Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,160
How many people in a full face veil stop to talk to you?
Boris and the burka
- Thread starter koolpc
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,636
Agree.
That tells me everything I need to know about you.
Why not just murder people, I mean, why be so sensitive?
the question is, how much oppression of freedoms should the law be defending/ignoring just because it has religious connotations?
People can be as backwards as they like in their own private life, but when it affects other people then those people should be protected by the law.
We pander to all sorts of groups of people all of the time. And if you really want me to explain how equating builders to an ethnic minority so you can say we don't do it for them so why should we for the other is a strawman argument, it's you that doesn't understand the correct meaning of the phrase my friend. It's pure polemic.
I'm not equating builders to an ethnic minority though, you're completely missing the point. And it isn't a straw man argument, im presenting an argument I'm not misrepresenting someone else's. I think you ought to look up the definition.
My point was regarding treating people equally, deciding that you shouldn't criticise people in the same way as you would others simply because they belong to some special group is dubious.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
My point is, are you really protecting people by punishing them?
Introduce a ban and you end up punishing those who are being most oppressed because they are forced to wear it. These people will feel caught between a rock and a hard place.
Security wise, how effective would banning the garment be?
I dont care much for the religious aspect of it, i am more looking at the practicality of banning it and any injustices that may stem from the ban.
i agree its a difficult one - banning extremist behaviour forces people into that behaviour. At some point, however, a line has to be drawn somewhere when the benefits outweigh the dangers.
I don't know where that point is, but i do object to religious extremism from any religion. It just so happens that at this point in time a lot of it is coming from Islam (of the wahhabbist/salafist kind).
I am not racist, but would vote for a ban to. I am afraid you do not know who hides under these things and that is a scary thought.
You could be a fully fledged wanted criminal, a bit of face paint (depending on race) and you could 80% fit in to modern day society unnoticed.
I am also against them when driving, visibility would be reduced
You could be a fully fledged wanted criminal, a bit of face paint (depending on race) and you could 80% fit in to modern day society unnoticed.
I am also against them when driving, visibility would be reduced
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
I can't imagine them being a huge asset to wanted criminals. As far as security goes, i don't think there is much of a difference at all between a public ban or a ban in high security areas
They shouldn't be, but rather comically they have actually been used as a disguise :
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...is-burka-disguise-and-a-compensation-bid.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537414/Murder-suspect-fled-under-Muslim-veil.html
I suspect that the attitude I'm criticising in this thread of wanting to treat people differently is partly at fault here. I doubt very much that people would have any hesitation at all to tell someone in a motorcycle helmet or a balaclava to take it off.
And that's the flip side of the coin
Generally speaking. Full face veil = Segragation
That's not desirable
No, but you are saying "builders" (the strawman) don't get special treatment. Therefore muslims in burkas shouldn't, when no-one is talking about builders other than you.
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Learn it.
Treating people equally isn't the same as treating everybody the same.
Besides which, again, I don't think anyone is criticising Johnson for expressing his opinion on burkas. It's the way he's expressed it and the language he's used which is wrong.
That's a good thing, it will highlight the issue and force society to deal with it instead of being hidden away.
Plus I doubt they will keep forcing them to wear them when it's costs them money in fines, I doubt the women would be able to pay.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
I think to normal society these women would just be labeled as more extreme and ardent supporters as well as dehumanized by having a criminal label. The men will probably still force them to wear it but just keep the women to areas where it is overlooked and the house.
The women that are being pressured to wear it are still getting the worse end of the deal imo
From the article:
And in a follow-on article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45096519:
If the burka/niqab isn't a religious requirement then why are these Muslim groups poking their noses in claiming it is an attack on their religious beliefs?
And in a follow-on article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45096519:
Funny how this has gone from hating Muslims to hating women to just being a joke.
Because they don't actually understand/follow Islam just what their radical cleric tells them. Most aggressive/fanatical followers of [insert any religion] don't actually follow it or they wouldn't be as aggressive/fanatical.