Support NeoGAF

[Subpar Scrub]

This. So much.



Speaking other languages in public also hurts integration. Ban that too.

Ethnic food promotes isolation. Ban that too.

Everything you've posted in this thread is just so ridiculous I can't even handle it. You're a riot.

I remember the other night I had Indian food and it assisted in regressing my social integration and isolated me. Good times?

How quickly do I have to take off my helmet?

Especially this. Answer is immediately, dude.

The best way to liberate people is usually to restrict what they can do.

Sometimes yeah. "You can't be a slave nor own a slave anymore" was pretty cool.

 

[Kinyou]

Come on, we both know that we won't see programs like this being created or receiving extra funding. That would require people concerned over the niqab to actually care about women's rights.

That's quite the claim

 

[Muffin1611]

For future generations? Certainly. For the women who are currently wearing a niqab? Most likely, yes.

Lol, no. The future generations will be forced to stay at home as the current will be.

 

[jett]

Yes impeccable logic. Men should also be forced to wear bikini's on the beach next time /s

You're writing this because you are completely misinformed to the reason why women chose to cover themselves like this.

Is there something besides years/decades of religious indoctrination and oppression from birth?

 

[NyMartin90]

I don't want to stay on the whatabouitisms but this question of religion and integration or civil liberties and the reaction to the decision begs the question, imagine the reaction if Donald Trump was the one who made this decision in the
US.

 

[boiled goose]

Well the court disagrees with you there.

What kind of defense is this?? I disagree with the court.

Clear argument from authority logical fallacy.

Plenty of courts have enforced irrational, immoral, bigoted laws throughout history.

Don't think you need a lesson to acknowledge that.

 

[Kayhan]

The best way to liberate people is usually to restrict what they can do.

Yes who are we to restrict men from hitting their wives.

After all, the right to discipline your wife was a mans right for thousands of years in Europe!

Thankfully we have this thing called progress.

 

[fantomena]

What kind of defense is this?? I disagree with the court.

Clear argument from authority logical fallacy.

Plenty of courts have enforced irrational, immoral, bigoted laws throughout history.

Don't think you need a lesson to acknowledge that.

That was not a defense.

You disagree with the court and the court disagree with you, that's all it was.

 

[Matt]

Yes who are we to restrict men from hitting their wives.

After all, the right to discipline your wife was a mans right for thousands of years in Europe!

Thankfully we have this thing called progress.

This is a completely ridiculous comparison. One is an act of physical violence against another person. The other is if someone can wear a type of clothing.

 

[boiled goose]

Yes who are we to restrict men from hitting their wives.

After all, the right to discipline your wife was a mans right for thousands of years in Europe!

Thankfully we have this thing called progress.

Haha. What a weak comeback. It's usually pretty easy to draw the line when things actually affect others directly.

What an intellectually empty response. Smh

 

[Skinpop]

The best way to liberate people is usually to restrict what they can do.

yes sometimes that's the case.

 

[Kthulhu]

Yes who are we to restrict men from hitting their wives.

After all, the right to discipline your wife was a mans right for thousands of years in Europe!

Thankfully we have this thing called progress.

Nice logical fallacy.

 

[Matt]

yes sometimes that's the case.

No, it's not.

 

[Kralamoonard]

Well the court disagrees with you there.

Because courts are always right?

 

[gutter_trash]

this makes Classical Liberals right when it comes to secularism and this makes the Anglosphere Liberals wrong

 

[Miles Quaritch]

I don't want to stay on the whatabouitisms but this question of religion and integration or civil liberties and the reaction to the decision begs the question, imagine the reaction if Donald Trump was the one who made this decision in the
US.

Lots of faux outrage while quietly agreeing with the decision.

No different from the Muslim ban. The original protests were more about protesting his election and they latched onto the Muslim ban, where were the protests when the supreme court held up a partial ban?

 

[Frost_Ace]

This ban is most likely political but I see no reason why the banning of clothes that cover your whole face in public spaces is immoral.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Haha. What a weak comeback. It's usually pretty easy to draw the line when things actually affect others directly.

And having to fully cover their face doesnt affect them directly?

Theres an irony to be had here..

 

[fantomena]

Because courts are always right?

I never said the court was right.

 

[His Majesty]

Lol, no. The future generations will be forced to stay at home as the current will be.

I think it will more likely serve as a deterrent and future generations will be much less likely to adopt such a piece of clothing.

 

[DerZuhälter]

"Liberties. But we decide which ones. If you don't like it stay where you are right now."

Despicable decision, I'm ashamed to be part of Europe and disgusted to see so much unashamed support for it here.

 

[Kayhan]

This is a completely ridiculous comparison. One is an act of physical violence against another person. The other is if someone can wear a type of clothing.

It is a completely logical, apt and appropriate comparison. You just don't want to hear it.

Sad to see so many defenders of religiously mandated oppression of women here.

 

[NyMartin90]

Lots of faux outrage while quietly agreeing with the decision.

No different from the Muslim ban. The original protests were more about protesting his election and they latched onto the Muslim ban, where were the protests when the supreme court held up a partial ban?

Thats a good point.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Oh the law forces that then? Not the oppressive husband?

Does anything about this law suggest that it's actually interested in the well being of the women within those abusive relationships?

 

[Khaz]

"Laws limit my freedom!"

Every law is authoritarian in nature. Deal with it. You can't demand absolute freedom when you live in society: your absolute freedom necessarily prevents someone else's absolute freedom to be exerted.

 

[Kthulhu]

This ban is most likely political but I see no reason why the banning of clothes that cover your whole face in public spaces is immoral.

The issue is that it's discriminatory in nature.

 

[Muffin1611]

this makes Classical Liberals right when it comes to secularism and this makes the Anglosphere Liberals wrong

Y'know, some people care if there now will be women forced to stay home and pushed further into the arms of their oppressors, or women who can't wear it anymore as purely self-determined expression of their religion.

As opposed to jerking yourself off because someone is right and someone else is not.

I think it will more likely serve as a deterrent and future generations will be much less likely to adopt such a piece of clothing.

Who will teach them that? The people outside, who they won't have access to anymore because their father forbids them going out without a veil?

 

[Kralamoonard]

Is there something besides years/decades of religious indoctrination and oppression from birth?

Hmmm, maybe there's something called actually talking to a Muslim woman wearing a niqab or reading posts and articles online from there?

I'm not going to fix your own ignorance and clearly bigoted preconceived notions for you. Your narrow mindedness is your problem to fix. Not mine.

 

[fantomena]

And having to fully cover their face doesnt affect them directly?

Theres an irony to be had here..

Well it's good for their husband if they get a divorce, the man marries another woman who also wears a niqab, so the man doesn't need to change the wedding pics.

 

[rudger]

I was talking about the Dutch situation, my apologies.

In the Netherlands all face-covering items like motor helmets, niqab and ski-masks are prohibited in closed public spaces.

Edit: Also the reasons the European Court allow the ban on face covering items is not the same as the reason given for the ban. Ie: The law banning it says it is about identification (so all full face covering items) the upholding by the European Court considers religion.

Banning all face coverings out of a public safety concern seems extreme, but if a country felt they needed to do this, I'm not familiar enough with their culture, history and laws to argue. It's unfortunate if it directly contradicts a religious practice, and I hate when carve outs are given to religious groups - which happens often in America and Israel.

But if the law has been in place for a long time, then it is something anybody moving there should be aware of. If it was put in place after a large community of people who wear face coverings moved in, then it's possible it was poorly thought out or was in fact prejudiced.

I am just generally hesitant about any laws being made about what people can wear in public

And it's pretty messed up if the European court added religious meaning to a law that had none.

 

[Skinpop]

No, it's not.

that's demonstrably false.

Regardless, if you had read OP you'd see that social cohesion, not liberation - was the point of the legislation.

 

[wartama]

Yes impeccable logic. Men should also be forced to wear bikini's on the beach next time /s

You're writing this because you are completely misinformed to the reason why women chose to cover themselves like this.

I feel a lot of the preconceived notions of this thread would be tackled if people actually went outside and talked to Muslim women rather than super impose on them what they've read from the Fox News...

They don't care. We know it, they know it.

Muslim women should be seen (without the hijab of course; they must be beautiful under that tent, why won't their husbands and dads let us see them, dammit) but should not be heard. Shit what, did she talk?! La La La, I didn't hear, I love all women, they should have freedom, we're helping them, La La La. Did she go? Phew, now I can talk all I want.

Muslim women are oppressed and fo-

 

[Miles Quaritch]

"Laws limit my freedom!"

Every law is authoritarian in nature. Deal with it. You can't demand absolute freedom when you live in society: your absolute freedom necessarily prevents someone else's absolute freedom to be exerted.

Does this apply to free speech too?

 

[Matt]

It is a completely logical, apt and appropriate comparison. You just don't want to hear it.

No, it's not. If anything it's a massively offensive artificial comparison.

 

[gutter_trash]

Y'know, some people care if there now will be women forced to stay home and pushed further into the arms of their oppressors, or women who wear it as purely self-determined expression of their religion.

As opposed to jerking yourself off because someone is right and someone else is not.

doesn't that expose a major flaw of the regressive nature of a religion in the first place?

 

[Kayhan]

"Laws limit my freedom!"

Every law is authoritarian in nature. Deal with it. You can't demand absolute freedom when you live in society: your absolute freedom necessarily prevents someone else's absolute freedom to be exerted.

Exactly.

All laws by their nature seeks to control your behavior in some way or other.

But without laws the only law is the law of the jungle.

 

[Kinyou]

"Liberties. But we decide which ones. If you don't like it stay where you are right now."

Despicable decision, I'm ashamed to be part of Europe and disgusted to see so much unashamed support for it here.

Where is this magic country where you have the freedom to do anything you want?

 

[Subpar Scrub]

Hmmm, maybe there's something called actually talking to a Muslim woman wearing a niqab or reading posts and articles online from there?

I'm not going to fix your own ignorance and clearly bigoted preconceived notions for you. Your narrow mindedness is your problem to fix. Not mine.

"Find your own research, because I care, but not enough to provide examples or evidence."

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Well it's good for their husband if they get a divorce, the man marries another woman who also wears a niqab, so the man doesn't need to change the wedding pics.

Is there any data to suggest the majority of womwn are forced to wear the full face veil?

We all love data, it'd be interesting to see if it backs up the widely held belief of women being forced to wear it.

 

[Tuck]

Totally fine by me. Has no place in western society. Hijabs are fine.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

Lol, no. The future generations will be forced to stay at home as the current will be.

Why would that be?

 

[Muffin1611]

doesn't that expose a major flaw of the regressive nature of a religion in the first place?

And I'm sure further isolating practicioners of said religion will help erasing those flaws.

Why would that be?

See above.

 

[Kthulhu]

"Laws limit my freedom!"

Every law is authoritarian in nature. Deal with it. You can't demand absolute freedom when you live in society: your absolute freedom necessarily prevents someone else's absolute freedom to be exerted.

Okay? How does telling women what they can and can't wear free anyone?

 

[NewDust]

Does this apply to free speech too?

Yes?!

 

[boiled goose]

And having to fully cover their face doesnt affect them directly?

Theres an irony to be had here..

I said affect others. If someone is forcing someone to dress a certain way, that is already illegal.

 

[Khaz]

Does this apply to free speech too?

Yes.

 

[Audioboxer]

Haha. What a weak comeback. It's usually pretty easy to draw the line when things actually affect others directly.

What an intellectually empty response. Smh

That's a very misguided comment I've bolded above. Routinely in topics like this men come out in droves to say "it's just clothing, it doesn't affect women". To which most would say even if you are a man, try wearing a full-face veil non-stop daily, for a whole year and let us know how it impacts your comfort, social interactions and how you feel about yourself/self-worth and your body. It's the disconnect in Western societies between feminists trying to argue about body positivity for women and it being up to MEN to stop sexualising women unfairly, and then the victim-blaming of saying it's women who should cover up/never be proud of their bodies/etc. Full-face and body coverings like this have that baggage whether anyone likes it or not. It's part of their history. It matters in discussions around them and decision making.

I do not think there is much worth in the comparison games that go on in topics like this, from ski-masks to bear costumes to talking about things men could legally do to women xx years ago in Europe (often hands on discipline like the post you quoted). I agree there. However, I also have to question some posts that act like a full-face veil/burqa is like going into H&M and just picking up the summer 2017 fashion release and off you go.

 

[Kralamoonard]

"Find your own research, because I care, but not enough to provide examples or evidence."

I've already mentioned a few reasons ITT. You can easily search my name in the search bar and see my posts on this topic.

I've already mentioned one that I've been directly told; for some they feel a level of personal piety (which for some reason people are completely misunderstanding as indoctrination). There are also other reasons mentioned ITT. I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again, if people are genuinely concerned over this and want to find out than they can easily search this thread, mine and other users posts on this topic or Google it rather than repeating myself as nauseum.

If people are coming in with twisted pre conceived notions about Islam and religion in general, then we're going to need a bit more than a GAF post to respond to that.

 

[Kayhan]

Okay? How does telling women what they can and can't wear free anyone?

As a man I am not allowed to walk around naked in public.

How dare society tell me what I can and can't wear!

The purpose of laws is to set boundaries.

All countries have laws. They may differ but that is why we have many countries and cultures.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Okay? How does telling women what they can and can't wear free anyone?

By taking a stand against religious oppression.