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?
"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.)
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.
I can agree with that. Dealing with a troll can help find the holes in an argument and, thereby, assist in solidifying the argument itself as well as prepare for counter arguments.
On the other hand, trolls can be destructive as well. I've seen them take down whole communities when they combine their efforts. They can also do real world damage. Two professional trolls (well that's what I call them) were able to get ACORN defunded and shut down because of their antics. One of those same trolls got Shirley Sherrod booted out of her job. Those are just a few examples that come immediately to mind.
The problem with trolling is that there is no true dissenting opinion. They are just muddying the waters with their nonsensical rhetoric. So a person who is not actively in the debate may get confused or, worse, latch on their reasoning as their own opinion.
Thanks Daria. Please could you address the substance of what I'm saying rather than just telling us you've already answered things or calling someone a troll - that doesn't really address the debate, even if you did think the conversation was 'over'.
No Jared. I am not continuing this conversation with as you. I would have thought that you'd understand my last reply to mean that I am not continuing this argument with you. I don't tolerate intellectual dishonesty or disingenuous behavior especially when we are supposed to be discussing the value of ideas - in this case whether or not France is right to legally ban the covering of the face.
You latched onto Judith's reply and began the name calling, even though you now complain about me calling you names (a troll) and say that I'm getting off topic when you have actually derailed the entire conversation (typical troll behavior).
Additionally, you are reaching further and further into minutiae, even arguing the meaning of words in some instances, to try and "win". No one else on this thread took my statement that the woman threw her bible in Judith's face to mean that the Muslim woman literally threw the Qu'ran at her. Likewise you have attempted to infer that Judith called the woman an idiot to her face when it was fairly obvious that she did not. She called her an idiot privately - well as private as one can get on an internet forum.
Whenever your argument is rendered invalid or shown to be incorrect, you either take what the person is saying out of context or pick a minute thing from the person's reply and try to argue that their reply is invalid or incorrect because that one thing doesn't fit the definition of what you think it means.
This is a prime example of what I'm talking about:
Daria: The special privilege of religion being free from criticism is an ongoing real world issue. If I see a young man with his pants hanging over his butt and I say that (the way he is wearing his pants) is idiotic, am I being bigoted towards that young man? No. If I see a KKK member wearing the white hood and robe, am I being bigoted towards that racist for saying what he is wearing is idiotic? No. So why it is sacrilegious and bigoted to say a certain style of religious dress is idiotic? That's giving religion a free pass from criticism which is not right.
Jared: To answer your questions, are we talking about young men wearing boxers or not? I've seen a lot of high-slung boxers since the start of this male fashion, I've never seen a naked buttock, and it's never occurred to me to describe this mode of fashion as 'idiotic'. Live and let live, I say. The kkk members are a fascist race hate organisation, not a religion, I know you might be inclined to get the two muddled up. But even so, I would hesitate to call the kkk idiots, because to dismiss them as idiots would be to under-represent their human potential for hatred. In principle, I object to calling human beings idiots. Maybe 'idiotic' is just one of those words that keeps popping up in your mind because there's too little else going on there.
You didn't answer the question. You went on a tangent about boys boxers and why you wouldn't call the KKK idiots but never actually answered the question I posed which was why should religion get a special pass when it comes to criticism? Instead, you attack the other two questions which only existed to make a point. The point being, since you seem to need it spelled out to you, is that people are not called bigots when they criticize the clothing choices of others in secular society.
Some people have the patience to go 16 rounds with you and dip to that level of ridiculousness but I don't. Why? Because we have stopped talking about the main idea and, instead, are now arguing about definitions and semantics. Maybe that is how you choose to argue but I choose to not engage you any further because I feel it is a dishonest way to debate.
What about a wheelchair user being offered a mainly office job, but with a job description that says they should be able, once a year, to climb a short ladder to inspect a roof space, when there are plenty of other people in the workplace who can do it already? Can he not do his job? How unreasonable are you prepared to be?
Your example lacks the level of common sense required for me to take it seriously and hence I didn't feel it deserved an answer. There are many different factors that need to be considered before a reasonable answer can even be given. What is the nature of their disability? Will there be someone there to help him? Are there other ways to access the area besides the ladder? In the U.S. there are laws that dictate that arrangements must be made so that a disabled person can fulfill the duties of their job.
But the simple fact is that this example does not even apply because the Muslim woman was not disabled in any way. She could remove her niqab. In fact, her religion allows her to remove the garment while in the presence of other women and children. The problem is that she chose not to for whatever reason was going through her mind at the time.
You are trying to defend...you know at this point, I have no idea what it is that you are trying to argue because the debate has been skewed so much. *For which you win a cookie*
So we are clear, I believe the Muslim woman was wrong in this instance and Judith was right for asking her to do remove her head covering so the Muslim woman can do her job. I believe the Muslim woman behaved idiotically and would go so far as to call her an idiot for the way she behaved. Just as I stand by my calling you a troll for the way you have behaved on this forum.
I have not begun any ‘name calling’. That is an incorrect allegation, I do not see your evidence for it.
Okay. I'll take the bait. What do you define as name calling?
I note that in your reply you have called me intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.
Because of these little gems:
"Jared: Maybe 'idiotic' is just one of those words that keeps popping up in your mind because there's too little else going on there."
Interpretation: You are trying to insult me by saying I have very little thoughts going on in my head and, by social definition, am thoughtless which many equate with being brainless or more commonly stupid. But you phrase it in such a way that it leaves you with enough room to walk it back to something less offensive such as "I just meant that you were so focused on other things that that's the only word you could come up with in regards to describing the Muslim woman" or that you weren't actually referring to my mind but to the argument taking place on the boards and that it is my fault for tying the two together thereby cleverly insinuating that I just insulted myself.
You have insulted others in similar ways:
In one of your replies to Judith:
"So you admit you're prejudiced? ie you've pre-judged her without evidence? But then you say this is "based on a number of experiences" which sounds to me like you don't know what prejudiced means. And you're calling someone else an idiot?"
You don't actually call Judith an idiot (thereby avoiding the accusation that you are calling people names) but you imply it with that last question. By asking "And you're calling someone else an idiot?" you are inferring that she really has no right to call another person and idiot because her behavior puts her into the same category. And just so we are clear, I am not calling Judith an idiot or suggesting that her behavior was idiotic. I'm following the natural conclusion of your words.
But it doesn't stop there. You indirectly insult her because you assume she is not using the word prejudice correctly. But your argument can be rendered invalid as well. So your definition of prejudice is that she pre-judged her without evidence. This is true. She had never had any experience with that particular woman before. Therefore, she had no evidence that the woman would treat her the way she did. Sure she had previous experience with other Muslims that influenced her opinion about what the woman may do but she had no evidence (because she had no previous interaction with this woman) the woman in the example would behave the way she did.
But then you go on to indicate that she is bigoted:
"I think you don't mean you're prejudiced, I think you mean you're bigoted."
and "Personally I think if you're going around saying things like 'shapeless islamic black dress' and 'idiot' - none of which have got anything to do with their response to your deafness - then you'd be better off informing everyone of your limitations by walking around with a big badge on your lapel saying bigot."
"Thanks for your reply Heather. You obviously think you know better than other women what they should be allowed to wear."
"The evidence is building up. I'm sure you are blind to it Heather. That is your prerogative."
"Homophobia: "Younger same sex members" ... "evolutionary moot points". If you mean boys Arcus, say boys. What's their gender got to do with it? Abuse is abuse."
"The phrase 'same sex' implies something to do with gay sexuality."
"The reference to 'evolutionary moot points' was offensive from any point of view."Why is this offensive? What meaning did you assign to "evolutionary moot point" that made it offensive to you? And let's be clear. It was the definition that you assigned to those words that offended you. Therefore, you offended yourself because you defined those words differently than what Arcus had to say about them.
I did not take the statement that the muslim interviewer ‘threw her bible in Judith’s face’ literally." I understood it was figurative. Even so, it created an inaccurate image of what happened and was pretty mischievous. I was completely in order to correct it before the melodramatic story about the throwing of the koran was repeated as if literal in another thread or a future discussion in this thread. I am sure you are happy sustaining the ambiguity, but whether it is right to say the muslim interviewer ‘threw’ her koran at a customer is not ‘minutiae’.
"The inference that Judith called the lady an idiot to her face comes from Judith’s text."
"Even you are not sure about it as you admit it was ‘fairly obvious’ she didn’t."
If I understand you correctly, the question you have accused me of not answering is why is it sacrilegious and bigoted to say a certain style of religious dress is idiotic? First, I don’t defend the concept sacredness, so nothing is sacreligious to me. It may be bigoted, I don’t know - it depends on whether anyone has ever tried to persuade you like I did) that you shouldn’t get so uptight about it. It’s exactly the same with the niqab. Live and let live, I think was what I said. Sorry if this statement was not literal enough for you."
"Instead, you attack the other two questions which only existed to make a point. The point being, since you seem to need it spelled out to you, is that people are not called bigots when they criticize the clothing choices of others in secular society."
"Daria raised the image of a man with his trousers hanging over his butt, and calling him an idiot for it, if not to his face then about him. Neither of us were talking about nudity laws. I was asking for clarification because an inadvertently displayed arse crack might cause irritation, but is hardly a chargeable offence, so that might be why Daria wants to call the man an idiot."
"You say that people are not called bigots when they criticize the clothing choices of others in secular society. I’d say not usually, but then you are talking about calling someone an idiot, not just criticizing them, and it’s a fairly widespread look in male fashion, so the label of bigot may be wholly appropriate. I don’t know enough about your attitudes to male trousers to form a judgement, which is why I was asking."
"You’ve said we’ve stopped talking about the main idea. That’s not true. I’ve talked throughout this thread about whether it’s right to take a niqab-wearer’s human right to freedom of religion away from them, whether it’s right to take a her liberty from her and put her in psychiatric care, and whether it’s right to call her an idiot, a moron and other names just for wearing a niqab. I have stuck closely to the questions raised."
"Thanks for your reasons for not providing an answer to the wheelchair user question. I’m sorry you think it lacked common sense. I am happy to continue that discussion if you wish, but you have said you’re not going to reply."
"I agree that the Muslim woman was wrong in this instance (for displaying her Koran) and Judith was quite right for asking her to remove her head covering so the Muslim woman can do her job. I would not abuse the Muslim woman as an idiot, even behind her back, as you do."
Well thanks for your reply and your hard work Daria but I think the debate has moved on now. Really you'd need to re-read the whole thread to put all you quotes of my words in context. I think everything you've quoted I've already explained fully using throughout the thread, if I explained it any further I'd just be repeating myself. Once again, thanks for taking the trouble to look into it for me.
You want me to answer your questions and give you an explanation of my answers but when I call you out on your BS, all of a sudden the conversation has moved on and you want to change the subject to something else and I should go back and reread your answers. OMG! 1000 Lulz points for you! You have truly trolled me.
The fact is, you don't have any answers. I think I've done a pretty good job of proving that all of your responses are nothing but vague insults and innuendos. You use underhanded tactics to insult people without actually contributing anything of value to the conversation. You do that so you can fly under the radar of the admin and not get banned.
So instead of actually addressing anything I have to say that calls out your trollicious behavior, you have decided to punk out of the discussion. You have just confirmed my theory that you are, in fact, a troll. I do hope you get banned and I mean that from the very bottom of my heart.
"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. :)
Bring it! Although I have a feeling I am outmatched :)
I can see your point. But at the same time they waste a lot of time. I was reading an article on Huffington Post (or Media Matters I can't remember) that talked about why everyone is bringing up the birther issue over and over again now. One of the reasons the writer gave was that it gets people focused on other things beside activism.
I agree with this. When high profile trolls like Donald Trump latch onto non-issues it diverts the energy of the people from real issues to nonsense. I feel that way about about forum trolling. It diverts attention away from the real issues to nonproductive topics.
I suppose there is some value to using them as target practice. But does that value outweigh the annoyance factor?
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.)
It's all good, Arcus. I'm sure you would have thought of something. How about checking out my forum topic about Terry Jones claiming his first amendment rights were violated because he was jailed for trying to protest outside of a mosque:
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.