Oxymoronic French law on veils raises its head again...
Discussion
toppstuff said:
I would question your assertion that the complete covering of someone, rendering them anonymous and making it hard for other people to communicate with them, is "harmless".
As human animals that need to communicate and interact with each other. it seems to be it has the potential to be very harmful indeed.
Generally speaking, it is quite easy to communicate with somebody wearing a Burka (or motorcycle helmet, or balaclava). You do not need to see somebody's face to communicate with the. That's why we can telephone or email people without difficulty.As human animals that need to communicate and interact with each other. it seems to be it has the potential to be very harmful indeed.
wolves_wanderer said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
wolves_wanderer said:
What the hell have Isis got to do with anything?
Well according to FredClogs, they're not as bad as atheists.
king stupid thing to say in the context of this particular thread which is discussing the more extreme aspects of Islam?"Because if so, I would agree.
toppstuff said:
wolves_wanderer said:
You don't have an answer then.
I would question your assertion that the complete covering of someone, rendering them anonymous and making it hard for other people to communicate with them, is "harmless".As human animals that need to communicate and interact with each other. it seems to be it has the potential to be very harmful indeed.
I agree that "covering someone" is potentially harmful as it implies a degree of coercion. I don't agree it is harmful for someone to decide to cover themselves. I don't agree that the way to deal with coercion is an outright ban and I don't agree in state interference in freedoms for no good reason.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
wolves_wanderer said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
wolves_wanderer said:
What the hell have Isis got to do with anything?
Well according to FredClogs, they're not as bad as atheists.king stupid thing to say in the context of this particular thread which is discussing the more extreme aspects of Islam?"Because if so, I would agree.
Countdown said:
toppstuff said:
I would question your assertion that the complete covering of someone, rendering them anonymous and making it hard for other people to communicate with them, is "harmless".
As human animals that need to communicate and interact with each other. it seems to be it has the potential to be very harmful indeed.
Generally speaking, it is quite easy to communicate with somebody wearing a Burka (or motorcycle helmet, or balaclava). You do not need to see somebody's face to communicate with the. That's why we can telephone or email people without difficulty.As human animals that need to communicate and interact with each other. it seems to be it has the potential to be very harmful indeed.
All animals have a highly sophisticated communication process using voice and body language. It would be completely wrong to assume that removing entirely one key element of person to person interaction cannot have a dramatic impact on how people communicate with each other.
Countdown said:
Generally speaking, it is quite easy to communicate with somebody wearing a Burka (or motorcycle helmet, or balaclava). You do not need to see somebody's face to communicate with the. That's why we can telephone or email people without difficulty.
Why is it we have smilies on here, such as 
? Surely it's because it's hard to get across sarcasm, or happiness, or sadness, or tongue in cheek comments, when not face to face.Are you really going to deny the importance of facial expression when 2 people talk face to face. Are you that desperate to prove your point. You seriously dismiss millions of years of evolution to try and convince yourself you are right.
Unbelievable!
wolves_wanderer said:
No. It was a figure of speech. Someone said to me the other day that there's nothing worse than getting a cold on holiday, I immediately thought of several things. I trust this illustrates the difference between a figure of speech and a euphemism sufficiently.
If you were discussing terminal cancer, and they chucked in "there's nothing worse than getting a cold", you wouldn't think that was a stupid thing to say?TwigtheWonderkid said:
wolves_wanderer said:
No. It was a figure of speech. Someone said to me the other day that there's nothing worse than getting a cold on holiday, I immediately thought of several things. I trust this illustrates the difference between a figure of speech and a euphemism sufficiently.
If you were discussing terminal cancer, and they chucked in "there's nothing worse than getting a cold", you wouldn't think that was a stupid thing to say?toppstuff said:
Personal interaction is quite different to remote interaction. It is absurd to compare them.
All animals have a highly sophisticated communication process using voice and body language. It would be completely wrong to assume that removing entirely one key element of person to person interaction cannot have a dramatic impact on how people communicate with each other.
I can only speak from personal experience. Having communicated quite often with people wearing different types of clothing/headgear I found it relatively easy to communicate/exchange information to the satisfaction of both parties. All animals have a highly sophisticated communication process using voice and body language. It would be completely wrong to assume that removing entirely one key element of person to person interaction cannot have a dramatic impact on how people communicate with each other.
Admittedly i don't know if the motorcyclist was intimidated by me or flirting with me. He picked up a Bounty, gave me 25p (this was a while ago) and went on his merry way.
There are very very few muslims who wear the FULL ninja outfit. It is (in my experience) quite easy to communicate with them to the extent required. Logic suggests that if it was a problem then people would be able to work something out (morse code, heliograph, carrier pigeon?).
wolves_wanderer said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
wolves_wanderer said:
No. It was a figure of speech. Someone said to me the other day that there's nothing worse than getting a cold on holiday, I immediately thought of several things. I trust this illustrates the difference between a figure of speech and a euphemism sufficiently.
If you were discussing terminal cancer, and they chucked in "there's nothing worse than getting a cold", you wouldn't think that was a stupid thing to say?
TTwiggy said:
I imagine that if one needed to quickly communicate some important information to someone, one would choose a veiled person as an easier option than someone who doesn't share a common language?
Cue some moron who will now asking me if I want to ban people who can't speak English!Countdown said:
toppstuff said:
Personal interaction is quite different to remote interaction. It is absurd to compare them.
All animals have a highly sophisticated communication process using voice and body language. It would be completely wrong to assume that removing entirely one key element of person to person interaction cannot have a dramatic impact on how people communicate with each other.
I can only speak from personal experience. Having communicated quite often with people wearing different types of clothing/headgear I found it relatively easy to communicate/exchange information to the satisfaction of both parties. All animals have a highly sophisticated communication process using voice and body language. It would be completely wrong to assume that removing entirely one key element of person to person interaction cannot have a dramatic impact on how people communicate with each other.
Admittedly i don't know if the motorcyclist was intimidated by me or flirting with me. He picked up a Bounty, gave me 25p (this was a while ago) and went on his merry way.
There are very very few muslims who wear the FULL ninja outfit. It is (in my experience) quite easy to communicate with them to the extent required. Logic suggests that if it was a problem then people would be able to work something out (morse code, heliograph, carrier pigeon?).
A person who is fully covered is quite literally choosing to reject interaction with their neighbours. They are choosing to NOT integrate, by making personal communication and relationship-building effectively impossible.
The full cover clothing is designed to do this - to discourage other people ( especially men ) from openly choosing to make conversation to develop a relationship. Full cover clothing exists to discourage integration outside of their own network - that is the whole point of it.
jesta1865 said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
read it yourself, read all of it, about mob rule
read about the tyranny of the majority, read Plato's The Republic
study the democratic processes around the world, the Bill of Rights etc etc
give me an example of a society who says 'the minority can move'
don't just link me to a feckin dictionary definition
i have read it all, and it's an encyclopaedia definition, try understanding it, 1 man 1 vote majority rule, that is democracy in it's pure form.read about the tyranny of the majority, read Plato's The Republic
study the democratic processes around the world, the Bill of Rights etc etc
give me an example of a society who says 'the minority can move'
don't just link me to a feckin dictionary definition
i don't know how you find it difficult to understand that the majority are allowed to rule in a democracy? no one is mentioning mob rule except you, i'm talking about the democratic process, including the will of the people.
we use a jury system here that will take a majority verdict and a lot of law is based on how the common man would interpret actions and words.
no-one is talking about kangeroo courts or lynch mobs.
toppstuff said:
You really aren't thinking this through at all. Communication and the intricate process of integrating different cultures has nothing to do with buying a Bounty Bar - that is just a transaction.
A person who is fully covered is quite literally choosing to reject interaction with their neighbours. They are choosing to NOT integrate, by making personal communication and relationship-building effectively impossible.
The full cover clothing is designed to do this - to discourage other people ( especially men ) from openly choosing to make conversation to develop a relationship. Full cover clothing exists to discourage integration outside of their own network - that is the whole point of it.
As ever with these discussions it appears that the goalposts keep moving. Do we at least agree that transactional communication can be carried out without difficulty?A person who is fully covered is quite literally choosing to reject interaction with their neighbours. They are choosing to NOT integrate, by making personal communication and relationship-building effectively impossible.
The full cover clothing is designed to do this - to discourage other people ( especially men ) from openly choosing to make conversation to develop a relationship. Full cover clothing exists to discourage integration outside of their own network - that is the whole point of it.
With regards to the wider question of integration - I don't actually disagree. However I don't think banning anything or forcing somebody to do something they don't want to do is going to solve it. If anything it's likely to have the opposite effect. You cannot FORCE integration. The only way it will happen is when people can see the benefits for themselves.
If people choose to wear the Burka because they don't want men perving at them or trying to chat them up, isnt that their choice? When did it become anybody else's right to dictate how a woman chooses to dress?
Countdown said:
If people choose to wear the Burka because they don't want men perving at them or trying to chat them up, isnt that their choice? When did it become anybody else's right to dictate how a woman chooses to dress?
I am guessing that if we banned the full face veil in public tomorrow, the overwhelming majority of current wearers would be absolutely delighted.A small minority would be upset. So given that the numbers wearing it is a small minority anyway, we are talking about upsetting a tiny minority of Muslim women. And pleasing far more.
Ps. Just because a woman says it's her choice, doesn't mean it's true. She could well be too scared to say otherwise.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Why is it we have smilies on here, such as ? Surely it's because it's hard to get across sarcasm, or happiness, or sadness, or tongue in cheek comments, when not face to face.
Gotcha. I reckon these emoticon flash cards you're proposing would go down a storm. ? Surely it's because it's hard to get across sarcasm, or happiness, or sadness, or tongue in cheek comments, when not face to face.Do all the books you read have pictures?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
wolves_wanderer said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
wolves_wanderer said:
No. It was a figure of speech. Someone said to me the other day that there's nothing worse than getting a cold on holiday, I immediately thought of several things. I trust this illustrates the difference between a figure of speech and a euphemism sufficiently.
If you were discussing terminal cancer, and they chucked in "there's nothing worse than getting a cold", you wouldn't think that was a stupid thing to say?TwigtheWonderkid said:
We were discussing full face veils
So not cancer thenTwigtheWonderkid said:
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff