| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2010 04:42:35 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your argument also goes directly against Amnesty International who, I think, is a well respected institution by all sides. When they speak, people tend to listen. |
Then do so. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 05:19:30 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your argument also goes directly against Amnesty International who, I think, is a well respected institution by all sides. When they speak, people tend to listen. |
Then do so. |
Haha. Well played. Although, believe it or not, I'm in agreement with that page as I think Washington's approach to the issue is balanced and agreeable. The AI page specifically mentions Washington (among others) as being acceptable (well, they don't use that word, but the mention seems to be an endorsement).
Message edited by author 2010-09-16 17:24:36. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 06:17:06 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If France considers schools "religion-free" then why do they allow "discrete displays"? |
Do they? If you mean discrete as in "subtle," then you might get by with a small cross on a necklace, but yarmulkes and large crosses have been banned from French schools since 2004. Turkey, Syria and Tunisia are muslim countries that have recently enacted laws against burqas in schools. Last year, Egypt's top muslim cleric barred burqas from the al-Azhar University and upset other Muslim scholars by saying French Muslims should obey any law that France might enact banning the veil.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The argument follows that if it can happen there, it can happen here. The obvious first step is to ban the "easy stuff". |
The argument is a form of faulty reasoning called the slippery slope. "The obvious first step is to ban laws against gay marriage and pretty soon people will be marrying animals and toaster ovens." Veils and hijabs will still be allowed in France because religion itself is simply not the issue here. It's only the full face coverings that are viewed as an affront to equal rights by forbidding women from having an identity.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your argument also goes directly against Amnesty International who, I think, is a well respected institution by all sides. |
Appeal to authority fallacy. Well respected institutions can do and say stupid things, too. In 1997, Amnesty International said "Women in Mazar-e Sharif were ordered through loudspeakers to stay indoors, only to be allowed out in the company of a close male relative and wearing the all-enveloping burqa robe... These edicts represent a further form of repression for the women of Afghanistan who have suffered human rights abuses perpetrated by the various warring factions during years of civil conflict. AI opposes in all circumstances torture and ill-treatment and punishments which are considered cruel, inhuman or degrading under international law. AI also considers women detained or otherwise physically restricted for reasons of gender to be prisoners of conscience." Gee, what happened to freedom of expression there?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It sounds to me like you are making the argument that if one group of people feels like an activity is immoral, that they have the right to enforce that code upon another group who disagrees. Interesting. |
Nope, quite the opposite... a religious group DOESN'T have the right to force women to hide themselves completely from view just because they feel it's immoral.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Then why not, rather than ban the practice altogether, just fine a man who forces a woman to wear the hideous contraption? |
A fair question, but then why not, rather than ban slavery, just fine a person who forces another into submission? |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 06:28:26 PM · #204 |
Shannon, you're missing a significant point; while I don't think any of us in this thread believe that a man ought to be able to force a woman to wear the Burqa, for reasons exhaustively articulated, what's really at issue here, IMO, is that they are making it illegal for a woman to WEAR the danged thing even IF that's how she feels most comfortable.
Saying "...why not, rather than ban slavery, just fine a person who forces another into submission?" is disingenuous at best, because slavery is an institution itself, not a symbol of something. When you have human beings owning other human beings that's slavery. But the Burqa is, at its most innocuous, a piece of clothing, and at the other extreme, it's a symbol of the repression of women. It's not in an of itself an institution that has to be banned.
I just think it's really bad precedent to be doing stuff like this, reacting against perceived wrongs by criminalizing the symbolic expression of those wrongs. And I think it's inconsistent of you that you're not in pretty much the same camp as me on this.
R. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 06:31:09 PM · #205 |
| I'm sure there are some fallacies in your thinking somewhere Bear. (officially mark this as "ridicule") |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 06:36:14 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm sure there are some fallacies in your thinking somewhere Bear. (officially mark this as "ridicule") |
No doubt. I have been thinking of changing my user name to "Fallacious_Music". Has a certain ring to it, doesn't it?
R. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 06:36:28 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If France considers schools "religion-free" then why do they allow "discrete displays"? |
Do they? If you mean discrete as in "subtle," then you might get by with a small cross on a necklace, but yarmulkes and large crosses have been banned from French schools since 2004. Turkey, Syria and Tunisia are muslim countries that have recently enacted laws against burqas in schools. Last year, Egypt's top muslim cleric barred burqas from the al-Azhar University and upset other Muslim scholars by saying French Muslims should obey any law that France might enact banning the veil.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The argument follows that if it can happen there, it can happen here. The obvious first step is to ban the "easy stuff". |
The argument is a form of faulty reasoning called the slippery slope. "The obvious first step is to ban laws against gay marriage and pretty soon people will be marrying animals and toaster ovens." Veils and hijabs will still be allowed in France because religion itself is simply not the issue here. It's only the full face coverings that are viewed as an affront to equal rights by forbidding women from having an identity.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your argument also goes directly against Amnesty International who, I think, is a well respected institution by all sides. |
Appeal to authority fallacy. Well respected institutions can do and say stupid things, too. In 1997, Amnesty International said "Women in Mazar-e Sharif were ordered through loudspeakers to stay indoors, only to be allowed out in the company of a close male relative and wearing the all-enveloping burqa robe... These edicts represent a further form of repression for the women of Afghanistan who have suffered human rights abuses perpetrated by the various warring factions during years of civil conflict. AI opposes in all circumstances torture and ill-treatment and punishments which are considered cruel, inhuman or degrading under international law. AI also considers women detained or otherwise physically restricted for reasons of gender to be prisoners of conscience." Gee, what happened to freedom of expression there?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It sounds to me like you are making the argument that if one group of people feels like an activity is immoral, that they have the right to enforce that code upon another group who disagrees. Interesting. |
Nope, quite the opposite... a religious group DOESN'T have the right to force women to hide themselves completely from view just because they feel it's immoral.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Then why not, rather than ban the practice altogether, just fine a man who forces a woman to wear the hideous contraption? |
A fair question, but then why not, rather than ban slavery, just fine a person who forces another into submission? |
1) Did you read my post. The Stasi commission "recommended allowing the wearing of discreet symbols of faith such as small crosses, Stars of David or Fatima's hands." How is this compatible with your assertion that France's schools are "religion-free"?
2) A slippery slope argument is not a fallacy, but it is not necessarily always true either. It should be weighed on the merits of the argument and neither accepted nor rejected outright. Veils and hijabs may one day be banned in public because they are already banned in schools. To simply assert that it will not be so is no better an argument.
3) So to be clear again, you are disagreeing with Amnesty International? I take it you are. Just because they say it doesn't make it right, but it should at the least give you pause for thought.
4) So if a religious group doesn't have the right to force women to hide themselves, isn't this the exact principle I stated? A group cannot force their moral opinion on another group? Why does it work for you and not for them? I'm guessing the answer boils down to "because I think my group is right". It sounds like your argument only applies to codes you don't agree with.
5) Bear and Judith's point stands. What about the women that want to wear a burka?
Message edited by author 2010-09-16 18:48:36. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 06:52:37 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...It's not in an of itself an institution that has to be banned. |
Slavery and forcing women to wear burqas are both practices of one group subjugating another (whether or not the subject "chooses" to go along). What you're doing is like pointing to separate water fountains for blacks and saying that it's an innocuous plumbing fixture that should be left as a choice rather than eliminated as an institution. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 07:22:58 PM · #209 |
| Maybe you two should grow up a bit and stop whining about Shannon's Big Book of Fallacies. Argue and refute and demonstrate the soundness of what you're saying instead of pretending to be victimized. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 07:38:23 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... snip 5) Bear and Judith's point stands. What about the women that want to wear a burka? |
When a women is raised in a household where abuse is common (father beats the mother, children, etc.), she will most likely grow up to marry someone who will also beat her and/or her children. If police are called in, more than likely she will claim it a)didn't happen, b) was all her fault & c)be terrified of the consequences of them even coming to her home. As a doctor I'm sure you're familiar with the scenarios, statistics, etc. I'm not going to look them up. I honestly believe this is the same thing. Do you honestly think if a woman is being forced into subjection (wearing a burka, hiding from society), she is doing it of her own free will? Do you really think she's going to tell an authority figure that she's being forced? Think about it. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 07:51:04 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
5) Bear and Judith's point stands. What about the women that want to wear a burka? |
...and what about the Rastafarian's belief that ganji is an integral part of his religion, or the the sikh's student desire to wear a kirpan in school...these too are examples of things that have religious connotations that a good segment of society might frown upon, based solely on security and safety condiderations.
Freedom is indeed a wonderful thing, but certain limitations can and do exists for the benefit of all.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 07:52:22 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Maybe you two should grow up a bit and stop whining about Shannon's Big Book of Fallacies. Argue and refute and demonstrate the soundness of what you're saying instead of pretending to be victimized. |
It is highly annoying because so often the label is so misapplied. Take one recent example where Shannon declared a Slippery Slope argument to be a fallacy. Wiki (natch) would appear to confirm this..."In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (sometimes misstated as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy" but of course he left out the critical part which I was forced to correct "(but it can also refer to a logically valid argument)." It's so basic and fundamental that I didn't even have to look up the wiki (until this post). |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 07:56:27 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
5) Bear and Judith's point stands. What about the women that want to wear a burka? |
...and what about the Rastafarian's belief that ganji is an integral part of his religion, or the the sikh's student desire to wear a kirpan in school...these too are examples of things that have religious connotations that a good segment of society might frown upon, based solely on security and safety condiderations.
Freedom is indeed a wonderful thing, but certain limitations can and do exists for the benefit of all.
Ray |
I had a good friend in medical school who was Sikh and wore a kirpan. She joked that the best she could do was throw it at someone. Is ganji marijuana? Are we afraid it's a gateway drug to religious experiences? :) Listen, Oregon has 26,000 medical marijuana licenses, I'm not too worried about that.
I am so impressed with the bolded quote I will often remember it and remind you that you said it.
Message edited by author 2010-09-16 20:00:41. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 07:59:31 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... snip 5) Bear and Judith's point stands. What about the women that want to wear a burka? |
When a women is raised in a household where abuse is common (father beats the mother, children, etc.), she will most likely grow up to marry someone who will also beat her and/or her children. If police are called in, more than likely she will claim it a)didn't happen, b) was all her fault & c)be terrified of the consequences of them even coming to her home. As a doctor I'm sure you're familiar with the scenarios, statistics, etc. I'm not going to look them up. I honestly believe this is the same thing. Do you honestly think if a woman is being forced into subjection (wearing a burka, hiding from society), she is doing it of her own free will? Do you really think she's going to tell an authority figure that she's being forced? Think about it. |
Kelli, this line of argument is so insanely open to misapplication that I don't think it could be used even in a legitimate case. So you know better than the voluntary burka wearer? That even if she says she wants to wear it, it's only because she's brainwashed and there is no other reasonable explanation?
Message edited by author 2010-09-16 20:08:00. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 08:01:43 PM · #215 |
| So you're not allowed to point out an instance of faulty reasoning because the same nomenclature is used for sound reasoning? I guess nobody should use the word "sanction" either... |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 08:07:14 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by Louis:
So you're not allowed to point out an instance of faulty reasoning because the same nomenclature is used for sound reasoning? I guess nobody should use the word "sanction" either... |
You aren't encouraged to just throw out a few words and let everybody assume it counters the argument, especially when you have a long history of doing this in an invalid way. You can do it, but it makes you look foolish and annoys your opponent (but maybe that's the point). |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 08:11:24 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... snip 5) Bear and Judith's point stands. What about the women that want to wear a burka? |
When a women is raised in a household where abuse is common (father beats the mother, children, etc.), she will most likely grow up to marry someone who will also beat her and/or her children. If police are called in, more than likely she will claim it a)didn't happen, b) was all her fault & c)be terrified of the consequences of them even coming to her home. As a doctor I'm sure you're familiar with the scenarios, statistics, etc. I'm not going to look them up. I honestly believe this is the same thing. Do you honestly think if a woman is being forced into subjection (wearing a burka, hiding from society), she is doing it of her own free will? Do you really think she's going to tell an authority figure that she's being forced? Think about it. |
Kelli, this line of argument is so insanely open to misapplication that I don't think it could be used even in a legitimate case. So you know better than the voluntary burka wearer? That even if she says she wants to wear it, it's only because she's brainwashed and there is no other reasonable explanation? |
Please give me a reason. I'm sorry that I don't know what they could possibly be. Why would anyone willingly go through life as a "no one", unable to be identified. Because their religion tells them to? I'll never understand that. I have people that live in this area where I live who wear them. It's a cloak, a disguise. That's all. They go into the bathroom at the amusement park, light up their cigarettes and curse loud and profane enough to make a sailor blush. These are people hiding in their clothing, maybe from society, maybe from their husbands, maybe from a beating. I don't know. These aren't religious people. This is just my personal experience. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 08:12:15 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) Did you read my post. The Stasi commission "recommended allowing the wearing of discreet symbols of faith such as small crosses, Stars of David or Fatima's hands." How is this compatible with your assertion that France's schools are "religion-free"? |
In the U.S., religious symbols are generally allowed as long as they don't promote one faith over another. A student can wear a shirt bearing a nativity scene as long as another student can wear a shirt with a menorah. Although you can get away with something discrete in French schools, all overt religious symbols are banned due to their take on the separation of church and state. With exceptions that make the news, you can often see Christmas and Hanukah decorations in the same U.S. school, but you won't see ANY such displays in France.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) A slippery slope argument is not a fallacy, but it is not necessarily always true either. It should be weighed on the merits of the argument and neither accepted nor rejected outright. Veils and hijabs may one day be banned in public because they are already banned in schools. To simply assert that it will not be so is no better an argument. |
It's a classical informal fallacy of condition. As I already noted, daily life is not a state entity subject to separation, so France will not (and cannot) ban religious symbols in public as they do in schools. Your argument is therefore without merit.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) So to be clear again, you are disagreeing with Amnesty International? I take it you are. Just because they say it doesn't make it right, but it should at the least give you pause for thought. |
Amnesty International disagrees with Amnesty International! They highlight as a human rights offense the Taliban's use of burqas to "physically restrict women solely on the basis of their gender," but then find fault with countries that attempt to ban them as an assault on religious expression. Unless you think someone would ever CHOOSE to walk around hiding inside a cardboard box, the two positions are incompatible.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
4) So if a religious group doesn't have the right to force women to hide themselves, isn't this the exact principle I stated? A group cannot force their moral opinion on another group? Why does it work for you and not for them? |
Enabling everyone to be treated equally is the foundation of human rights and discrimination is its opposite. One group forcing another to be slaves is not that same as one group forcing another to give up slavery. The freedom of the first group to practice slavery is trumped by the right of those slaves to be free.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
5) Bear and Judith's point stands. What about the women that want to wear a burka? |
No woman WANTS to wear a burqa any more than a worker wants to be a slave (even if you can find examples of both claiming to do so willingly). As stated by Indonesia's top Islamic body, "Belgium and France are restricting the rights of Muslim women to fulfil their religious obligations..." Ah, but an obligation is not a personal choice, it's a compulsion. Personal rights don't work that way. You have the RIGHT to remain silent, but you don't have to exercise it. You have the RIGHT to bear arms, but you don't have to buy a gun. If wearing a burqa were a personal expression rather than a religious obligation, then women could choose NOT to wear one without risking death. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 08:18:05 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
So you're not allowed to point out an instance of faulty reasoning because the same nomenclature is used for sound reasoning? I guess nobody should use the word "sanction" either... |
You aren't encouraged to just throw out a few words and let everybody assume it counters the argument, especially when you have a long history of doing this in an invalid way. You can do it, but it makes you look foolish and annoys your opponent (but maybe that's the point). |
He doesn't have a history of invalidly citing fallacy. He's always right. That one commits the fallacy makes it understandable that they would be resistant to identifying it. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 08:21:41 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Take one recent example where Shannon declared a Slippery Slope argument to be a fallacy. Wiki (natch) would appear to confirm this..."In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (sometimes misstated as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy" but of course he left out the critical part which I was forced to correct "(but it can also refer to a logically valid argument)." |
It can, but yours doesn't. You referred to a law regarding the separation of church and state as the first step toward a similar treatment in public life where no such separation is required. Italy recently banned the crucifix from public schools for the same reason, and it's not the first step toward doing so outside of schools. Your logic is flawed and if you don't like being called out on fallacies, then stop relying on them. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 08:31:15 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
5) Bear and Judith's point stands. What about the women that want to wear a burka? |
...and what about the Rastafarian's belief that ganji is an integral part of his religion, or the the sikh's student desire to wear a kirpan in school...these too are examples of things that have religious connotations that a good segment of society might frown upon, based solely on security and safety condiderations.
Freedom is indeed a wonderful thing, but certain limitations can and do exists for the benefit of all.
Ray |
I had a good friend in medical school who was Sikh and wore a kirpan. She joked that the best she could do was throw it at someone. Is ganji marijuana? Are we afraid it's a gateway drug to religious experiences? :) Listen, Oregon has 26,000 medical marijuana licenses, I'm not too worried about that.
I am so impressed with the bolded quote I will often remember it and remind you that you said it. |
Oh please do... but don't forget the "All" part.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 08:38:18 PM · #222 |
Interesting Op-Ed by a Harvard Professor of French History.
And another piece, from OpenDemocracy.net
R.
Message edited by author 2010-09-16 20:40:29. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 09:28:18 PM · #223 |
You know, if they really wanted to prevent the physical and emotional subjugation of women they would ban high-heeled shoes ... :-(
Message edited by author 2010-09-16 21:28:34. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 09:48:45 PM · #224 |
Rather opposing views. The latter opinion suffers from a couple of glaring flaws, though. First, he claims that a burqa is only the long cloak, "which ought to be an inoffensive garment comparable to other Christian and Buddhist dress." He's wrong. The cloak alone is called a jilbab, while burqa refers to the whole enchilada: jilbab, hijab and niqab. The second and bigger issue is that he views the ban as an attack on muslims because it targets their particular dress. How would a ban on burqas achieve such a goal? Anyone now wearing a burqa would almost certainly switch to a hijab... and be just as recognizably Islamic. |
|
|
|
09/16/2010 10:23:00 PM · #225 |
The problem I have with the latter of these two views rests in the fact that the author is quick to condemn the tabloids for "fanning the flames of bigotry and inflating this issue to suit its own agenda based on assertions that have no genuine public polls or discussion on this issue," and then proceeds to try to substantiate the argument with the following anecdotal argument: " The women I know who wear the niqab and burqa, wear it out of personal choice. And those who wear it, wear it primarily as an act of faith, but potentially as a political and social statement against a culture which commodifies women’s bodies. It is an act which says “My sexuality and body is only for me, and those who I choose to share it withâ€. It is actually oppressive to deny women the right to make such a statement"
The latter statement is no more valid than that which the author accuses the tabloids of resorting to... it is mere speculation at best relative to the Muslim community as it reflects only the views of a few women in that community.
As an aside, I much preferred the comment immediately following the article.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-09-16 22:31:52. |
|
