Nice sentiment, but what exactly have you learned here, HighOctane? As far as I can tell, your views now are identical to when you arrived.
They’ve changed a lot actually you’ve only noticed me until I reached a tipping point of pragmatic and consequentialism based views which has changed my view on things entirely.
I don't want to be controlled by God, superstition, religious authorities, or the state … Why should I, or anyone else, respect someone who wants the state (or any other authority) to regulate their personal behavior, to violate their rights? Look, you're a nice guy and all, but I can't respect anyone who wants the state to regulate personal behavior and violate people's rights.
You are actually starting to share some thoughts now. This is good, now why couldn’t we do this before all the swearing, name calling and negativity?
So: the reason I think it is important for the state to draw boundaries is because like in chaos theory (
please take your time to watch here), is that it is entirely productive and good of the state to make law and order for consequential benefit. E.g. banning drinking and driving: this is a law not to take away people’s pleasure on a night out, but to protect pedestrians who get killed by such drivers since there is scientific evidence of the mind being influenced by alcohol which affects a driver’s judgement behind a wheel. This IS regulating a person’s behaviour and it is entirely moral to do so. Now, at the same time, I agree that too much influence of the state is a bad thing like in Saudi Arabia. The best way to find that right balance (from chaotic and from ordered to complex as in the video) is to rationalise with science, evidence and statistics which then implement law and order that give society the best intended outcomes and a at the same time there being a platform which allows for feedback and control of such laws being updated/changed/improved (which btw, in my opinion implement the ideas of people like Locke/Jefferson for the safe keeping of individual rights and religion tolerance where applicable). I am sure at this stage you agree with me. And I shall continue onto the next section below.
lol, i don't consider you an enemy
Nor do I – lol – I was making the point that when a person doesn’t want to have a dialogue, when they don’t want to learn but stick to their closed minded views because it feels right to them – then if such people are disagreed with, then it’s good for there is be disagreement, because just like having an enemy you profoundly disagree with, it is a good thing since it shows you stand up for something.
No.
Look, this has been my position on this issue from the very beginning, and I'm not speaking for anyone else on the topic, but based on previous discussions here I would venture to say that most, if not all, of the people on this board opposing a burqua ban share a similar outlook on the subject:
1. The burqua, whether an individual woman freely chooses to wear it or not, is oppressive and intrinsically linked with Islam's gender apartheid.
2. Many, perhaps most women wearing it, are coerced or pressured into wearing it by their family/husband.
(a) For these women, in Western countries, there are options to get out of such oppressive relationships
(b) This is not an easy choice for women in such situations, but important life choices are rarely easy or without risk/sacrifice, it's not the role of the state to make personal choices for people.
(c) Funding for organizations/agencies which can help women and their children out of such oppressive environments should be increased and made a priority. Hell, I'd support giving the women free guns and training them how to use them if their husbands try to force them back. The state can support these women's choice to liberate themselves, but cannot make that choice for them.
3. Some women freely choose to wear it as an expression of their religious beliefs. This may be a small minority of niqabis, and the beliefs they are expressing we may find repellent, but the state is obligated, as a matter of justice, to respect this choice. A blanket ban on the burqua/niqab precludes this.
4. In addition to whether it is just for the state to impose such a blanket ban, there are potential negative consequences of such a ban-- women being forced to stay home more by their husbands/families for example, further segregation, and perhaps resistance/civil disobedience towards the law that could result in a political and moral victory for the radical Muslims.
In a nutshell, that's where I'm coming from on this issue.
This is what I call sharing thoughts and learning from each other.
1. Yep.
2. Yep, but the state doesn't always have to be your enemy Q. Not on eveything.
3. This is where we separate. Why must the burka be respected? Why must all choice be respected? That line of thinking broadens all issues until they just evaporate into some naive and mystical hippy anything-goes ideal. Its a real discussion dampener.
There are too many people (I don't mean you) falling over themselves professing to be advocates for liberal choice and free expression without even taking a real look at some of the choices they are endorsing. You have to draw the line somewhere. Not all cultures are equal. Some ideas and expression brought by foreign culture and cultural identity are simply incompatible with other cultures, and we should stop pretending they ever will be. The burka is a massive point of contention because the practice itself is inherently and diametrically opposed to the values of a nation like France.
4. Those who oppose the burka wave the freedom and equality of women as a banner, and so do those on the other side, those who are against the ban. Both sides are sincere in this, I'm sure. Its a stalemate. Let that line of thought cancel itself out, so we can get some perspective and balance.
Look at it as a customs clash, because that’s what it is. Two cultures nose to nose causing conflict, whose custom and tradition are alien to each other. France is a big place, a nation to which no one is essentially foreign and co-existence is welcome. There are only some practices that are foreign to it and one of them is the burka. One of the pillars of French civilisation and tradition is courteous love and more recently the equality of women. France prides itself on the presence and visibility of women and this ban is a practical manifestation of this, in that there will be no exception made for any culture that threatens it.
The burka is completely out of touch with French society. I respect this French ideal and concept, much more than I respect the article of faith we’re just ‘supposed’ to respect and that already goes part-way to removing inalienable rights of women. I'm with France on this 100%, since I actually do respect their stance on this willingly, without it being forced out of me or without me being guilt-tripped into it. I have no respect for the burka, nor should I have to.
I’d like to add on points 3. And 4.
3: No women freely wears a burqa Q-Man. I really hope this makes sense. Any woman who says “I wear it because I want to” says that because she has been indoctrinated from a young age or at some point in her life to think wildly incorrectly. For the lady who wears it because of indoctrination – this is unacceptable. Men is Islam are not forced to wear one, and do they wear one? No. Women on the other hand are forced to wear one, and so they wear it. If you experienced the shouting matches between my sisters and mother Q-Man, perhaps this would be ingraved in you emotionally like it is in me. As for the grown up women who wear one, say recent converts, well just like it is idiotic of them to go drink driving, I would say it is idiotic of them to wear one because of the negative consequneces is has on society including social division (e.g. asking a burqa woman a question at a bus stop) and promoting such a ridiculous fashion accessory when evolution over millions of years wanted her to show her face in order to COMMUNICATE with people.
4: Re the “negative consequences of the ban” : this is exactly what my local MP (Member of Parliament) wrote to me via email and even mentioned terrorism. I think the law is a powerful thing and it is well respected. Just like changing the minds of drink driving takes a while, so too I think it will for Muslim women and Muslim men. I don’t think women will not stay at home – more over it will give the wives, daughters ammunition to have confidence that the law is behind them. Consider this:
Mother: You will WEAR this scarf to school I tell you, or I will kick you out of the house!
Daughter: Mum, they’ve banned the burka, it was in the news.
Mother: Well this isn’t a burqa, it is a scarf. Now do as I say!!
Even when such scenarios happens, and it will do up and down France to the girls trying to assimilate, you as the state have got the ball rolling in the right direction. This is progress. This is consequential benfit. Muslim men will start thinking twice about forcing their wives, women will have the confidence of the law, Muslim families will have to come to terms with Western values and through a slow, simmering social sharing of ideas they will be forced to adapt to better, Western values, that is better for them where Muslim daughter are confident, men become less oppressive and gets to the core of Muslim women going to University more, Muslim men being less domestically violent (whether physical or verbal), young Muslims thinking about Islam more, etc.
As to the radical Islam point – I think that’s getting very low in terms of a decent point. The best impact will the Bin Laden making a statement or Anjem Choudary whining on TV. Terrorism is here to stay and brewing through the ammunition of Afghan/Iraq war, hatred of Jews, false grievance for Palestine and disgust for pr0n and Britney Spears and kaffirs in general. Sure, the burka ban, sharia ban, minaret ban will add some salt, but not much. I think.
I do think anything-goes as far as the state not intervening is concerned until and unless personal autonomy directly and immediately infringes on the personal autonomy of someone else. This is the entire concept of limited civil government/minarchism.
Which the burqa does, I really do think. It affects Muslims sons and daughters growing up. It affects the society at large for social integration. Do you accept this? If you do no, we *completely* disagree and can't help each other if (I think) you can't see the blindingly obvious *facts* here (obvious to me, that is).
But ishina, the problem is that a state which has the power to ban something we disapprove of also has the power to ban something we approve of. Look how the European governments are treating Wilders (who I hate but whatever) and other critics of Islam.
Which comes back to the issue of having a platform whereby law and order has a feedback mechanism for control. Wilders will be fine, because there is this platform. The Wilders hate speech trial has collapsed for this reason.
We can't expect the state to always wield its powers in the best way, so it's safest to simply limit those powers to where the state can only intervene and prohibit personal activity when that personal activity directly and immediately infringes on someone else's rights.
If the state is thinking better than it's populous, has rational, scientific, mathematical, social and subject matter expert reasoning to doing so; together with a platform for alterations, protests, demonstrations, being sued in the courts; then I think there are very good reasons (namely progress) for allowing the state do what is best for it's people, which means change and putting through laws. Look, I don't like some of the rushed technology bills/acts being put through, but there is a platform to change this. Law and order is very important just like bureaucracy (procedures, protocols, regulations) is important in multinational organisations for them to survive when there are thousands of workers. Yes, sometimes it is wrong, but with a platform to correct it, the pipes and filters of law and order which affects millions of people need to be constructed as time goes on otherwise you are halting progress for country/continent/human advancement.
To me it feels like you are saying, "I'm not sure this will work, it feels like a slippery slope, I'm scared, so I will do nothing". Wake up, please wake up, progress comes with change mon ami.
There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction. - Winston Churchill
To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often. - Winston Churchill 
Poll
Topic: Another question for ex-Muslims