Greased Gerbil's Quote Discussion #8 - Stereotypes

[LegendaryA]

They are arguments jim, it's not my fault you don't know what non sequitor means or confirmation bias.

That's what people who brand the denying flag would say. "This is nonsense" "This is madness" "This is bias"..And could we know why it's madness, bias, nonsense etc? It's a thing to say it, but explaining why...ahh...another matter.

So when you supossed the link between what muslim women wear and the end of free soceity and the beggining a sharia law. I didn't even adress it because it is inherently retarded because it's inherently flawed.

Thanks for proving my point. Insult+I don't adress it+it's wrong. Without proving why it's not. Learn how to counter something, seriously. Saying "I don't answer you because it's wrong and retarded" is NOT an argument! Simply because you don't provide something to prove clearly why it has no links.

If you want to accept that relationship as true then it would apply to every artlicle of clothing to some degree or another. Jeans, hats, t-shirts could be seen as tyranny depending on the political climate.

Not any of those are used by religious extremists to try to defend their excessive prudeness (it infact goes against it). Obviously in "extremist" countries those are forbidden, but their motivations are...those clothes are indecent, sexual whatever they use as excuses...
But, we aren't extremist-overprude-bigot nations, so why would we want to permit things coming from any kind of fundamentalism/extremism ideology? It would be contradicting, wouldn't it? Allow the things we try to fight, that's not very logical, isn't it?
It's that those people are against freedom to wear t-shirts for women, same as robes, minishorts etc. Because it goes against their prude views to hide woman's body. And I here I thought you were against prudeness. I was wrong.

If you want to set the precedent you're considering, it would be best to walk around naked.

I didn't know that a tshirt was same as a burqa, oh well...people walking naked, what would clothin brands do then?

Oh but you prudes wouldn't like that either.

What makes me grin is people like you yelling prudeness all the time who look like they only think that christians are prude. While prudeness (from another culture than christianity) is the very thing that motivates people to wear burqa, while in different cultures prudeness motivates them to be anti condoms and any kind of abortion (traditionalist christians and other traditionalists from other religions). So don't act like you are anti prude, either you criticize extremism/prudeness from all religions (considering also many of this excessive prudeness is often imposter stuff), or none. If you are anti prudeness and bigotry, then you are as much against burqa as you are against any kind of such ridiculously excessive prudeness (forbidding t shirts or shorts for women, forbidding condoms etc)

Burqa is another incarnation of hard prudeness. It doesn't require much knowledge to realize that. That's maybe shocking for some people, but big prudeness isn't uniquely related to traditionalist christianity.

[Thriller]

Your an idiot Jim.

Your head is so thick it could proabaly break a cinder block.

This is why everyone with half a brain makes fun when they reply to your posts...

Just because someone else does something it doesn't mean you should. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its wrong.

You dont understand the basic concept that freedom means you get to decide for yourself. If that means being a fundamentalist nutjob, that's your choice. Trying to stop this is oppression of religeon. KEy word being opression.

mini skirts and tank tops don't mean freedom jim. You get to be a prude in a free soceity. WTH is wrong with you?

[LegendaryA]

Your an idiot Jim.

Your head is so thick it could proabaly break a cinder block.

This is why everyone with half a brain makes fun when they reply to your posts...

Just because someone else does something it doesn't mean you should. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its wrong.

You dont understand the basic concept that freedom means you get to decide for yourself. It that means being a fundamentalist nutjob, that's your choice. Trying to stop this is oppression of religeon. KEy word being opression.

mini skirts and tank tops don't mean freedom jim. You get to be a prude in a free soceity. WTH is wrong with you?

I reported your post.
You crossed the line there. I'll have a discussion with Juliette about you when she comes back, and your total inability to carry a debate with a minimum of behaving.

[Thriller]

lol the refuge of a desprate man.

[LegendaryA]

](*,)


lol the refuge of a desprate man.

You deny the insults?

Just because someone else does something it doesn't mean you should. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its wrong.

Strange, I have the feeling you used this very thing ("I don't like it, so it's wrong")

[Thriller]

no jim. I have reasons for my opinions which i can articulate and weigh against other opinions so i can make better informed ones.

you should try it sometime.

[LegendaryA]

no jim. I have reasons for my opinions which i can articulate and weigh against other opinions so i can make better informed ones.

you should try it sometime.

I should, I would love to. But I usually don't want to listen to rude guys who insult others and I would more likely care seriously about people who post arguments and behave at a minimum.
Oh well, rest of your post seemed to be interesting arguements, but well, you managed to reach a higher level of rudeness than usually, which unfortunately withdrew my attention from those arguemnts.
Maybe in future you will learn to only use arguements, and then you will get the debate you look for. Being a mod, you should do that already, but well...

Now that we discussed the utter immature part of your post, let's discuss the rest.

You dont understand the basic concept that freedom means you get to decide for yourself. It that means being a fundamentalist nutjob, that's your choice. Trying to stop this is oppression of religeon. KEy word being opression.

That would be right in a minimal state, where the laws/restrictions are minimal, and that people are able to act freely, no matter what are consequences. However, my country is secular, we seperated state with religion. Which means that republican laws prevail over any religious law/habit/dogma if both were to collide (excision, pollygamy for example), and that state has more implication than just doing police and army job like minimal state supporters wants it to be. Which nullifies the "oppression" argument, because since 1905, it's been this way, we are just applying the theoretical "secular nation". Because no matter which religion, the state law is above if both are in a conflict. However, all religions, as long as they don't go against our republican laws, are permitted within its limits. Your argument is totally valid in a minimal state mainly focused on Freedom with a capital (libertarian state?).
France and similar nations are not:
-advantage to a religion and disadvantage to others (like many religious nations),
-all religions forbidden (like USSR was)
-all freedoms even if they collide/contradict each others and restrictions to an utter minimum (minimal state influence)
I think I said that already, but I think this argument was ignored and answered with insults last time I explained why France isn't among the All-Freedom nations, but just a democracy with restrictions like even USA has at some level.

That's what makes us contrary to a religious state where religious law prevails over mortal law. Where fundamentalist nutjobs feel the best, considering they have more influence, but on the other hand, those who don't adhere to "prudeness" aren't really in the best place according to their stance.
France and some other involved European nations never said their were minimal states where the limitations are kept to a minimum and people have maximal freedom to do whatever they want no matter what and no matter the consequences and meanings. We are taking a balanced position on the matter, to avoid falling either in the maximal freedom state, or the maximal restricted state. You advocate for the first, the fundamentalist advocate for the latter (within their own opinions settings of course)

Things changed since our first revolution. Two empires, one restaurated monarchy, five new constitutions under different republics, and a dictatorship during world war. What was said two hundred years ago during the first revolution was adapted with changes over centuries. And thus, even if it means we don't follow the Freedom in a libertarian sense, it's not a problem considering that it's a well known fact only during first revolution the extended liberal values prevailed in France. USA didn't have empires a monarchy since their revolution, which means that their situation is different and what you apply to USA, you cannot apply to France.

mini skirts and tank tops don't mean freedom jim. You get to be a prude in a free soceity. WTH is wrong with you?

Can you explain the latter part of this? This doesn't make sense to me.

[Thriller]

Maybe were having a loss in translation.

In now way do i want something close to anarchy.

I don't want people restricted on practising their faith when it can be helped
I don't want people restricted as to what they are allowed to wear. (or even not to wear really)

See Jim, you don't understand that i don't think the state has a right to tell you how to live your life when you are not directly infringing on anothers freedom.

Choosing to wear a burqa effects only the freedom of the person who wants to wear it. The reasons for wearing are just semantics and cloud the fact that they should have the right to.

What if your politic changed and you found husbands were starting to force their wives to wear miniskirts. Some women still are choosing to wear them but another segment are being forced underthreat to wear the garment for their husbands pleasure.

Would banning the minskirt be an appopriate response?

[LegendaryA]

Maybe were having a loss in translation.

In now way do i want something close to anarchy.

I don't want people restricted on practising their faith when it can be helped
I don't want people restricted as to what they are allowed to wear. (or even not to wear really)

See Jim, you don't understand that i don't think the state has a right to tell you how to live your life when you are not directly infringing on anothers freedom.

Choosing to wear a burqa effects only the freedom of the person who wants to wear it. The reasons for wearing are just semantics and cloud the fact that they should have the right to.

That's why such things as political compass exist, because of the differences between positions of each individual/party/theories. That view of yours seem to fit with USA bases. USA are nowhere near an anarchist nation, and indeed some states still have restrictions on clothes due to past beliefs but they tend to usually try to follow the above you said.

What if your politic changed and you found husbands were starting to force their wives to wear miniskirts. Some women still are choosing to wear them but another segment are being forced underthreat to wear the garment for their husbands pleasure.

Would banning the minskirt be an appopriate response.

Well, this is a rather complicated question, at least it would be if the burqa problem was only cultural/habit/forcing related. I think that in the burqa case, there's also the problem of security. People tend to abuse freedoms they get offered for their own interest: the matter of hiding self to do wrong things, how to solve: forbid face hiding, or not? That's one of the countless collides between security and freedom. (that could be a ground of debate between two parties who support each one)
If you notice how this gets solved (security vs freedom), it's always trying to look for balance between both. That's why the law is against burqas precisely. Not the simple veil.
This is thus not only a matter of culture/habit/forcing which would involve miniskirts (and that's why simple veil isn't concerned by this burqa law, because veil of one can be the miniskirt of another)

There we open the door of one of those unending debates (several hundred years old debate still kicking nowadays & still for a long long time): freedom vs security/restriction. It's all about this, and what percent of each you give for every issue in everydays life.

[Thriller]

Comming from someone who has worked in security avenger. The burqa is no more a threat than baggy jeans. (for conceilment of weapons)

Soldiers wear camo to blend in. Same with Cops who are undercover wear civilian clothes identifying them to the group they are inflatrating.

Wearing a burqa in a french airport or subway station will make you stand out.

And I thought this was more than just about security. Just because i changed the garment in question.
Your ideas of religious extremism no longer apply?

[LegendaryA]

Comming from someone who has worked in security avenger. The burqa is no more a threat than baggy jeans. (for conceilment of weapons)

However, video cameras and human witnesses will only be able to say they saw a person in a burqa, maybe be lucky to determine whether it's a male or female if they hear voice from said person. No possible recognizing among suspects presented would be possible. (it's rather hard to determine who's guilty one if they present five possible suspects of same height, weight with a burqa hiding them). Even a mask hiding face is easier to determine the weight of person, if they have tough body, if they have big belly etc...
Even harder if the assault happens during night. Witnesses would say "I saw a ghost" (because it looks like stereotypical ghost)

Soldiers wear camo to blend in. Same with Cops who are undercover wear civilian clothes identifying them to the group they are inflatrating.

They are the security forces...they don't have same motives/reasons for hiding. We grant security forces extra rights compared to simple citizens, it's not my wish to discuss about equality between citizens and security forces during job time.

Wearing a burqa in a french airport or subway station will make you stand out.

In a airport obviously, subway it would be perfect to escape and go "unnoticed" (of course people would notice, but it's rather easy to find a place to change clothes before you appear as suspect or get caught, without a camera to be effective). Knowing well the Paris subway, I can tell that it wouldn't be that hard to escape with this. Only if there was suspicious cops, but even, if no law is there, they might not dare to question the person or ask to release the burqa to discover themselves. They wouldn't have anything giving them right to do that, if no law goes against this, and the burqa person would invoke "oppression" or something of that sort. We don't have many police squads in subway, simply because usually, there's no real need to. High risk place like airports are more protected and thus harder tricking with burqa it is.
There was bank/postal office attacks with guys hiding under burqas during last monthes in France. I don't remember if they got caught, but at least I remember witnesses & cameras were useless in those cases.

And I thought this was more than just about security. Just because i changed the garment in question.
Your ideas of religious extremism no longer apply?

No, it just means this law isn't based on a single reason. And the addition of both makes the defending of the law rather easier. It solves two issues in a go.

[Kit-Fox]

Removed

[Thriller]

You guys watch to many movies.

I can't take that seriously when it's so obviouse you don't know what your taking about

Identity is not an immdediate requisite for security. Your not getting on a plane without showing your face. You can still look suspicious while wearing a bed sheet. Even more so since you stick out with it on, making any suspiciouse behavior that much more noticeable

I can figure out who you are/were after i shoot/arrest/detain you.

[[KMA]Avenger]

First thing;
I don't suffer fools.

Secound;
I know you and jim like the idea of me with my head in the ground and my ass in the air. So you can carry out some kind of homosexual rape fanstasy but it's not going to happen.

remember that queer we had on these boards some months back? remember the grilling i gave him (and i was being polite, if he was in front of me i would have been SERIOUSLY offended to the point of violence)?
now why would you accuse me of wanting to perform indecent acts with you after i gave that queer such a rough time here, could it be because you subconsciously want someone to perform such disgusting acts with you?


sorry, i don't do requests

[Kit-Fox]

Removed