27 Aug 16
Originally posted by no1marauderI see my point was lost on you as well.
I believe that those who support collective punishments against Muslims in a nation because of the acts of a few terrorists are: A) Paranoid; B) Bigots or more usually both A and B. That would be true no matter what group they were targeting under the same circumstances.
Nothing I have seen in this thread convinces me otherwise.
Okay then... 'paranoid' and 'bigot' is a good start. But if you really want your arguments to be uber effective you need to punch them up with words like 'racist' and 'white male racist' and 'islamaphobe' and 'right-wing' and 'western imperialism' and... well, you get the point.
Oops, there I go again assuming you get the point! Hoo boy, is my face red!
27 Aug 16
Originally posted by shavixmirI don't disagree with your first point, but the fear derives from terrorist attacks and the average French Muslim doesn't have any control over when and where those things might occur. So even if the average Muslim "steps back", it will make no difference when the inevitable next attack comes (and that it will is a foregone conclusion as long as French bombers keep operating in Islamic lands).
The problem is that it's very hard to convince anyone of anything when they're emotional (especially paranoid or scared).
First step in de-escalation is creating room and safety (which is a feeling rather than a hard fact).
And as I've stated, I don't think banning clothes is any sortmof answer to anything. But, common sense should tell people when to ...[text shortened]...
All this being said: nobody will.
And this is going to escalate: the faeces will hit the fan.
So, yes, it will probably get much worse in France.
27 Aug 16
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeThanks for the advice but I think I'll stick with using what I consider proper terminology given the positions some here on this board and in France have taken.
I see my point was lost on you as well.
Okay then... 'paranoid' and 'bigot' is a good start. But if you really want your arguments to be uber effective you need to punch them up with words like 'racist' and 'white male racist' and 'islamaphobe' and 'right-wing' and 'western imperialism' and... well, you get the point.
Oops, there I go again assuming you get the point! Hoo boy, is my face red!
To be clear, I think it is fairly obvious that someone who is afraid Muslim women might sneak bombs under their burkinas is "paranoid". And those who propose discriminatory measures against all Muslim because of the violent actions of a few easily meet the definition of "bigot" i.e. a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group).
27 Aug 16
Originally posted by lemon limeUnfortunately, the French government didn't listen to me and got re-involved in Middle Eastern wars a few years ago. The terrorist attacks that the French People have unfortunately endured since then are a direct result of that misguided decision.
What would the French do without you? Keep up the good work.
Having armed men in the costume of the State stripping down women on beaches won't change that.
27 Aug 16
Originally posted by no1marauderWell of course, everyone knows the violence in France has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. Bigots are always trying to put the blame on minorities, because that's what they do. If we are going to hate anyone it should be bigots, am I right? Of course I'm right, because I'm not a bigot. And you're not a bigot either, right?
Unfortunately, the French government didn't listen to me and got re-involved in Middle Eastern wars a few years ago. The terrorist attacks that the French People have unfortunately endured since then are a direct result of that misguided decision.
Having armed men in the costume of the State stripping down women on beaches won't change that.
27 Aug 16
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeThe vast majority of French Muslims have nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. People who propose and/or support measures punishing them seem to ignore this.
Well of course, everyone knows the violence in France has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. Bigots are always trying to put the blame on minorities, because that's what they do. If we are going to hate anyone it should be bigots, am I right? Of course I'm right, because I'm not a bigot. And you're not a bigot either, right?
If you think you're being clever, you are sadly mistaken.
27 Aug 16
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhile this may infact be true they do support an ideology that is in many respects incompatible with European secularism. The Burkini is simply an expression of that incompatibility. European women have no necessity to cover themselves up and its offensive to some people (not me personally) that Muslim women are coerced to do so through social pressure. It most certainly is an expression of religiosity in a secular environment and I fully expect the French courts to uphold the ban.
The vast majority of French Muslims have nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. People who propose and/or support measures punishing them seem to ignore this.
If you think you're being clever, you are sadly mistaken.
27 Aug 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOur violence just isn't smothered in religion anymore.
While this may infact be true they do support an ideology that is in many respects incompatible with European secularism. The Burkini is simply an expression of that incompatibility. European women have no necessity to cover themselves up and its offensive to some people (not me personally) that Muslim women are coerced to do so through social pre ...[text shortened]... of religiosity in a secular environment and I fully expect the French courts to uphold the ban.
It is, though, just as violent (more so if you go by body count).
And religion's not the main motive for ISIS etc either.
Land, wealth and power.
27 Aug 16
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA society only exists for the preservation of Natural Rights; it is not the purpose of the State to force everybody in it to accept the same ideology and/or viewpoints. If that is "incompatible" with "European secularism", than that particular version of ES needs to be modified or abandoned.
While this may infact be true they do support an ideology that is in many respects incompatible with European secularism. The Burkini is simply an expression of that incompatibility. European women have no necessity to cover themselves up and its offensive to some people (not me personally) that Muslim women are coerced to do so through social pre ...[text shortened]... of religiosity in a secular environment and I fully expect the French courts to uphold the ban.
Coming up with a label for an ideology you like, doesn't mean it is anything but tyranny to force everybody else to accept it or face penal punishments from the State.
27 Aug 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo if you saw women walking around naked at the shopping mall you would have no problem with it?
European women have no necessity to cover themselves up and its offensive to some people (not me personally) that Muslim women are coerced to do so through social pressure.
Your pretence that there are no societal norms for dress even in a secular society is clearly false. The fact is that all women and men, Muslim or otherwise, are coerced into maintaining certain dress codes. If women are unreasonably coerced in some circumstances then that should be dealt with in a different way than the method being used in France - which is actually the state not coercing but forcing a dress code.
I rather suspect you would change your tune if your own town introduced a law banning men from wearing shirts in public. Even better, banning men from wearing that ridiculous skirt you wear in Scotland.
27 Aug 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf the French government passed a law criminalizing reading the Bible in public places would you applaud it as a fine example of the principle of "European secularism"?
While this may infact be true they do support an ideology that is in many respects incompatible with European secularism. The Burkini is simply an expression of that incompatibility. European women have no necessity to cover themselves up and its offensive to some people (not me personally) that Muslim women are coerced to do so through social pre ...[text shortened]... of religiosity in a secular environment and I fully expect the French courts to uphold the ban.
27 Aug 16
Originally posted by no1marauderI wouldn't put too much faith in European secularism.
If the French government passed a law criminalizing reading the Bible in public places would you applaud it as a fine example of the principle of "European secularism"?
The English queen can't marry a Catholic, the Netherlands has a Calvinistic bible-belt, Rome and Warsaw base various laws on the bible, the whole (even recent history) of Germany and France is stooped in Lutheranism vs Catholicism, Spain has major Islamic traits and the Jews have been persecuted for 1100 odd years.
Europeans are not nice and, alas, not very secular either.
27 Aug 16
Originally posted by shavixmirI don't but robbie thinks it is a sufficient excuse to persecute Euro Muslims.
I wouldn't put too much faith in European secularism.
The English queen can't marry a Catholic, the Netherlands has a Calvinistic bible-belt, Rome and Warsaw base various laws on the bible, the whole (even recent history) of Germany and France is stooped in Lutheranism vs Catholicism, Spain has major Islamic traits and the Jews have been persecuted for 1100 odd years.
Europeans are not nice and, alas, not very secular either.