Hi friends of think atheist,
You definitely have heard of this news last Monday..
France Enforces Ban on Full-Face Veils in Public.
Sorry if this has been discussed before...but It's important to hear the atheists opinion on this matter.
VÉNISSIEUX, France — France on Monday formally banned the wearing of full veils in public places, becoming the first country in Europe to impose restrictions on a form of attire that some Muslims consider a religious obligation.
read more here
I'm very interested in hearing people's opinion's on the ban..
So, what do you think?
"Have no experience"
I request the source for this claim as it seems evident to me they have plentiful experience on the matter, though appaerently preferring younger same sex members of their sub breed, thus rendering them evolutionary moot points. ;)
I will say no such thing.
Having to explain a joke ruins it.
Where did I say "shapeless islamic black dress idiot"? I called the veiled woman a dummy, a moron, and a dullard and I may have even called her an idiot (I'm honestly not sure) but I am very certain (at least I think I am) that I did not refer to her as a shapeless islamic black dress idiot. If I had been having difficulty communicating with her because of her idiotic shapless islamic black dress and veil then I would most likely have called her something that I can't post here because I'm sure the mods would have to edit it out. None of that would actually have anything to do with islam at all, however, it would have to do with my frustration at her covering her face and the obstacle that caused in communicating with her. I, however, don't read lips so that likely wouldn't have been my reaction. I do, however, find such subversion of women repugnant and I very likely would have told her that and called her an idiot for submitting to it. Once again, however, this really isn't an issue that I only have with islam for I tell most theists to their face that I think they are morons for believing in what they believe and I also tell women who submit to abusive treatment that I find them repugnant for doing so. So, all and all, I'm still not seeing where it was warranted to suggest that I have an irrational fear of islam. For the small amount of concern I have for my safety from islam, I feel that is well justified and perfectly rational in light of their wide spread threats of terror and their predilection for strapping bombs to their bodies and then walking into crowds and detonating themselves. I would have less of a problem if they predominantly did this in crowds of other followers of islam, but I still wouldn't condone it.
Now, as far as the same sex members reference, that is simply a fact, and that is what that has to do with that. Would you like him to find an even more abstract euphemism for the system rape of young men by Catholic clergy? If so, perhaps you could instruct us at how to talk about ass-raping alter boys in a way that does not offend your sensibilities.
Phobias can be both good and bad as we do need fear in our lives. The people who are completely phobia free tend to at a young age because they do not understand the concept of risk. I have used the word phobia to describe the full range of fear towards dangers, from thge highly logical, such as fear of falling or rancid meats, to the illogical, such as fear of cats. It is a misnomer in its clinical definition, but attempt to view it philosophically.
Now that we have established that some phobias are logical to hold, which makes them justifiable, the next step is then to see if it can be justified logically to be islamophobic. The reason I'm quite phobic is that the violence committed to the fundamentalists produced by this religion vastly overshadows that which is committed by other religions.
The best evidence I can think of is when people, in the name of Islam, beheads innocent people which have had their hands tied behind their backs. As they scream their primal screams, only causable by the fear of death, someone has the capability to muster the physical strength to cur someones throat open, severing their victims larynx and trachea with blood gushing until they really have to work hard to cut through the spinal column. All the time not fainting or throwing up like a psychologically stable person would do.
So yeah, I'm afraid of a system of thought that allows for such things to happen on a regular basis, and this system of thought is present in Islam. But Islam is not alone, almost all religions, in their extreme, can justify such acts, which is why I'm atheist and "religionophobic".
And what terminology would you prefer to ensure that both offenders and the victims of sexual abuse cannot possibly find offensive when attempting to describe something that is offensive? Saying that they assrape young boys is just as descriptive, though colloquial, as saying they have intercourse with minor males whom they held power over and were entrusted with. Doubt the victims mind the former description, the word itself reflects that they were victims, which they rightly are and the rest is just disturbingly descriptive.
Also, by your definition, Pedobear is an insult to the victims of adolescent sexual abuse. I must be a very bad person with major cognitive dissonance to both laugh at him and have compassion for victims of sexual abuse at the same time. I guess ignorance is bliss.
Of course we cannot argue definitions. That is why they are called definitions. The definition of definition is:
When we define something we make it an axiomatic understanding of that word, and if you want to discuss axioms you need extensive credentials.
Well why not say that in the first place rather than trying to make the claim of homophobia just because someone made a discreet remark about the FACT that catholic priests have a predilection for little boys? Oh, there is variance, yes, and you could have simply added that they molest little girls as well rather than making derogatory statements. The fact that, by default, your choice is to hurl epithets rather than clarify the situation, I find it perplexing that you consider the use of the word idiot so inappropriate.
I guess I am forced to actually explain the joke..
"Same sex" as pointed out numerous times means that male priests seem to have (according to media and reserarch) preference for boys.
"Evolutionary moot point" is exactly descriptive. As they have chosen away their ability to reproduce their genes are not passed down and their lineage dies out. Their direct impact on evolution post hoc (after they have died without offspring) is therefore non-existant, thus rendering them, in an evolutionary sense, moot.