Muslim headscarves (2 Viewers)

[HotShot]

the hijab should not be banned, there is no reason for it to be banned. Also I feel the comment that women oppressed or they do not have equal rites is not a valid argument as well, considering most of these whinging come from non-muslims, who have no right to tell others what to wear and what not to.

Just because you are not allowed to wear a cross in a school doesnt mean hijabs should be banned, considering catholic schools only choose catholics first -discrimination? i dont think so...or is it>?

anyhow, also many women think/feel the hijab is for protection, this utterly is completely and absolutely wrong ideology ---its stupid! and the fact a lot of women simply wear it cos they have too, i know people who wear it back in their home countries but here in Australia they dont!

i mean how can hijab protect, especially in a western country where there are more women walking around without one--they dont get raped?

as such the hijab shouldnt be banned and the women wearing should be brought to the truth that it serves no purpose apart from fashion. its acceptable inthe middle east because of sand-storms etc inthe desert.

ppl who say ban the hijab, its like saying ban wearing your shirts or pants, after all its the same thing - a piece of cloth. why should people not have the right to wear what they want? itstheir choice to wear or not.

 

[HotShot]

people who use straw person arguments should burn in hell, because it makes the stupid/disinterested person who listen thing they are winning the argument.

Say no to straw person arguments

straw person arguments-wats that?

 

[Sepulchres]

1. Yes I thought you'd try and put her into a little extremist box to write her off. (Fallacy: ad hominem.) Newsflash: the fact that she is a lesbian is completely irrelevant. Stick to the facts and her arguments.

The fact that she is a lesbian does have something to do with this because it would shape the way in which she thinks hence the Islamic reformist view. She could be lesbian, gay, bisexual for all I care, its nothing personal.

The younger generation (ie. the generation that has less of the male-dominated religious control branded into their skulls) has been very receptive to reformist thinking such as hers. Her views do not reflect the older, conditioned, traditionally stubborn Muslim population, no. Ever consider that maybe they should?

You speak geneally when you say the "younger generation." Maybe they are receptive because they do not truly understand their religion. Anyway, its an age old imperative that the elder generation is tied with conventional the ways rather than reform. Should they consider it? Sure. Should they approve of it? Perhaps not.

I never said or implied that.

The strongest point in this argument is that it is harmful to the women who wear it because it acts as a repressive device in those cultures.

It acts as a repressive device, thus by removing it you liberate women. Is that not what you imply there?

Read what I write more carefully. I am against the ban.

Thats great. More power to you soldier.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Irshad Manji is not a valid source. I mean she is I suppose if you consider the opinions of literate people who consistantly re-use the same idea over and over.

"The problem with Islamic thought," Irshad Manji argues, "is that it's constantly reproducing the same paradigms. We keep hearing the same damn thing from these mullahs. The mark of a so-so thinker is that she reproduces the same idea, over and over..." Hmmm....

I would respect her, if it seemed she had any integrity, but she seems to be just another publicity whore and she can't even write well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[HotShot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

psst its BS.

its always useful to check the credibility of the person speaking, if Saddam says he is a good guy is it true?= it is true! cos he said it, where as Bush says " i am good person" is this true=no way! cos he is a liar?

catch me? i cant,

anyhow that BS that is

moving on, i think the ppl saying to ban the headscarves should wear it for a day and see how it feels? niceidea?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The fact that she is a lesbian does have something to do with this because it would shape the way in which she thinks hence the Islamic reformist view. She could be lesbian, gay, bisexual for all I care, its nothing personal.

It is irrelevant. Attack her argument. Surely if there is some invalidity in it, you can find it there.

You speak geneally when you say the "younger generation." Maybe they are receptive because they do not truly understand their religion.

You mean, maybe they have not been conditioned into following it in the anachronistic way that their eldars do?

The fact that you tend to think that women are liberated, equal, free once the headscarf is banned

It acts as a repressive device, thus by removing it you liberate women. Is that not what you imply there?

I never said that women would be "liberated, equal, free once the headscarf is banned". I said that the headscarf is inhibitive of equality, and that it is repressive in that sense. I didn't ever advocate for it to be "banned" so I cannot possibly have said that.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

psst its BS.

its always useful to check the credibility of the person speaking, if Saddam says he is a good guy is it true?= it is true! cos he said it, where as Bush says " i am good person" is this true=no way! cos he is a liar?

Utterly wrong. I know this may sound arrogant but I really suggest you take a basic first year philosophy course in reason/logic.

Suppose Saddam said that "When you throw something into the air, it falls to the ground." Suppose Nelson Mandella said "No, that is not true because the moon is made of blue cheese." If ad-hominem arguments had any weight, we should disregard Saddam's point of view because he is not credible. That, is is BS.

You must attack the argument itself, not the maker of the argument.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

its always useful to check the credibility of the person speaking, if Saddam says he is a good guy is it true?= it is true! cos he said it, where as Bush says " i am good person" is this true=no way! cos he is a liar?

If people are willing to say "I am a good guy" and try to say they have good character, then it is fair to bring in evidence to show they have bad character.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Are people here actually claiming that headscarves should be banned? I mean I do somewhat agree that the headscarf is probably sometimes a rejection of values and shit... but so are goths/emo's that die their hair black/pink/whatever.

 

[HotShot]

Utterly wrong. I know this may sound arrogant but I really suggest you take a basic first year philosophy course in reason/logic.

Suppose Saddam said that "When you throw something into the air, it falls to the ground." Suppose Nelson Mandella said "No, that is not true because the moon is made of blue cheese." If ad-hominem arguments had any weight, we should disregard Saddam's point of view because he is not credible. That, is is BS.

You must attack the argument itself, not the maker of the argument.

you put hypothetical point, why shouldn't we disregard his point of view, knowing his credibility, the eveidence is his credibility-what he has done in the past?

the maker of the argument is by far more important thatn the argument, psyhologically the brain tends to biase depending on who argues, for instance the take me, most of you think i am a retart (very true, but anyway) and thus tend not to believe what i say-its natural and right.

attacking the argument alone, is like walking blindly, falling into a trap, and thus being tricked. assume saddam says "i will not bomb america", but bush says "he will", then a bystander knowing the credibilty of both will say saddam will bomb america? where as according to you the makre of the argument is not necessay basically means the argument has no purpose:

BS

 

[HotShot]

Are people here actually claiming that headscarves should be banned? I mean I do somewhat agree that the headscarf is probably sometimes a rejection of values and shit... but so are goths/emo's that die their hair black/pink/whatever.

I dont know, i am trying to keep the conversation going.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

the maker of the argument is by far more important thatn the argument, psyhologically the brain tends to biase depending on who argues, for instance the take me, most of you think i am a retart (very true, but anyway) and thus tend not to believe what i say-its natural and right.

Yes I think you're a bit of a retard but I still attack your argument to disprove it, I don't simply say "You're a retard."

I dont know, i am trying to keep the conversation going.

I can't imagine anyone actually supporting this...

 

[rcandelori]

Retard or not, the hijab should be banned, as should all other religious symbols in schools. If they don't like it - tough. Uniforms exist for a bloody good reason. Back to your ignorant caves you shall go!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I have no problem with religious symbols in schools as long as they aren't too distracting/annoying or whatever...

 

[rcandelori]

No. It must be done across the board so everyone is equal. There are imbeciles around who will argue that "oh no, we are sacrificing individuality" well what I would wholeheartedly say is that if you need some absurd piece of cloth on your head or a crucifix necklace to prove that you are somehow different and individual then there musn't be anything of worth beneath the facade.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I have no problem with people excercising a bit of freedom in school, dying their hair black and being goths or whatever, or even being openly religious.

The only people i really have a problem with are like.... wiccans that might wanna dress up like clowns.

 

[rcandelori]

I have no problem with people excercising a bit of freedom in school, dying their hair black and being goths or whatever, or even being openly religious.

The only people i really have a problem with are like.... wiccans that might wanna dress up like clowns.

ummmmm.....................ooooo kkkkkkkkk

 

[MoonlightSonata]

you put hypothetical point, why shouldn't we disregard his point of view, knowing his credibility, the eveidence is his credibility-what he has done in the past?

the maker of the argument is by far more important thatn the argument, psyhologically the brain tends to biase depending on who argues, for instance the take me, most of you think i am a retart (very true, but anyway) and thus tend not to believe what i say-its natural and right.

attacking the argument alone, is like walking blindly, falling into a trap, and thus being tricked. assume saddam says "i will not bomb america", but bush says "he will", then a bystander knowing the credibilty of both will say saddam will bomb america? where as according to you the makre of the argument is not necessay basically means the argument has no purpose:

BS

Yeah you're right, total BS.

• Princeston: Dept of Philosophy - James Pryor - Ad hominem
• Stanford: Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Ad hominem
• Texas State: Ad hominem
• Minnesota State: Dept of Philosophy - Ad hominem
• University of Washington: Dept of Communication - Fallacies
• Wikipedia - Ad hominem
• California State University: Fallacies
• University of Texas, Arlington: Dept of Philosophy - How to argue
• University of North Carolina: Encyclopedia of Econimcs, Ad hominem
• University of Arizona - Dept of English - Fallacies
• Southern Methodist University, Dallas: Fallacies

 

[AsyLum]

People can be made to feel anything with conditioning. It doesn't mean it is healthy or respectful. There really is no rational point behind it, in my opinion. It is anachronistic and ought to go -- just by the communities themselves, not by the law.

As I say, there is little rational force behind a number of religious curiosities. It doesn't mean we ban them.

Exactly why your argument thereby 'denying' this 'Western' conception is effectively nullified.

Equality is a good thing, whether people are used to it or not.

Is this not a sign of conditioning?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Exactly why your argument thereby 'denying' this 'Western' conception is effectively nullified.

My contention is about equality, not about defiance of "Western ideals" per se.