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?
Hopefully Daria will not mind awfully for picking some of the argumentation apart.
|"Daria - what on earth is this obsession with throwing things in |people's faces that's going on her?"
Throwing something in someone's face is a figure of speech, not a descriptive statement. Definition:
throw something in(to) someone's face
1. Lit. to hurl or splash something into someone's face.
Jerry got mad at Bob and threw his drink into Bob's face. He threw the pie in Ken's face.
2. Fig. to confront someone with a problem or criticism.
Jerry caused this mess. I'll just throw the whole problem into his face and tell him to fix it.
It's her fault. Just throw this problem in her face and make her deal with it.
|"The point I was making is that Judith is using her disability as a |get out of jail free card for calling a muslim lady a "shapeless |islamic black dress" "idiot". Not just in the heat of the moment, but |long afterwards and on an internet forum."
To justify the usage of the term "idiot" there must be acts of stupidity involved. What the case worker did was definately an act of stupidity, and she can rightly be called an idiot for that act. But one isolated act does not make someone an idiot, one is not an idiot for life for having driven drunk once, though if one does so on frequent occation the term can accurately be employed. As the caseworker can be expected to react the same in every similar situation, her insistance is therefore an act of stupidity since she works in public administration and has signed the social contract involved to be hired into that bureaucracy. That is, of course, unless you don't subscribe to bureaucracy theory, which makes you an idiot intellectually similar to those who are proponenets of young earth creationism.
In addition, the lady committed an act of stupidity by wearing a long, shapeless black dress. This is the main cause of the grievance and therefore a valid descriptor.
|"Hmm... what do we think? Does the ‘her idiot colleague’ quote |follow on from ‘I refused, pointing out…’?"
She had a valid argument, and if one does not concede to valid arguments you are per definition an idiot.
|"Would it be unreasonable to read this as Judith calling the lady |an idiot to her face?"
Yes, the description of related feelings does not mean one committed the action. If she had stated she wanted to strangle her I could not immediately jump to the conclusion that somewhere in Holland lies a strangled niqab wearing public servant.Most people, including myself, behave differently in a face to face social setting vs the relative anonymity of the internet.
|"Frankly it doesn't matter anyway."
Of course it matters. How she actually acted does have a great impact. If she was screaming insults at the top of her lungs I would agree with you; that is not rational argumentation. But this fact is not in evidence, and the conclusion does not follow, thus the remainder of the paragraph is invalid.
|"I've never seen a naked buttock"
Exactly. There are laws against it. Clothing laws. Kinda like the one we are discussing now.
|" it's never occurred to me to describe this mode of fashion as |'idiotic'."
It has to me. It seems illogical, which is a hallmark of stupidity, and acts of stupidity define an idiot, to wear clothes in a fashion that barely allows you to walk. It is, incidentally, the same reason I find 10 inch heels, corsets, and ties idiotic. Willingly harming yourself or constricting the blood flow cannot be termed as intelligent behavior per se.
|"But even so, I would hesitate to call the kkk idiots"
Why not? Are their arguments and reasoning coherent, valid and based on evidence, or are they just uninformed idiots? Is there general academic congruance support their views?
|"In principle, I object to calling human beings idiots."
Exactly. You are not arguing the facts of the matter, you are just arguing some ideological stance for which there is no evidence. If I object to someone being called vogons, I am not necessarily right.
|"You know exactly what that is like?"
Of course she doesn't. See my first point regarding the difference between figurat and literal speech.
I will stop there (for now).
"And as you have shown, there is always a literal description associated with it."
No. Either literal or figuratively. I literally want to kill you vs I figuratively want to kill you are two completely different things. The former may be a jailable offense, the latter definately not.
"At some point I will open a separate thread about the differences of language between theists and atheists"
Irrelevant when we both are presumably using the same well of language to tap out of (figuratively speaking), seeing as we are both atheists and should therefore have the same understanding.
"An act of stupidity does not justify use of the term idiot."
Opinion. I agree with the definition of the word:
-a person of subnormal intelligence
As there are, as previously attempted to be shown, no intellectual defence for the caseworkers actions, it is a case of either lacking or subjugated intellect, which, due to having the same effect upon the actions of the perpetrator, defends the usage of the word.
"I would say that the Judith’s description of what happened is very ambiguous."
That may be so, but as we will never be privy to the whole story, we can only work from the evidence provided. You choose to call Judith a liar. I believe her story to be a mostly accurate description of the events. We will not hear the other side of the story, but that does not mean we can go out and construct one. We have to deconstruct the story initially provided.
You latched on to the personal opinion of one person about another, I am more interested in the situational ethics involved. I find the fundamental claims underpinning Judith's actions to be of higher moral fabric than that of the caseworker (as you may have gatherd from my continued willingness to discuss the subject and evidence for this stance is to be found littered within all my previous posts).
"I do not think you or I can tell if she actually called the muslim lady an idiot to her face or just thought it."
Exactly. But claiming that she did is a positive claim which requires positive evidence. My starting position is to make no such claim and I carry no burden of proof.
"I think we can both agree that Judith was not screaming insults at the top of her lungs."
Yes we can. And since we can, not only is the point merely moot, it is actually a dead end.
"since we’re not talking about it."
But we *are* talking about it. And it was you who brought it up in the first place and the rest of us were at that conclusion almost a priori!
"Really though I meant it would not matter to Daria, who berated me for claiming that Judith did not use the word ‘idiot’ at any point when infact she had."
If Daria wish to defend against these statements she may. I do not have too much interest in debating the debate or other participants intents. (Note the use of a qualifier to signify that I am not talking in absolutes.)
"Please elaborate what you mean by ‘exactly’."
Exactly what was previously written and directly quoted without any alteration to the statement as it stood. I may be critiziced for not using your whole quote, but the remainder did not alter the observation they were constructed on and I prefer brevity (believe it or not) over correctness and presume you have the wherewithal to "fill in the blanks" (figuratively) between the deductions I make.
"there are a hell of a lot of people you call idiots, you do seem to be a rather intolerant person."
Calling someone an idiot over an act (or acts) of stupidity is merely verbal labelling following from word definitions. That I have tolerance for other people's rights, doesn't mean I have to support every action they perform. In this case, I don't even find any justification that the person had a right to insist on the use of the niqab in the first place, and I do not support made up rights based on a religious agenda. If it is this (specific fact) which makes me intolerant (in a general sense), then I am indeed intolerant in your eyes.
"Just because something is a figure of speech doesn’t make it an accurate reflection of what happened"
Exactly. And this is why one should not attack the specific choice of words, but rather the underlying right/wrong of the actions we did know took place. Judith's right to think someone is an idiot is clearly protected by freedom of thought, and her right to call someone (within certain parameters) an idiot is clearly protected by freedom of speech.
I think the main point is that we agree that the niqab wearing women has a right to wear her garment in private. However, I do not find wearing niqab in public to be protected by free of religion, nor the freedom of expression, or her right to protest (or anything else). Especially in this situation, where the niqab wearing women was violating the basic underpinnings of the Weberian beuraucracy theory currently used in western civil service.
To use an example, I am ideologically not opposed to selling sex on a voluntary basis. However, in a hypothetical situation where I would be in a society which bans such transactions, I cannot use human rights arguments in my defence as the law of the land takes presedence and my (presumed) free willed decision to stay in that society means I have implicity accepted that I cannot legally purchase sex; my social contract. In essence, I know purchasing sex in the US will most places be a violation of the law, just like selling alcohol in Saudi is, and if I do, I have to accept the consequences. The price of freedom is justice, though what constitutes justice is always under debate.
"I suppose there is some value to using them as target practice. But does that value outweigh the annoyance factor?"
On balance, I would say yes. As evidence I would proclaim the unevitable, though frequently interrupted, forward march of science. Further evidence would be continual federalization of the EU, it has only gained power throughout it's existence, despite the massive counterforces present. The frequent protests both to science and the EU, both well and less well founded, has imbued them with qualities of very strong underlying logic as any weak points have been explored.
(Side note: There is also major academic support in favor of the EU, though some might misconstrue this as being an argument from authority/majority, it is merely parroting the views of those who are in a better position of knowledge and thus indirect citation.)
"You do that so you can fly under the radar of the admin and not get banned."
Seeing as we are going completely off topic, and I would like to initiate a debate against you, I completely disagree with your statement. ;)
I don't think trolls should be banned for trolling itself, it is an artform akin to that of jesters, so as to challenge our abilities to defend ourselves with reason in the face of silliness, and occationally be confronted with our own.
If our arguments are like the claws of cats, trolls are like the scratchstrips they are sharpened upon. :)
Hmm.. I can't really counter too well since the realist in me see your objections. I prefer regulation by ridicule, but as you point out, it may not be sufficient. Until I can come up with better objections, I concede this round.
(Changed reply location.)
Daria wrote: "The woman could have written a note. Instead, she threw her bible in Judith's face. It really seemed like there was no effort to meet Judith at least halfway."
That is an important point and why I think the Muslim woman was deliberately trying to make a political statement. The statement she was making was that her religion takes precedence over EVERYTHING. It was a statement of dominance and intimidation aimed at Judith.
My guess is that the woman not only knew that Judith was deaf but that she was "unacceptable" in other ways as well, such as her lesbianism or her non-belief. Having dealt with theocrats here in the U.S. on numerous occasions, I can tell you that such unreasonable behavior is usually an attempt to make just such a statement.
It is important to remember that there is a distinction to be made between religious belief and religious practice. A person can believe whatever he wants, but the practice of his religion is subject to legal restrictions in EVERY country that I know of. The U.S. Constitution specifically provides protection for religion, but the law allows reasonable time, manner and place restrictions. For example, you can believe in human sacrifice, but you can't practice it. You can believe in preaching in the streets, but you can't do it in the middle of the intersection. Etc.
In fact, religion is generally favored, otherwise you would never see a new church being constructed in plain sight or crosses allowed in public(which a freedom from religion would necessitate).
But the pillars of public admninistration (generally also copied by private administration) flips this. Outside of these institutions there is freedom, inside them there are rules.
Follows: Those who choose in a society that does not restrict free will to enter such institutions signs an invisible societal contract to abide by the rules thereof.
Putting it the other way is my argument. That is sorta the point of a counter argument. And yes, let's do that.