StarGateWars Forums

I dunno exactly what it means but bow before me

Apperantly my political ideologies are quite similar to that of Ghandi .

Z E R O wrote:Apperantly my political ideologies are quite similar to that of Ghandi .

I hope you have a better fashion sense

Thriller wrote:I encourage people to form their own opinions.

But banning a burqa because you believe it to be oppressive, without actually proving it is oppressive, only serves as political theater and sets a terrible precedent.

I believe it already stands in your country; articles of clothing can be asked to be removed in cases where it in the interest of following the course of law. And such requests cannot be denied on religiouse grounds since you have a secular government.

SO what's the point of this law.... liberating women.

You deny a women what she can wear in order to protect her liberty. Do you not see the hypocrisy there Jim.

IT's just a peice of clothing.... no one should be scarred of an overly large bed sheet.

You already have laws in place for domestic violence, religious tolerance and
Spousal abuse. If they are not working maybe they need to be redressed.

Let the crazy people wear their crazy clothes..... but if you were going to ban anything, it should be this

Really what were you thinking

PS. If you want to talk about things in French, i would be more than happy too. Or even translate if your stuck.

OK, I will post something to explain myself without any of the magical tricks oftenly used by either side. (I refer to accusations of either side of anything and leave arguments aside in process).

Why is a burqa oppressive? It hides the person image. A person is made among other things of an identity. You will argue identity isn't only the face, yes, that's true. It is a security risk (people can hide behind it, and wouldn't have face displayed on security cameras if they commit a crime, and there's not someone on every corner to ask person to discover face to see if they are thug hiding or a woman). Just like people use hoods to assault banks. Now I don't think any community wears hoods so it's not same, as you more easily recognize hood wearer as a person who hides from something.

Furthermore, back on the oppressive side, take into mind that those people often want their women to go outside with husband/bro going along. That induces women aren't considered as equal to men, because they need to have a guy from family circle to keep an eye on her. Lack of trust, why women couldn't walk around freely as men? You cannot deny it's a spoil of freedom. They admit their women are their property. There's also murder to restore family's honor (it's not an urban legend, but it's still practiced by people influenced by archaic traditions), by killing the girl who did wrong, that goes along in the theory, woman must behave for family's honor and is dad's then husband's property.
It's not JUST a clothe. It's a way of life. A piece of a puzzle. Top of the iceberg. These radicalized people are also a threat to those they pretend to be "brothers" of (the muslims in general). I mean by that, if you are muslim and reject their ideas (extremists'), they (the extremists) will brand you as a traitor, as a sold out and a fake believer. And there will be threatening, if not even life threats. To submit by terror. I saw how some muslims were very heavily insulted by people with radical views because they didn't have an extremist/archaic stance, and thus were just worth to be insulted.

They themselves twist the view of their religion's book and use force to convince they are the right side following the true path. They shut opposing opinions. Just like "omierta". No speak against by fear of consequences. Reign by terror from them. Propaganda is another mean, they know the weakness of humans and know arguments to convince. It's their goal, to convince people. Some people get seduced by their speech, because they are well convincing for who can be convinced, those easy to convince.

You will agree that a nazi swatiska has nothing wrong by itself. It's just a cross. But if you consider the meaning, and what use/ideology it serves, you will see it differently.

Burqa itself might not appear as wrong. But that's what it implies, incarnates, that makes it wrong. It's one of the symbols of modern islam's enemies. The archaic dogma where women are meant to be possession of their husband. A man has the right to walk freely and has no requirement of his wife autorisation for anything. The woman, however, does. What makes the man so better than the woman that he can actually have right to decide what his wife can do, but she cannot for him? Yes, I'm a man saying that. Maybe that makes me "weak" and not enough "manly", but who cares?

Women are meant to be free. Yes, you see that it's forbidding them to wear that. But let's consider something, that's a question which is interesting. What is freedom? Forbidding something which is a limitation of freedom, or allowing this thing but causing the limitation of freedom? When two antagonist freedoms confront, you have to choose. Either way it's contradicting/paradoxal. So you have to pick a choice. If all humans were equally intelligent/influencable/critical, we would be able to let adults do what they want. But that's not the case. And you got people whose aim is to propagandate others, those people existed since the beginning, they only think about achieving their own goals, don't care about others, and even, whoever disagrees is an enemy and must be neutralized by any mean. There, it's reducing women's importance to have the good old machist point of view prevail. It's not hard to see that.
The reasoning of these guys is the following: "Women are ours, they have to hide from others as others don't have to see what is ours as it's ours. If we can convince those women to decide it by themselves, it will be better, because then the forcing factor will be less obvious, and arguments against our views will be harder to use". They use the religion argument because they know it will convince more people to follow it. Why would we give them this satisfaction to win this "freedom"?

Those people scream freedom to have right to do it. But they are incarnation of hypocrisy. Just search "freedom of speech go to hell" on google and you will see what they think about freedom. Yet they hate it, but aren't stupid. They understood that if freedom goes in their advantage, then they will demand it, otherwise, all other forms of freedoms they spit on it. They see democracies as weaklings, because we accept anything they want (due to flaws in the definition of freedom concept), as they abuse our view about freedom. They despise democracy, multi parties states, etc...you talk about secularity? I saw many times on the net in debates involving radical muslims pro burqa that they considered secularity as a cursed thing. "laïcité maudite" they said. However, their contradiction was great. They hate secularity and still use it as a shield to defend their extremists stances, and indeed say secularity means everything religious is allowed. They think secularity, being wrongly interpreted, might lead them to accomplish their goals. When those goals are met, to hell secularity, freedom etc in their mind!

However, that is NOT what secularity is. Secularity means that your freedom to practice your religion, whatever it is, is there, as long as it doesn't override the republic laws or values and becomes the "superior" law that cannot be opposed. That's why some christian things are now not permitted anymore. Because they go against the principle of neutrality. The law is the same for everyone. Even if religious people think that their law is superior to mortal law (the state's), as it's secular state, it's state law that prevails. In religious state, the religion in question overrides any other religion or mortal law. Here, no religion is priviledged over another: it's secular, neutral. No supremacy of one to another. However it's been deeply misunderstood as a free for all fair game. That's NOT that.
An atheist nation (most of times it's dictatorship like USSR) is state law only based, and persuctes religions and forbids them.
A secular nation is state law based, religions are allowed to be practiced, but within limits of state laws.
A religious nation is religious law based, and other religions don't live that well there.
Secularity doesn't mean a multi religious state based law system. That's what it's mistaken with by many. It means no religion must arrogantly show off and try to gain the balance of power between religions and be the most advantaged. Even more in this case, considering it's an extremist/imposter stance which is concerned, and not a whole religion.

It's 3am here, there's probably mistakes, but there is my late on the night post of arguments.


PS: Few examples of muslim-secular nations. In Tunisia until few years ago, any kind of veil was forbidden in administrations.
In Turkey, who was known for its hardcore secularity, veils were also forbidden in schools and administrations, most women didn't wear veils (so imagine about burqas or niqabs...). Now, things changed because the religion regained importance and secularity lost power in those nations.
So you see what secularity within another culture than France's can do, it's not about free for all, but neutrality and no upper hand/show off from a religion. If these women want to wear burqas at home, whatever...but private is private, public is public, just like you don't go running nude in public (unless it's nudist beach), isn't it?

Jim you cannot control what people think, and you shouldn't try to.

You wrote a lot there without saying anything. With little critical thought.

If you knew anything about security you would realize that wearing a burqa to hide yourself is a bad thing since you naturally stand out..... but anyway. Its just as easy to put on a ball cap, sunglasses, pair of jeans and a t-shirt (better actually).



As for the rest it's kinda of amazing how you go from burqa to muslim extremism.
terrorism is an act of violence. Not a country, or a group of people. The unibomber was a terrorist, the IRA were terrorists, it's just a tool of violence.

If your going to make a link between acts of injustice and a cloth on their head you will need to establish a causal relationship. Since your passive relationship is just a bunch of Bigoted BS. like Video games make people violent or Vaccines cause autism. It's crap and can't be taken seriously.



Not all these women are not victims Jim. As much as you want to portray them as such. If they are choosing to go along with the views of their faith... that is their choice. They can hold up signs like "screw freedom of speech" without a clue of the irony. That is liberty.

Just like how hillbillies from Texas grow up to hate black people cause their fathers did. Is it stupid... Yes. Is forcing them to think different justifiable... No.
Two wrongs don't make a right. But their are laws in place against murder, torture, rape.... Billy Ray now has the choice to sit their and maybe ponder his hatred or ..... act upon it and spend the next 25 to life in prison.

These women will eventually realize they live in a place where they can take off their burqas of they choose. If father gets angry and tries to hurt them. I would bet my life he's going to prison where his ass can get "educated" on the fact he no longer lives in afghanarak.



What you wear does not define who you are... If those women want to were those clothes they should be aloud to due so. Any link you make between what a women chooses to wear and hidden injustice... is stupid.

What your really angry about is subjugation... banning a piece of clothing will not help you deal this main issue. Making laws that allow people the freedom to choose what they can say, think, and especially wear without fear of reprobation will go a lot father.

tldr:

Pops trying to force people not to where a burqa is
the same thing as forcing them to wear one.

two wrongs don't make a right.

You both are trying to tell someone what to do and how to think. Concerning something as stupid as a piece of cloth.

Thriller wrote:Jim you cannot control what people think, and you shouldn't try to.

You wrote a lot there without saying anything. With little critical thought.

It's not about thinking it's about acting which is different and you know it that acting=/=thinking.

Thanks for proving my point I made earlier: posting here is just a waste of time..

If you knew anything about security you would realize that wearing a burqa to hide yourself is a bad thing since you naturally stand out..... but anyway. Its just as easy to put on a ball cap, sunglasses, pair of jeans and a t-shirt (better actually).

There you are wrong. They just use it when they need it, and since nobody will see their face or able to recognize them (unlike your clothing meant to be "better") they will be able to release it quickly and then walk in open without being recognized and have whatever clothes they wish below.

As for the rest it's kinda of amazing how you go from burqa to muslim extremism.
terrorism is an act of violence. Not a country, or a group of people. The unibomber was a terrorist, the IRA were terrorists, it's just a tool of violence.

What was your point? Obviously the two are linked, because who else than an extremist would want someone else to wear a burqa or wear one themselves in an European country? And obviously terrorism isn't a country, I never said otherwise.

If your going to make a link between acts of injustice and a cloth on their head you will need to establish a causal relationship. Since your passive relationship is just a bunch of Bigoted BS. like Video games make people violent or Vaccines cause autism. It's crap and can't be taken seriously.

Thanks for proving my point again that posting in this forum about some subjects is an utter waste of time due to expert hiding in sand behaviour where no arguments can be heard deep down in the sand. Well better remind it twice than once I guess?

Not all these women are not victims Jim. As much as you want to portray them as such. If they are choosing to go along with the views of their faith... that is their choice. They can hold up signs like "screw freedom of speech" without a clue of the irony. That is liberty.

And there you hide your head in the sand. Have you ever heard of propaganda or conditionning people? As I said, this isn't a wonderland where everyone chooses without any forcing whatever they want. It's not a society theory on paper, it's reality damn!
Ah well, if that's how Canada is, then I really envy you, yes I do. Consider yourself lucky to live in a country where people can still think by themselves without having a background voice to "tell them what to do or else".

Just like how hillbillies from Texas grow up to hate black people cause their fathers did. Is it stupid... Yes. Is forcing them to think different justifiable... No.
Two wrongs don't make a right. But their are laws in place against murder, torture, rape.... Billy Ray now has the choice to sit their and maybe ponder his hatred or ..... act upon it and spend the next 25 to life in prison.

Yes laws, that's exactly the point.

These women will eventually realize they live in a place where they can take off their burqas of they choose. If father gets angry and tries to hurt them. I would bet my life he's going to prison where his ass can get "educated" on the fact he no longer lives in afghanarak.

That's where you are wrong again. There was close to no burqas ten year ago. What you don't seem to realize is that it didn't "always existed". It's something that appeared recently & isn't going to go, more like the contrary. These women are out of the system, since they wear burqas, man can kick the hell out of them and nobody on the street will notice their scars.

What you wear does not define who you are... If those women want to were those clothes they should be aloud to due so. Any link you make between what a women chooses to wear and hidden injustice... is stupid.

Keep telling yourself that doesn't mean that it will become like that. I think being european citizen interested in politics for several years living in suburbs means that I probably faced that, not like if I was some guy who lived in a upper class closed neighbourhood and only heard about those issues without ever seeing them. ("oh it must not exist as I never saw it")

What your really angry about is subjugation... banning a piece of clothing will not help you deal this main issue. Making laws that allow people the freedom to choose what they can say, think, and especially wear without fear of reprobation will go a lot father.

What you don't seem to understand is that CURRENTLY women are NOT FORBIDDEN by law to wear burqas and the likes. Does it mean it solved anything? NO NO & NO! As I said, this issue didn't even exist ten years ago! Now it's an overgrowing issue. I have always seen different communities from different origins in my city. When I was kid/preteen, the simple veil was the most hiding thing (that was before). Then I started to see hidjabs and niqabs even within my town who isn't meant to be a hardcore suburb (where people are disconnected from the state and live in autarcy in their own traditions and where the police is assaulted any time it goes there I mean). All of that with STILL freedom to wear whatever we want. Step 1 was veil only which isn't a problem, and niqabs/hidjabs in "hardcore" suburbs. Then what was in those hardcore suburbs where police lost control and gangs reign started to appear here. Something that was never seen before. Which was barely seen in Maghreb either, and now starts to appear there too. Now the burqas appeared for several years in those hardcore suburbs, and thanks to the SO CALLED "liberating freedom of wearing what you want", it's undoubtfully that I will start to see few around in the next years. Which then will mean they became frequent. When you are free to wear whatever you want, why would you stop to do it? When you are too permissive about everything, it just asks for people to push for more limits, which is actually the case on the matter. All the steps I mentionned are the result of the growth of extremist stance which gains importance and weight since the middle of 2000's.

You both are trying to tell someone what to do and how to think. Concerning something as stupid as a piece of cloth.

That's the top of the iceberg.


But well, if you think that hiding head in sand is a good thing...oh well.
Since you value freedom so much, did you know that Afghanistan in the 70's was one of the leading countries among muslim countries in the modernism and freedom of women? Same as Turkey and Tunisia used to be? See how it became in the 90's. Why would we in France still give freedom to this ideology that corrupted and polluted Afghanistan's values so much that they went from an opposite to another in barely 20 years? You can deny it has any link, but as I said, Afghanistan wasn't always like that...and France/Netherlands/UK didn't always had women who hid their body completly if not even their face. And Egypt neither. Now burqa is frequent in Egypt, while several decades ago 95% of Egyptians would probably have tld they never saw one in their life in the streets.

The only weakness of a democracy is a weakness to not dare to limit freedom to the groups that want the end of freedom (as a whole). And the people who want it so know it pretty well. As long as people will say "it's just a clothe it's nothing", "stop being paranoid", "this is exagerated unrealistic linking", "freedom to wear it will solve problem" they won't have issues do do what they want and things will carry on within their way since no law will stop them (when you are free to do something, why would you stop?). And don't be naive to think that issue will solve by itself. Because the issue grew up without any forbiddance. We don't talk about teens who do what they are forbidden of just to rebel, we are talking about adults. I don't see why this minority's freedom should be superior to the rest and they should be allowed to do whatever they want no matter the consequences for the rest of the population. That's utter 'favoritism', and a growing % of french and european people don't want about that anymore.


This all reminds me of a famous trilogy, the Matrix. The matrix is the ideal life, how world should be. But it's all fake. People who hide their head in the sand thinking that freedom will solve all problems and that being in an all freedom for everything nation solves all is like living in the Matrix. What did Morpheus say already? Ah yes, those who believe in the matrix refuse to see the reality and prefer to live in a non existing fictional world that suits their mind. Same as people might say we should wake up because we don't see this or that which is for them an obvious thing we refuse to admit, I'm in the same situation there facing your refuting lot. Maybe you decided to take the blue pill?

Your so frustrating, it's like talking to someone right out the loony bin.

You make such huge leaps in logic is laughable.


"Burqas help support terrorism...."
"People aren't capable of making their own choices.. there always needs to be someon to tell them what to do."
"If we give them freedom on what to wear.. next they will be asking to marry their dogs."
"Burqas helped lead to the fall of Afghanistan"
...


"*Subjective qualification with hyberbole*"
"*Subjective qualification with hyberbole*"

BLAH BLAH BLAH.........

Seriously go get an education, you are of deperate need.

Thriller wrote:Your such an idiot, it's like talking to someone right out the loony bin.

You make such huge leaps in logic is laughable.


"Burqas help support terrorism...."
"People aren't capable of making their own choices.. there always needs to be someon to tell them what to do."
"If we give them freedom on what to wear.. next they will be asking to marry their dogs."
"Burqas helped lead to the fall of Afghanistan"
...


"*Subjective qualification with hyberbole*"
"*Subjective qualification with hyberbole*"

BLAH BLAH BLAH.........

Seriously go get an education, you are of deperate need.

Translation= "lalala I hear nothing it's all a lie I understood nothing and pretend I did to look smart lalala" *covers his ears while repeating that*

Thanks for proving my point. NOT ANY SINGLE counter argument just utter plain foolishness. YOU need to get some education, YOU are in desperate need: it's five years old who protect their ears and eyes and sing "lalala I hear nothing it's all a lie"..

How silly could I be? Holding a discussion with arguments. Damn, I knew I shouldn't have tried, but still had hopes there was still some sanity left to expect that a "mature" discussing would be hold without rudeness and personal attacks on intelligence. My loss to have made this mistake. NEVER EVER hold too high hopes, that's lesson I learnt today with you.


Oh god, I know of a political forum where we miss people like you (immature rude people who shout diabolizing everytime they see someone disagreeing and post utter nonsense in reply). I will link you to this forum, can you please register there and behave as you do here with me to entertain us so we have something to laugh about? (only requirement is to speak french)

I speak french already,
I also laready discuss lots of things on another political forum, they also agree your an idiot

How about we take a poll jim concerning who made the better argument...

Thriller wrote:I speak french already,
I also laready discuss lots of things on another political forum, they also agree your an idiot

How about we take a poll jim concerning who made the better argument...

I sometimes brought arguments you brought and they agreed it's probably an ignorant who is doing interference in subjects they don't know about (or think they do). Then I mentionned it was people from North America and they said "ah that explains all, different culture, different view about things". So don't worry, you also appeared as an idiot on the net.
I'm pretty sure those forums happend to be one sided politically forums. Ah well, I cannot blame you for that. I tend to do that too. We usually seek people who don't cover their ears every time we open our mouthes.

Take a poll in a mostly american/canadian based forum to compare a north american view to an european view? Lol how more biased could it be..?

No its an open forum. Type "sociocide" into google and you'll find it.

Thriller wrote:No its an open forum. Type "sociocide" into google and you'll find it.

And yet it wouldn't come to my mind to go on forum, to shout that people's opinion on Patriot Act (using it as an example) are wrong if they don't agree with me, because from my OUTSIDER point of view I consider it to be a spoil of personal freedoms.
Maybe that's a culture thing, I don't know. Maybe I don't have the arrogance to pretend to know better than people when it's problems within their own nations and not mine but still pretend to know more than them and reject anything they say with rude non-arguments.

PS: had a look at this forum, and this doesn't really seem to be serious kind of forum. It's not the kind of forum I would use for discussing politics, at least.
PPS: read it a bit more, I don't even think I would even register or use such site.

Maybe some mod could split anything related to burqa/opinions of opinions about burqas and not to the political compass and send it to debate section? (even if it looks more like a rappers diss party than a debate but well?)

It's still a shame you view all those non sequiturs as arguments. If you were to use that line of thinking in a term paper you would have failed...


The final cumulation with the matrix comparison was freaking hilarious though.

Obviously my belief in freedom is just dumb idolatry of an idea.

Forcing people to follow your beliefs is much better. And has worked so well throughout history...

Thriller wrote:It's still a shame you view all those non sequiturs as arguments. If you were to use that line of thinking in a term paper you would have failed...


The final cumulation with the matrix comparison was freaking hilarious though.

Obviously my belief in freedom is just dumb idolatry of an idea.

Forcing people to follow your beliefs is much better. And has worked so well throughout history...

Letting people do everything they want without a set of rules worked very well indeed...freedom to do as you wish, even if it implies get rid of annoying people who are a limit to your freedom.

Since we are into going utterly off subject and go into generalizations of concepts..
What happend to Indians already in the USA in the 19th century?


Comparing past doesn't always work, because you know there's this thing that happend inbetween, which we call globalization. People being isolated within their nations not knowing what's going on elsewhere, well, whatever freedom they might have, it was just not the same as with instant medias and easy travel around the world.
But well, I'm sure you knew already that things change and comparing such concepts as freedom is definitely not the same in 18th century than now. (as we all know your knowledge is beyond one thousand times superior to mine, at the very very least, isn't it?)

But well, I forgot completly that you knew much more about France/Europe issues than me, because you have the undeniable advantage of not living there, which gives you an upper knowledge over mine.

If I was a person who wanted to know how things are going in Europe, of course I would ask someone living in another continent more than someone living in Europe to know most accurately what's going there. Because it's a well known fact that people who are outsiders know more than the insiders. Wait...isn't it the opposite?

PS: I still wait for your counter arguments, outside of "I am the knowledge, and you are the ignorance".

Also, I couldn't care less if you consider my arguments as non sequitur because I don't follow the orthodoxical way to express my arguments, I'm not here to succeed an exam by following the protocol of essaying, earn a degree or anything.

See, your an idiot...

No one is talking about giving people the freedom to kill one another.

It's the freedom to wear an over sized bed sheet.

I don't understand why you have such a problem differentiated between those ideas.

You have taken everything to the extreme. (If I spill a glass of water on my floor you can hardly call that a flood. )

I obviously do know more about French history than you because the leaders of the French revolution would be laughing at you. Like i am now.

I have been to france before, and ate along side you arrogant pricks. I even scored with of one your women.

Ah Melony.. we will always have Paris.