Okay Panoptic, this is going to be my last attempt to help you understand something basic--I'll try my best to spell it out for you. This will be my last reply to this thread, because I want to avoid repeating myself over and over again.
You have nothing to explain to me whatsoever.
I know exactly what you're saying. But it does not negate my substantive points. As I have shown time and time and time again.
Let me remind you: The point is about our 'social instincts' or our ability to communicate _requiring_ face to face communication in order to be operative, or find their expression. This is undeniably false, and you have gone no way to proving this demonstrably incorrect claim.
As it happens, many things, including education (public or otherwise) have and continue to take place successfully with or without restriction of face-to-face contact. That fucks the argument all by itself. Null and void, no matter how many times it's repeated.
Okay Panoptic, this is going to be my last attempt to help you understand something basic--I'll try my best to spell it out for you. This will be my last reply to this thread, because I want to avoid repeating myself over and over again.
Yes, me too.
No my friend, not full stop.
We have myriads of ways that don't involve facial expression.
................as opposed to the words themselves. Read my last post.
You really haven't thought this one through very well, have you?
And they are calculable. There have been studies that show that non-verbal ques and voice tones are dominant over the words alone. Again, refer to my example.
There are too many variables involved. Body language, or physical presence, can get in the way of real communication sometimes. Sometimes we communicate better in writing, or comprehend things better when we don't hear a voice, or see a face. It depends on the sender, the listener, the message itself, the context(s).
No, nature dominates our decision to do a lot of things. As you said, we have a biological constitution, but we are elastic--BUT we are elastic due to the societies we live in. So the biological constitution is often implied or suppressed as opposed to the tribal cultures around the world where the biological constitution are directly lived.
I don't take such an essentialist view, myself.
But this isn't really about 'nature'. If it was it wouldn't be debatable.
Bull shit. I don't have to accept it because others accept it. I see potential danger when a niqabi walks into a bank fully covered--maybe you don't. Not sure why.
You kind of do, though. Niqabis are served at banks as things stand. What are you going to do? Prevent them being served? That's illegal.
It's either part of public life - or it isn't.
True, they shouldn't be denied education--they could very well go to a home school. No one is stopping her. But in a public place, we have to consider the safety of the public, and thats why we have dress codes in certain places, like schools. Underneath a niqab, could very well be a man who hides a shotgun and brings it to school and kills everyone. Hijab is fine with me though
If it is too much of a potential safety issue to allow, then this is what we should decide in general. Note, this somewhat valid concern has nothing to do with nature arguments.
In this context, I believe it's very fair and I praise the govt. for doing what they did, despite the fact that the girl is from the same country as me.
How fair is that otherwise legal clothing is arbitrarily discriminated against?
It is fairer on everyone if there aren't so many grey areas.
It's just as wrong to force others to live in suspicion in school because one girl wants to wear a bed sheet over her body.
I think you have to be a bit paranoid to be living in suspicion about it.
But, again, that's a different matter, bringing into question whether its acceptable in public at all.
Topic: Muslim student, 18, banned from college because she refuses to remove her burkha