.
We are only required to cover our genitals in our society.
If there were a religion in existence that had the requirement of walking naked everywhere, i wouldn't support it not on the basis of freedom of expression, but it doesn't fit in with our way of life here in this country.
On the other hand, i argue against full burqas because it is a restriction upon freedom of women. Men are not required to wear it. Sexist and bigotry upon the creators of this religion, who were, of course, men.
We are only required to cover our genitals in our society.
Since when are breasts genitals?
On the other hand, i argue against full burqas because it is a restriction upon freedom of women. Men are not required to wear it. Sexist and bigotry upon the creators of this religion, who were, of course, men.
a muslim girl not wearing a scarf is seen as not being a muslim.
Wrong. According to the verses in the Quran, wearing the veil is highly recommended but not adhering to the teaching does not take you out of the fold of Islam. Wearing the "burqah" or Niaqb is completely optional. There is not even one verse that specifies the punishment of a woman not wearing a veil. A lot of my muslim friends' wives do not wear scarves, last time i checked, they're still Muslim. In fact you'll be surprised just how many muslim women do not wear a scarf around the world today.
An interesting question for fixah, if his wife "all of a sudden" said she doesn't want to be a muslim anymore, and him, being a hardcore muslim, would you remain with her? If your son in adult life said, he doesn't want to be a muslim, but a christian, would you support his decision?
Firstly, I'm not a hardcore Muslim, I'd like to think myself as moderate, but then again there's no standard measure for moderateness/extremism so whatever the shit ever.
Secondly, I wouldn't marry someone in the first place who's just going to flip one day all of the sudden, so your question doesn't really apply. Excuse the fat paint brush but unlike your superficial weddings with a stupidly high divorce rate it's not just about how much of a good root she's in bed or the size of her melons or what kind of job/status she has. The marriage agreement includes adhering to our religious obligations as well as social and financial matters. Having said that anything is possible and if you want to get into if and buts then no i wouldn't support that decision at all, whether it's my wife, son, brother etc. At the end of the day they're free to do whatever they want but I will do my bit to convince them otherwise.
Yes CHUB I do have a name for what Vash was doing, and it's called "special pleading":
y. Special Pleading
Special pleading is a logical fallacy wherein a double standard is employed by the person making the assertion. Special pleading typically happens when one insists upon less strict treatment for the argument he/she is making than he or she would make when evaluating someone else's arguments.
We have societal norms and standards of decency. They are completely subjective, ask any young lad giggling at tribal african chicks with their noras out in documentaries, or late night SBS.
What you're doing is suggesting that YOUR standards of decency are correct but Mulsim's are not. This stance cannot be justified rationally. This is also true when Matchy refers or alludes to Western chicks as loose sluts, even in jest, as he is asserting that his code is correct.
So long as cultural expression does not affect public safety or the rights of others (so burqas in a bank is a big no no, as is showing up at a mosque in your undies) you have no right to assert what is a correct amount of cultural modesty.
No I wouldn't leave my wife if she changed religions. As a muslim I can still marry "people of the book", that is a christain or a jew, so long as they are true christain or jew. I've been married for 5 years, so far it hasn't got to that so we're cool, but if i need any marriage counselling i'll be sure to hit you up (with frying pan, asshole).
So with the scarf/veil/burqa, why do women choose to wear these?
"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their khimar over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands..(Qur'an 24:31)
Like i said, it's highly recommended for them to do so, why do they do it? to protect their modesty.
Its interesting that religious people only pick & choose what rules to follow of their qur'an or bible.
People can pick and choose what they want, but the versus in the Quran are still there. If people don't want to follow it then by all means, as long as they don't deny the verse or even worse attempt to change it to suit their life style (e.g. new testament)
Why do some muslim families become violent against their daughters who express themselves publicly? If its optional, they should be fine with it.
The burqah is optional, the veil is highly regarded, but there's no punishment outlined for not wearing either of them The families that become violent against their daughters are obviously misguided and are more than likely putting their traditions and culture into the mix. Though if you're talking about freedom of expression of walking around naked and having sex with whoever you want then no that shit aint on, period.
As a concept, it's really not that hard to grasp no matter how alien it seems to you.
I'd love to sit here and answer all your questions all day vash, but i have a deferred exam to study for and i'm going to fail because of you. Tell me i'm not wasting my time?
So long as cultural expression does not affect public safety or the rights of others (so burqas in a bank is a big no no, as is showing up at a mosque in your undies) you have no right to assert what is a correct amount of cultural modesty.
The covering up itself doesn't bother me, it's the discrimination based on gender.
If the males covered up in exactly the same way the whole argument would be moot.
Just like in our society, if men can go topless, chicks should be able to get their tits out... Vash seems to support discrimination against females on this point.
Thats all well and good hoggy, but at what point do we say, that religion is hugely sexist and derogatory of women? Do we just let it go because they're "different" ?
If we want to ban the full burqa, why would the muslim community be outraged? Its optional according to fixah, and it conflicts with our laws.
Honestly, they can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't conflict with our existing laws. Noone could normally completely cover themselves in public without being questioned by police. I agree that police should have powers to remove burqas for identification purposes, and they should be required to be removed to enter banks/shops etc.
I've lived in a muslim community, i wasnt disgusted by what i was seeing but only slightly uncomfortable because i was the only white guy in town. I treated everyone as equally as i would a white, chinese, whatever. I don't hate muslims. I dislike the ideology of the religion, and wish they could evolve to allow women to express themselves, and intermarriage with non-muslims. I will be open & tolerant if they are willing to.
If we want to ban the full burqa, why would the muslim community be outraged? Its optional according to fixah
We already established that it will suffice to lift the face covering for identification purposes. What other law does it conflict with? it doesn't, unless you specifically make a new law to ban it for the sake of making it conflict with your laws.
So if it doesn't conflict with any laws then the muslim community will be outraged based on principle.
It's almost like saying it's optional for you wear ear plugs when working in a steel factory, but we're going to ban you from wearing it because (insert symbolic reason), ear plugs are optional though, so don't feel outraged!
Give that isn't the best example can you see how stupid that sounds?
That is agreeable then. I'm doing some more reading and there are so many conflicting reports on the treatment of women in Islamic culture. I'm seeing on one side, they are treated equally and respected.
I guess this is the same shit as with any religion. Christianity has its extremist group who wants to ban any violence in pop culture (though that is preferred over an extremist muslim group wanting to implement sharia law)
Is there any circumstances where a Muslim family would let their daughter marry a non muslim? Or their son/daughter make their own decision upon religion stance?
I hear lots of Christians who choose not to be christian even though their parents are. But i havent heard the same for Muslims.
Sometimes laws are made that trade individual liberty in order to secure an end that is considered better for the community at large. Whether you agree or not with this law, it can clearly be defended on these grounds. The potential benefit to the people who would be forced to wear them against their will might be thought to outweigh the reduction in freedom of those that might want to wear them. Consider helmet laws. It is obvious that the personal freedom to choose is sacrificed in favour of what is considered an overall better outcome for society with reduced severity of bicycle related injuries.
I have no great opinion on the relative benefits / costs in the burqua case, but in general I don't like these sorts of laws, where personal choice is sacrificed to benefit the people from which the choice is being taken.
I'm seeing on one side, they are treated equally and respected. I guess this is the same shit as with any religion. Christianity has its extremist group
slamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up. Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: ‘You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.’ The bright yellow messages daubed on bus stops and street lamps have already been seen across certain boroughs in London and order that in the ‘zone’ there should be ‘no gambling’, ‘no music or concerts’, ‘no porn or prostitution’, ‘no drugs or smoking’ and ‘no alcohol’.
In the past week, dozens of streets in the London boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham have been targeted, raising fears that local residents may be intimidated or threatened for flouting ‘Islamic rules’.
James Brandon, of the anti-extremism think-tank the Quilliam Foundation, which has dubbed the intimidation the work of ‘Talibanesque thugs’, said: ‘This is a small group which is not representative of these communities.
It actually makes sense that the DailyMail is where you get your info.
But if you look for the quote of the guy who actually lives there and is involved in the community, you'll see that not everyone is as retarded as you alcore.
Yeah righto. I'm not sure if you've been to London before but there is a huge Muslim population there. If some affiliate group is going to go around marking territories and stamping down enforced Islamic rules, while the rest turn a blind eye and allow this to happen, then I don't think that's acceptable.
How dare they try to change the laws to suit their religion. fucking ticks me off.
Share the community you twats, stop trying to assimilate everyone into your religion.
If we want to ban the full burqa, why would the muslim community be outraged? Its optional according to fixah, and it conflicts with our laws.
Many things are optional, that doesn't mean that nobody will care if they're banned.
edit: oh there's another page
I don't mean to be rude but this is right on the money. Nerf, your explanations go on for at least 10 'walls of text'
I have one big post in this thread which was my first one, and that wasn't in response to vash. Don't think this works as an excuse for him, several other people understood exactly what I was talking about. :/
lol, irony much?
Its funny when people are so indoctrinated they're happy to give up their freedom & become a slave to "allah"
fuckkkkk religion pisses me off. Time to buy this t-shirt.
Yeah righto. I'm not sure if you've been to London before but there is a huge Muslim population there. If some affiliate group is going to go around marking territories and stamping down enforced Islamic rules, while the rest turn a blind eye and allow this to happen, then I don't think that's acceptable.
Yeh, I'm not sure if you've ever been to London before, or any other Western society for that matter, but if you think people will stand by and let ANY group of people create their own legal system within the borders of their country, you're living in a fantasy world with elves and leprechauns and fairies.
I'm waiting for your list, mental.
The only thing i can think of is it brings cultural diversity in the forms of architecture. I love visiting buddhist temples.
Yeh, I'm not sure if you've ever been to London before, or any other Western society for that matter, but if you think people will stand by and let ANY group of people create their own legal system within the borders of their country, you're living in a fantasy world with elves and leprechauns and fairies.
Thats a fair statement with the amount of muslims today in the UK (3%) & AU (2%)
But looking at the population growth figures for Muslims, they will far outnumber us in the next century.
According to the Office for National Statistics, based on 2006 estimates, 69.4 percent of the 7.5 million inhabitants of London were White, with 58 percent White British, 2.5 percent White Irish and 8.9 percent classified as Other White. Some 13.1 percent are of South Asian descent, with Indians making up 6.5 percent of London's population, followed by Bangladeshis and Pakistanis at 2.3 percent each. 2 percent are categorised as "Other Asian". 10.7 percent of London's population are Black, with around 5.5 percent being Black African, 4.3 percent as Black Caribbean and 0.7 percent as "Other Black". 3.5 percent of Londoners are of mixed race; 1.5 percent are Chinese; and 1.9 percent belong to another ethnic group.
13.1 percent are of South Asian descent
Indians making up 6.5 percent of London's population
10.7 percent of London's population are Black, with around
5.5 percent being Black African,
4.3 percent as Black Caribbean and 0.7 percent as "Other Black".
What portion of these stats are Muslim? My guess is most of them.
Here's something to help you get an understanding:
Islam in England is the largest non-Christian religion, with most Muslims being immigrants from South Asia (in particular Pakistan, Bangladesh and India) or descendants of immigrants from that region. Many others are from Muslim-dominated regions such as the Middle East, Somalia and Malaysia, while fewer come from Equatorial African countries such as Nigeria, Uganda and Sierra Leone.
Today it is the second largest religion in the country with estimates suggesting a total Muslim population as high as 2.869 million, due in part to immigration from former colonies from the 1950s.
Between 2001 and 2009, the Muslim population increased roughly 10 times faster than for the rest of society.
Going from 100 to 1,000 is a lot easier than going from 1,000 to 10,000. And gets harder the higher the numbers go... So see Nerf's graph for reference.
It's because their numbers are so insignificantly small that they are able to 'grow' so rapidly.
Walking through the foggy, cobbled streets of old London I notice that there are many, many non Caucasian people inhabiting it. Seeing as my eyes aren't Trog approved a quick google shows:
One in three people in London were born abroad, and two boroughs, Westminster and Brent, have a population in which the majority are foreign-born.
Alas I was slightly out using outdated 2006 figures and statistics.
My point, anyway, was that there are huge communities of Muslim's in London, they tend to all locate into the same location and form their own inner community within the greater community (as most immigrants do when first entering, Sunnybank for instance). It really isn't a problem that certain area's are considered Shariah zone's because the majority of the 'zone' is Muslim anyway.
It's because their numbers are so insignificantly small that they are able to 'grow' so rapidly.
Mate, 2.8 million people is not 'insignificant' no matter how much you want to twist the statistics around. That's a fucking shit load of people. Even if 100,000 were from the extremist part of the religion that want to reek havoc, that's enough to fuck anyone up.
What is the proportion of young migrants as opposed to people that are 60 years+ that are native to the country.
This is important because the younger generations of muslim immigrants (who are allowed to have 5 wives and 10+ children) would expand exponentially and at a rate faster than the home grown population.
Scooter, this dude started off in the norway shootings thread with declaring how excited he was for the 21st century crusades to begin to drive the vermin out of Europe, just a heads up that it's not a conversation worth trying to have, and I learned the hard way. The obvious point lost on him is that he and Islamic extremists have more in common with each other than they do with any of us or moderate muslims. :/
Your whole tirade about - Discussing the motives of the killer gives justification to his actions so we must never do such a thing.
Will repeat again because I hate repeated lies.
The only point I had was that he wanted us to discuss his manifesto, that was his goal, so if we do that then we validate his technique, make it a valid technique for people who think that their concerns deserve an attention that is worth the lives of dozens of kids.
I still don't know what you mean by "defend the deaths of 80 people" - that's what you were doing. You said that it is justified when somebody feels they need to get a message out. Thank fuck nobody else feels that way, because we all have issues we think need way more attention.
His motivation != manifesto. His motivation was his desire to spread his point of view without playing on a fair field. Discuss that all you want, but his point of view itself was not the motivation - many of us have the same point of view but don't go out and kill dozens of kids, and validating his technique would only encourage more of this for every niche political concern.
I said that I think that it is a bad idea to discuss the argument now because of what he's done, it would legitimise his methods for getting attention.
I said that we shouldn't reward him.
I didn't say that we shouldn't discuss the event, I said that we shouldn't let his killing promote his manifesto.
See, I can QQ aswell. First up, we shouldn't reward him? Who the fuck is rewarding him your complete idiot. There was a catastrophic event and it deserves invetigation as to why it happened.
You don't want to discuss his manifesto (the muslim problem) but you would rather discuss the gunning down of 80 people instead - 'the event' ?
Basically what you're doing is denying people their own choice to have a discussion about an important issue simply because Nerf's opinion on the subject doesn't think it should be allowed.
This is a free society and you should not jam up a thread with walls of texts persecuting everyone that wants to make points on both sides of the story. Your method? Simply put your head in the sand and not utter another word about the situation simply because people had died. This is selective thinking and is fallacy.
As for 'defending the deaths' perhaps that was poorly worded - the point being you were defending their deaths in retaliation to further discussion of the motives.
Who the fuck is rewarding him your complete idiot.
The people who discuss the topics that he wanted them to discuss when he did what he did.
He does somethingA, wants you to do somethingB, you do somethingB, you've just rewarded him for doing somethingA, and proven that it is a valid method only because there are people like you who make it so by playing right into what he wants.
The people who discuss the topics that he wanted them to discuss when he did what he did.
He does somethingA, wants you to do somethingB, you do somethingB, you've just rewarded him for doing somethingA, and proven that it is a valid method only because there are people like you who make it so by playing right into what he wants.
It might be what he wants, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss his motives.
Driving extremist views underground doesn't work, it actually makes them more appealing to the sorts of people they might resonate with. We need to pull that shit out in the sunlight and take a good look at it for what it is.
We absolutely should discuss somethingA, his technique, but not somethingB, the ideology that he wanted to promote in doing what did - because the whole reason he did what he did, and why others might do the same, is so that people would do that. Why don't we just say no? We won't discuss it in relation to what he did? It's just one ideology amongst many, others hold it without resorting to the technique of killing their own country-people, so it's the technique which is the issue, not the ideology.
Discuss his motives absolutely - but his motives were an inability to act as a tolerable equal neighbour, not his political views. There is only one thing worth taking from this, and that is that some people do not understand the requirements for sentient co-existence. Talking about his niche view is just giving him what he wants and validating his technique.
Anyway, my argument with Aclore goes all over the shop with him ranting about how foreigners are trying to kill us all and how he wants the 21st crusades to start and how he thinks that it was a valid technique and that anybody who disagrees with him is too soft.
Arguing using selective evidence is. This is not what Nerf has done - he argued using what he thought was correct, and when he was shown to be wrong he accepted his mistake.
I must think about HOW they died but will not entertain any thought as to WHY they died though, because of some particular reason.
Imo, it is selective thinking.
I just said that I'm for discussing why they died. 'Why they died' does not come back to the issue which he was trying to promote. That is not why they died.
We absolutely should discuss somethingA, his technique, but not somethingB, the ideology that he wanted to promote in doing what did - because the whole reason he did what he did, and why others might do the same, is so that people would do that. Why don't we just say no? We won't discuss it in relation to what he did? It's just one ideology amongst many, others hold it without resorting to the technique, so it's the technique which is the issue, not the ideology.
Because attempts to suppress (censor?) discussion make the material more appealing and help his cause. See Streisand effect.
Ultimately its futile and counter productive to do so.
Censorship is denying access, I'm trying to talk people out of.
Anon's misinformation campaign is not denying access, it's denying the spread of his message, as was his goal. Access is still available. Tight line to walk though I admit.
It might be what he wants, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss his motives.
Driving extremist views underground doesn't work, it actually makes them more appealing to the sorts of people they might resonate with. We need to pull that shit out in the sunlight and take a good look at it for what it is.
That's what he wanted you to do. That's why he killed all those kids. Thanks for validating that technique for no useful reason.
I suppose you're going to claim "oh I'm just curious and we should always seek the truth" - you'll claim that, it has nothing to do with the fact that you share his views, oh no. Nor anything to do with your eagerness for the 21st century crusades to start, or your view that all muslims are vermin that must be killed, nothing to do with that you want to promote what he was trying to promote, and are using his actions as an excuse to.
the fact that someone's desire aligns with something other people might want to do, is beside the point. you don't stop doing something just because someone else wanted it done, and went about it the wrong way
the fact that someone's desire aligns with something other people might want to do, is beside the point. you don't stop doing something just because someone else wanted it done, and went about it the wrong way
Aye but as I said, don't promote it in relation to what he's done. Talk about it as a separate issue, but not because he's killing kids to promote it - don't give him what he wants and make it a valid technique for people to employ.
As I've said, I don't have dissimilar (though currently naive and as of yet unbacked) opinions regarding the Islam situation. I don't want to discuss that in relation to what he's done. I'll discuss it separately, happily, though not now if somebody starts a thread purely as a spinoff of the advertising that he sought. It's a separate issue.
Can I kill your kids to promote things then? Because, the only reason we're discussing it, is because of its promotion. In discussing it, we validate the promotional technique.
1. PEOPLE DIE -> DO NOT DISCUSS MASSIVE PROBLEM. -> POTENTIAL DEMISE
2. MAKE A WEBSITE -> DISCUSS PROBLEM -> NOONE TAKES MUCH NOTICE OF IT. MINIMAL CHANCE OF ANYTHING BEING DONE TO FIX THE ISSUE. -> POTENTIAL DEMISE
or
3. PEOPLE DIE -> MANY PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF WHAT HAPPENED. DISCUSS REASONING BEHIND DEATHS. UNCOVER PROBLEM -> EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. -> POSSIBLE FUTURE CATASTROPHY PREVENTED.
Please don't be pedantic about this.
Also, using Jim's kids as an example of what happened is just complete fucking douchebaggery and you should be slapped in the side of the head.
Can I kill your kids to promote things then? Because, the only reason we're discussing it, is because of its promotion. In discussing it, we validate the promotional technique.
your obesssion with not 'validating' the technique is clouding your judgement, and that's the entire problem with your point of view
My recurring class captain'age in primary school spoke quite highly of my ability for leadership when it was thrust upon me (seriously I never nominated myself once in all those years, the fuckers). ^_^
1. PEOPLE DIE -> DO NOT DISCUSS MASSIVE PROBLEM. -> POTENTIAL DEMISE
Yeah nobody in the world is aware of the potential ramifications and we need somebody like you with your amazing teenage-like know-it-all insight to show us how dumb we are.
Massive problems = people being killed = people like Anders Behring Breivik are a massive problem right? People like him do the exact same thing as the Muslim extremists right? Blow people up to get attention for their message?
(Note that, 'massive' is a size which you assign. You should probably use a little introspection and wonder how much of your unparalleled fear of every 'foreigner' being a killer is influencing that quantification, while apparently being unable to recognise that you too are a foreigner, just to other people).
2. MAKE A WEBSITE -> DISCUSS PROBLEM -> NOONE TAKES MUCH NOTICE OF IT. MINIMAL CHANCE OF ANYTHING BEING DONE TO FIX THE ISSUE. -> POTENTIAL DEMISE
or
3. PEOPLE DIE -> MANY PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF WHAT HAPPENED. DISCUSS REASONING BEHIND DEATHS. UNCOVER PROBLEM -> EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. -> POSSIBLE FUTURE CATASTROPHY PREVENTED.
Yeah because nothing has ever been achieved in the west without people killing their own country's children to get attention first. It's all just:
- people making websites (not achieving)
and
- people killing kids (achieving)
There are no other avenues available. Especially not in a peaceful democratic country for rich white guys like Anders.
Why do you keep going on about your rabid fascination with defending western culture from outside influence if you're even not on board with the foundation issues such as right to life, democracy, tolerance, etc?
DISCUSS REASONING BEHIND DEATHS. UNCOVER PROBLEM -> EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. -> POSSIBLE FUTURE CATASTROPHY PREVENTED.
Yes. Exactly.
But, as I said earlier. The reason for the deaths is not the Islam situation. The reason for the deaths is that somebody thought they could get people discussing their issue if they killed kids.
How to avoid future catastrophe of kids being killed?
Don't talk about the killer's desired topic as a response to the kids being killed.
Talk about it separately, but not as a response.
Otherwise you invite catastrophe by validating the technique.
As you said, Islamic extremists = huge problem because they kill people to get their message out there. Just like Anders Behring Breivik. Exactly, 100%, exactly, the same. They want to spread their topics, he wants to spread his, the problem is that they think they can spread it if they kill people. People like you are not invalidating that assumption, in fact you're playing right into it, and so you are making the situation worse.
POTENTIAL DEMISE
As you said, potential, not guaranteed, maybe not even likely. Your condoning the murder on wild potentials. Your mind is not even fit to analyse those potentials anyway given your apparent weakness to fear. I never thought that I'd see somebody with a worse case of that then me.
Hypothetically speaking, if the murder was Muslim and the people he murdered were random westerners, and it was made clear that the reason for murdering them was because of western colonisation of middle eastern countries and american imperialism. Would you still want to gain an understanding of the killer's motives to try and rectify the problem, or would you conclude that they're muslim extremists without a valid cause simply based on your perception of muslims and past events?
I accuse Bioware of conspiracy in having their character named Anders do something extraordinarily similar as the big mystery of the DAII plot. /sarcastic
I can't be bothered replying to Nerf's post simply because of his QQ wall of text method of trying to get a point across. It's time consuming and I'm really really over it.
western colonisation of middle eastern countries and american imperialism.
Mate, there is no colonisation of the middle east at all. When was the last time 2.8 million immigrants from the west moved to Iran or Pakistan or whatever? If you're talking about the US military? Well someone shouldn't have flown some planes into their buildings.
By the way, Muslims detonating themselves and killing the innocent happens every other day so it seems, it's almost like it's come to be expected from them now. Which is pretty fucking sad in my book.
Anyway, I'm out as I've got some real work to be doing.
He asked about a hypothetical where in it, some people thought that there was and used it as justification. He didn't say that there was, so why did you answer to that?
Also you entirely avoided his actual question.
By the way, Muslims detonating themselves and killing the innocent happens every other day so it seems, it's almost like it's come to be expected from them now. Which is pretty fucking sad in my book.
And yet you condone it in point 3 of your previous post. Or what, do you think they should build a website?
Yeah nobody in the world is aware of the potential ramifications and we need somebody like you with your amazing teenage-like know-it-all insight to show us how dumb we are.
As you said, potential, not guaranteed, maybe not even likely
Ok one last post to clarify something for this ignoramous incase he missed it:
Islamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up. Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: ‘You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.’ The bright yellow messages daubed on bus stops and street lamps have already been seen across certain boroughs in London and order that in the ‘zone’ there should be ‘no gambling’, ‘no music or concerts’, ‘no porn or prostitution’, ‘no drugs or smoking’ and ‘no alcohol’.
In the past week, dozens of streets in the London boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham have been targeted, raising fears that local residents may be intimidated or threatened for flouting ‘Islamic rules’.
I don't care if they are an affiliate gang or hardcore extremist. This just shows the mentality of these dickheads. If someone came and put this poster up in your neighbourhood and threatened you with 'enforced' rules, what would you do?
Except that, I've said, several times, that I'm on board with standing against this. But since you can't answer my points you just put words in my mouth in direct contradiction to what I just said.
That has nothing to do with anything that I've been talking about, aside from the parts where I agreed.
You haven't answered any of my points because you can't.
Yeah nobody in the world is aware of the potential ramifications
- "of the influx of Muslims in Europe"
But they are aware of the potential. There are Muslims putting signs up in cities threatening to enforce people with rules right now. I don't think it gets much more clearer than that? You're a cop out Nerf and also an idiot.
It's only a problem with me when people use it as an Ad hominem. i.e. instead of a response to a point they just use a personal attack (as half of his posts here were), because that makes for pointless conversation.
Mine was a challenge to draw him back. My ridiculous theory is that he will try to work through the points, find that he can't actually respond to them, and maybe become a better human being. Truly, I'm that hopeful.
PM
WWW
