Australian Politics Forum - the right to choose what to wear

Foolosophy Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1171 Australia Gender:	Re: The case against Islamic immigration Reply #30 - Apr 18^th, 2011 at 1:43pm ...the stench of ignorance and racism has wafted into this thread all of a sudden I wonder who that could be?
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The case against Islamic immigration Reply #31 - Apr 18^th, 2011 at 1:59pm Foolosophy wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 1:43pm: ...the stench of ignorance and racism has wafted into this thread all of a sudden I wonder who that could be? http://insidestoryflashcards.com/printable_flashcards/images/easy/stench.jpg The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) .
Back to top	IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21699
A cat with a view

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #32 - Apr 18^th, 2011 at 2:21pm

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 1:43pm:

...the stench of ignorance and racism has wafted into this thread all of a sudden

I wonder who that could be?

http://insidestoryflashcards.com/printable_flashcards/images/easy/stench.jpg

Yes, we all get the 'message', Fool.

Everyone who's opinion, does not align with your own [opinion], is clearly a racist or a bigot [...according to you].

+++

More sweet syrupy lies, and falsehood, from the OzPol forum dissembler.

"Are these the Biblical end times ?"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301108952/43#43
Quote:

Foolosophy,

I will not respond to any further query from you, nor to any further statement of some outlandish 'fact' which you make, in any post in OzPol.
Except to respond with this message, and with a link to this message - so as to explain to others, my response to your inane, irrational worldview.
Clearly, people can believe whatever they want to believe.
But i do not wish to respond to your many outlandish assertions, unsupported in truth, which effectively state that 'black' is 'white', and vice versa.
I do not want to engage with your idiocy, or with your demented worldview, which is devoid of respect for truth.

Foolosophy,

Again, you should attach a declaration with each of your posts;

"Hi, my nick is Foolosophy. And i clearly do not know what i am talking about. So just ignore this post."
"Does God treat different people differently"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1300677736/28#28

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48867
At my desk.

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #33 - Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:15pm

Quote:

But such behaviour by anyone, offends our 'Western' cultural mores.

No Yadda. Cultural mores do not have feelings. We have been 'offending' our cultural mores for a century by gradually doing away with wearing English clothes in hot weather. This is not a bad thing. Cultural mores have no rights and should never be used as an excuse to take rights away from real people.

Quote:

Really? Well, it's not for you to decide what the facecovering is.

You seem to think it is for you? I am happy to let people decide for themselves.

Quote:

For Muslims, it is a religious issue, not a personal freedom issue.

For me, it is a personal freedom issue. I also have the right to choose what to wear and am not going to give it up. You keep forgetting Soren that you cannot deny rights to others without denying them to yourself.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21699
A cat with a view

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #34 - Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:01am

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:15pm:

Quote:

But such behaviour by anyone, offends our 'Western' cultural mores.

No Yadda. Cultural mores do not have feelings. We have been 'offending' our cultural mores for a century by gradually doing away with wearing English clothes in hot weather. This is not a bad thing. Cultural mores have no rights and should never be used as an excuse to take rights away from real people.

But people do.

And i am a person.

FD,
Our cultural mores are a reflection of ourselves, and reflection of our personal worldview, and a reflection of the personal values we hold.

And that is undeniable, even when you choose to deny it.

Your denial, and the insinuation in your statement that our [i.e. non-moslem] cultural mores have no [community] worth, offends truth.

Dictionary;
mores = = the customs and conventions of a community.

Dictionary;
custom = = a traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time. Ø Law established usage having the force of law or right.

Dictionary;
convention = = a way in which something is usually done. Ø socially acceptable behaviour.

+++

And regards to the supposed 'right' of moslem women to wear a face covering burke, in public, in Australia,

I WILL RE-STATE.....

Yadda wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 9:15am:

Does anyone, when in any public place, have the right to hide their face [and thereby hide their identity] ?

Is it lawful ?

Perhaps.

Maybe such behaviour is not unlawful [yet].

But such behaviour by anyone, offends our 'Western' cultural mores.

And, imo, such 'personal choices', are certainly not appropriate in Australia.

To be dressed in such a way, is certainly not appropriate in Australia, for persons driving a motor vehicle, or, for persons conducting any 'business' transaction in any public place.

Logically;
IMO, 'when in Rome' [when living within non-moslem host nations], moslems should not be permitted to conduct themselves, as though they are residing in Saudi Arabia.

Why not?

Because 1/ this is behaviour which is both offensive to our cultural mores, and 2/ can be viewed as an intentional cultural provocation, by moslems.
[Re, point #2, if moslems do not wish to offend OUR sensibilities, then why do moslems intentionally seek to provoke the Australian community, on this issue ??? ]

e.g.
CONTRAWISE;
Would Australian women be allowed to lay on beaches in Saudi Arabia, IN THEIR BIKINIS ???

Of course not.

Q.
Why not ???

A.
Because such a thing would be offensive to Saudi cultural mores.

And neither should moslem women, seek to offend our 'sensibilities', regarding our own cultural mores.

IMAGE
http://www.theluxechronicles.com/.a/6a00e54f05e1bb88340120a6ab2571970c-700wi
THIS BEHAVIOUR, CHOOSING TO DRESS LIKE THIS, IN PUBLIC, IS APPROPRIATE IN SAUDI ARABIA

But such behaviour, choosing to wear such attire, in public, in Australia, is offensive to Australian cultural mores.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #35 - Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:54am

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:15pm:

Quote:

For Muslims, it is a religious issue, not a personal freedom issue.

For me, it is a personal freedom issue. I also have the right to choose what to wear and am not going to give it up. You keep forgetting Soren that you cannot deny rights to others without denying them to yourself.

There is NO right to cover your identity in the public sphere. If there was, you could have your passport photo taken with the burqa on.
You are making upo this crap as you go, FD.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #36 - Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:38pm

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:15pm:

Quote:

For Muslims, it is a religious issue, not a personal freedom issue.

For me, it is a personal freedom issue. I also have the right to choose what to wear and am not going to give it up. You keep forgetting Soren that you cannot deny rights to others without denying them to yourself.

There is NO right to cover your identity in the public sphere. If there was, you could have your passport photo taken with the burqa on.
You are making upo this crap as you go, FD.

That's not entirely true Soren.....There is a 'right' to cover your face in public...however it's balanced against the rights of law enforcement to ascertain identity (as in comparing your face against your photo id) and security concerns in relation to armed robbery....

If there was "NO right"...every snow-skier and motorcyclist (and a lot of bicycle riders) would be arrest every time they walked outside...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Belgarion

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5397
Gender: male

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #37 - Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:49pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:38pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:15pm:

Quote:

For Muslims, it is a religious issue, not a personal freedom issue.

For me, it is a personal freedom issue. I also have the right to choose what to wear and am not going to give it up. You keep forgetting Soren that you cannot deny rights to others without denying them to yourself.

There is NO right to cover your identity in the public sphere. If there was, you could have your passport photo taken with the burqa on.
You are making upo this crap as you go, FD.

That's not entirely true Soren.....There is a 'right' to cover your face in public...however it's balanced against the rights of law enforcement to ascertain identity (as in comparing your face against your photo id) and security concerns in relation to armed robbery....

If there was "NO right"...every snow-skier and motorcyclist (and a lot of bicycle riders) would be arrest every time they walked outside...

The right of a skier or motocyclist etc, to cover their face is only for a specific activity and is for recognised safety reasons. It's not a full time concealment of identity based on spurious doctrine.

Back to top

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #38 - Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:33pm

Belgarion wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:38pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:15pm:

Quote:

For Muslims, it is a religious issue, not a personal freedom issue.

For me, it is a personal freedom issue. I also have the right to choose what to wear and am not going to give it up. You keep forgetting Soren that you cannot deny rights to others without denying them to yourself.

There is NO right to cover your identity in the public sphere. If there was, you could have your passport photo taken with the burqa on.
You are making upo this crap as you go, FD.

That's not entirely true Soren.....There is a 'right' to cover your face in public...however it's balanced against the rights of law enforcement to ascertain identity (as in comparing your face against your photo id) and security concerns in relation to armed robbery....

If there was "NO right"...every snow-skier and motorcyclist (and a lot of bicycle riders) would be arrest every time they walked outside...

The right of a skier or motocyclist etc, to cover their face is only for a specific activity and is for recognised safety reasons. It's not a full time concealment of identity based on spurious doctrine.

True...but it's STILL legal...except within certain, limited circumstances....

I have no problems with the full face, or full body veils....PROVIDING they're removed in the same circumstances as motorcycle helmets and balaclavas.....

Give the number of banks that are atm only, and public transport system in major cities...
A 'blanket' ban is unnecessary...I can see the point behind some situations where the full veil is a problem..but I can ALSO see and accept the rights of the women to wear them if they choose (outside of the aforementioned circumstances)....

Ok, perhaps the police should do it like they do with shoplifters..call a female officer to check the face against the photo....it's still doable...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #39 - Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:44pm

Yadda wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 2:21pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 1:43pm:

...the stench of ignorance and racism has wafted into this thread all of a sudden

I wonder who that could be?

http://insidestoryflashcards.com/printable_flashcards/images/easy/stench.jpg

http://insidestoryflashcards.com/printable_flashcards/images/easy/stench.jpg

Yes, we all get the 'message', Fool.

Everyone who's opinion, does not align with your own [opinion], is clearly a racist or a bigot [...according to you].

Yadda, please dont exaggerate what I say in here

Its not everyone - just SOREN and your good self

http://thehumanscorch.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/1243271414_black_guy_laughing.gifw=228&h=180

Back to top

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21699
A cat with a view

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #40 - Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:47pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

Belgarion wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

The right of a skier or motocyclist etc, to cover their face is only for a specific activity and is for recognised safety reasons. It's not a full time concealment of identity based on spurious doctrine.

True...but it's STILL legal...except within certain, limited circumstances....

I have no problems with the full face, or full body veils....PROVIDING they're removed in the same circumstances as motorcycle helmets and balaclavas.....

Give the number of banks that are atm only, and public transport system in major cities...
A 'blanket' ban is unnecessary...I can see the point behind some situations where the full veil is a problem..but I can ALSO see and accept the rights of the women to wear them if they choose (outside of the aforementioned circumstances)....

Ok, perhaps the police should do it like they do with shoplifters..call a female officer to check the face against the photo....it's still doable...

Your dreaming.

The whole reason that moslem women wear the burke, is so that they can conceal their faces, can conceal their apparent identity [claimed on grounds of female 'modesty'], in public.

So as to prevent 'others' [i.e. complete 'strangers' ] from ascertaining their apparent identity / 'form'.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #41 - Apr 19^th, 2011 at 4:01pm

Yadda wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:47pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

Belgarion wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

The right of a skier or motocyclist etc, to cover their face is only for a specific activity and is for recognised safety reasons. It's not a full time concealment of identity based on spurious doctrine.

True...but it's STILL legal...except within certain, limited circumstances....

I have no problems with the full face, or full body veils....PROVIDING they're removed in the same circumstances as motorcycle helmets and balaclavas.....

Give the number of banks that are atm only, and public transport system in major cities...
A 'blanket' ban is unnecessary...I can see the point behind some situations where the full veil is a problem..but I can ALSO see and accept the rights of the women to wear them if they choose (outside of the aforementioned circumstances)....

Ok, perhaps the police should do it like they do with shoplifters..call a female officer to check the face against the photo....it's still doable...

Your dreaming.

The whole reason that moslem women wear the burke, is so that they can conceal their faces, can conceal their apparent identity [claimed on grounds of female 'modesty'], in public.

So as to prevent 'others' [i.e. complete 'strangers' ] from ascertaining their apparent identity / 'form'.

Yadda, are you 100% sure that it's NOT female modesty(in every case) that motivates the Burka????

I mean, there are women/girls in Australia who'd wear 'gladwrap' bikinis...if they thought it'd score them a rich hubby( yes I KNOW..demeaning and sexists)...why is it so surprising that some women are 'modest' and 'DON'T' want to show their "goodies'?????

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21699
A cat with a view

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #42 - Apr 19^th, 2011 at 4:30pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 4:01pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:47pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

Belgarion wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

The right of a skier or motocyclist etc, to cover their face is only for a specific activity and is for recognised safety reasons. It's not a full time concealment of identity based on spurious doctrine.

True...but it's STILL legal...except within certain, limited circumstances....

I have no problems with the full face, or full body veils....PROVIDING they're removed in the same circumstances as motorcycle helmets and balaclavas.....

Give the number of banks that are atm only, and public transport system in major cities...
A 'blanket' ban is unnecessary...I can see the point behind some situations where the full veil is a problem..but I can ALSO see and accept the rights of the women to wear them if they choose (outside of the aforementioned circumstances)....

Ok, perhaps the police should do it like they do with shoplifters..call a female officer to check the face against the photo....it's still doable...

Your dreaming.

The whole reason that moslem women wear the burke, is so that they can conceal their faces, can conceal their apparent identity [claimed on grounds of female 'modesty'], in public.

So as to prevent 'others' [i.e. complete 'strangers' ] from ascertaining their apparent identity / 'form'.

Yadda,

are you 100% sure that it's NOT female modesty(in every case) that motivates the Burka????

I mean, there are women/girls in Australia who'd wear 'gladwrap' bikinis...if they thought it'd score them a rich hubby( yes I KNOW..demeaning and sexists)...why is it so surprising that some women are 'modest' and 'DON'T' want to show their "goodies'?????

gizmo,

Sorry, BUT FEMALE MODESTY IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE [re burkes].

SCENARIO;

The issue here, is that if my religion tells me, that i should be free to walk down Mainstreet, naked,
....SHOULD I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT ???

Should i [...or anyone else] have the right to go naked in public, on the basis that i am merely expressing my 'religious freedom/rights' to do so [i.e. to go naked in public] ???

It is the very same logic that is being used, by those defending the right of moslem women to conceal their apparent identity, in a culture such as ours.

I refer you to my argument against such a right, here....
"The case against Islamic immigration"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302598375/28#28

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #43 - Apr 19^th, 2011 at 5:07pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:38pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:15pm:

Quote:

For Muslims, it is a religious issue, not a personal freedom issue.

For me, it is a personal freedom issue. I also have the right to choose what to wear and am not going to give it up. You keep forgetting Soren that you cannot deny rights to others without denying them to yourself.

There is NO right to cover your identity in the public sphere. If there was, you could have your passport photo taken with the burqa on.
You are making upo this crap as you go, FD.

That's not entirely true Soren.....There is a 'right' to cover your face in public...however it's balanced against the rights of law enforcement to ascertain identity (as in comparing your face against your photo id) and security concerns in relation to armed robbery....

If there was "NO right"...every snow-skier and motorcyclist (and a lot of bicycle riders) would be arrest every time they walked outside...

I don't think you are correct. Just because something is not against the law does not mean that it is, therefore, a right, in the sense of being a good, proper, principled and fair thing, let alone in the sense of entitlement.
Farting is a crowded lift is not against the law but you don't have, therefore, the 'right' to fart in a lift.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48867
At my desk.

Re: the right to choose what to wear
Reply #44 - Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:35pm

Quote:

But people do.

And i am a person.

So am I, and I am not offended. Nor do I care whether you are offended. I do not even believe you are offended. I think you are feigning offence.

Quote:

Our cultural mores are a reflection of ourselves

No. They are a projection of ourselves onto other people. They are a cheap way to pretend to speak for the community when they do not actually share you values. They are a common way to try to impose your will on others. That is why you do not say that the burqa offends your values. Instead you try to pretend it offends everyone, in the hope that this may finally get people to care what you think.

Quote:

There is NO right to cover your identity in the public sphere.

Yes there is. Always has been. You are confusing custom with responsibility.

Quote:

If there was, you could have your passport photo taken with the burqa on.

Taking a photo for identification is not the same situation as being in public. No-one is compelled to have a photo taken for ID purposes unless they get arrested or enter into an arrangement that requires it.

Quote:

You are making upo this crap as you go, FD.

No Soren. I am the only one here who does not chop and change his argument in response to criticism.

Quote:

The right of a skier or motocyclist etc, to cover their face is only for a specific activity and is for recognised safety reasons.

No Belgarion. We did not invent special exceptions. It was our right to cover our face in public, without giving any reason at all.

Quote:

It's not a full time concealment of identity based on spurious doctrine.

Rights are independent of motive.

Quote:

So as to prevent 'others' [i.e. complete 'strangers' ] from ascertaining their apparent identity / 'form'.

What are you on about Yadda? Do you suspect them of being aliens or something?

Quote:

Sorry, BUT FEMALE MODESTY IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE [re burkes].

Yadda, people may cover themselves for whatever reason they want, including modesty. You do not get to choose their motives for them.

Quote:

Should i [...or anyone else] have the right to go naked in public

Yes you should, and in plenty of places you can. We have come a long way from our victorian background, when our women had to wear a full length woolen gown at the beach. Our culture is actually far closer to that of Islam than our current law. Our current standards are a rejection of our culture and history, not a reflection of it.

Quote:

I don't think you are correct.

He is Soren. You are wrong.

Quote:

Just because something is not against the law does not mean that it is, therefore, a right

Actually, that is the simplest definition of a right.

Quote:

in the sense of being a good, proper, principled and fair thing

That is the worst definition of a right I have ever heard. That sounds more like the BS excuses that the 'culture police' such as yourself give for denying people rights. No wonder you have such trouble with this debate. You have no understanding at all of what rights are. No wonder you don't get Australian culture.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged