Did you forget your posts where you're predicting pogroms?
You made a weak case for that.
Citizenship vs. hijabs/niqabs/burkas. Fight!
- Thread starter Puck Nutty
- Start date
Did you forget your posts where you're predicting pogroms?
You made a weak case for that.
I remember the pogroms
, I also remember the Anne Frank reference . One hyperbole begats another it seems... Since someone has to be first to decide to stop the hyperbole-cycle, the person at fault is always the last one to engage in it.
And others are also demanding that she conform to "traditional" and "basic" "cultural norms"... Maybe your point is that no one is using the word "conform"... If that is your point you might be right. Instead they are using the word "integrate"... Do you consider that just more semantics? I think whether you call it "conforming" or "integrating" or "assimilating" the sentiment is the same. People are calling for her to be less like her and more like "us"
I remember the pogroms
The Anne Frank reference was in response to the pogroms hyperbole.
Call it conformity, integrating, assimilating, cultural appropriation, whatever you want. People are objecting to the niqab because they disagree with the practice, not just because it's foreign. There are also many Muslims in Muslim countries that don't like it either. Is that out of conformity?
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Well, in a word, yes. As was said, it is the natural tendency in grouped humans to demand that everyone be less like themselves and more like us.
Yes that is exactly my point.
Yes it is sometimes out of conformity, or better stated, it is out of a desire for conformity. But that is besides the point. Saying "I object to the niquab because I don't like the practice" isn't giving a reason for your objection is it?
What "practice"? The practice of wearing a niquab? So you are saying "I object to the niquab because I don't like the practice of people wearing a niqab?" What?
What better way to point out the absurdity of a hyperbole than using a hyperbole.
I think we've already gone over the reason why people don't like the niqab and its not just islamophobia or anti foreign sentiment.
We did, true... and we ended up proving that it was also peoples desire for conformity, assimilation [insert desired "semantics" here] etc. So I guess we agree then.
On the first point, well you got me there... [h]what better way to point out the absurdity of shooting people for no reason than to shoot someone for no reason [/hyperbole]
.We did, true... and we ended up proving that it was also peoples desire for conformity, assimilation [insert desired "semantics" here] etc. So I guess we agree then.
On the first point, well you got me there... what better way to point out the absurdity of shooting people for no reason than to shoot someone for no reason
Did we all come to that consensus ?
On the shooting people hyperbole or the reasons to engage in islamophobia... er... I mean insist on conformity?
AFAICT
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Agreed. We came to disapproving of people dressing funny is the normal human demand for conformity. In this case the people 'dressing funny' happen to be Islamic, and the conformity demanding mob is constrained from drawing law enforcement into a conformity enforcement role by freedom of religious expression being a thing.
Anything else, or is this subject dead?
To paraphrase... Anti-niqab = 1. Insistence on Conformity 2. Xenophobia or 3. Islamophobia... None of which are sufficient legal justification to ban niqab from citizenship ceremoniesAnything else, or is this subject dead?
Agreed. We came to disapproving of people dressing funny is the normal human demand for conformity. In this case the people 'dressing funny' happen to be Islamic, and the conformity demanding mob is constrained from drawing law enforcement into a conformity enforcement role by freedom of religious expression being a thing.
Anything else, or is this subject dead?
It's all about dressing funny and conformity. So if she showed up wearing a purple tutu people would have just as much of a problem with it? It's all about conformity?
Except many people who are anti-niqab have no problem with people wearing hijab, abaya, galabiyah, dishdash, etc. so the idea that it's all about conformity, or Islamophobia is absurd.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
The demand for conformity is always presented as limited.
"I have no problem with long hair, but not that long."
"I'm not a prude, bathing suits above the knee are fine with me."
"I'm not biased about religion. Whatever sect of Christianity you prefer is fine."
On and on and on...but as was so beautifully stated earlier, it all comes down to "we want you to be less like you and more like us."
Again, this is just about conformity? It has nothing to do with people having issues over the custom of purdah?
warpus
In pork I trust
Alright, I'm convinced, let's open the floodgates - No more citizenship rules - all get in, no matter what. Wear a shoe on your head, it doesn't matter. Come covered in excrement, it's all cool. Do what you like.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,812
Isn't that kinda like throwing up one's hands and declaring, "Fine. Let's let people marry their dogs?" Not trying to snark Warpus. Is it kinda like that to you? It seems like it to me and I'd like to know why if it doesn't seem like it to you.
My belief that you argue from a good place and in good faith stands.
My belief that you argue from a good place and in good faith stands.
warpus
In pork I trust
Oh there's definitely hyperbole in that ^^ post of mine.
However, it does seem that some people seem to think that it's improper for the Canadian government to have rules that contradict religious traditions. It does seem to be an issue of "where do you draw the line?", but at the same time, I do get the sense that some people seem to be saying that you've got to make accommodations for religious beliefs - no matter what.
However, it does seem that some people seem to think that it's improper for the Canadian government to have rules that contradict religious traditions. It does seem to be an issue of "where do you draw the line?", but at the same time, I do get the sense that some people seem to be saying that you've got to make accommodations for religious beliefs - no matter what.
