france is fucking retarded

[Kött]

the burka is a symbol of radical islam, a religious sect that promotes male supremacy, suppression and physical abuse of women, incest, rape, and a system of law that treats women like objects. there is nothing tolerant or free about the burka and what it represents. any woman that likes to wear the burka is brainwashed.

they aren't brainwashed. these women want to cover up their bodies for the same reason that chrisitian nuns want to conceal their bodies. they care very much about their religion and relationship with god and want to be modest. many women wear the neck and head scarf because they dont want to be seen as sexual objects and want to be valued for their mind. i dont believe that the burqua is a symbol of all the things that are wrong with radical islam.

I wanna RAPE you because your HAIR n your FACE gives me a huge HARDON! That surely is enough of a reason for me because France is a country with standards of the MIDDLE AGES and I am part of its BARBARIAN CULTURE and don't follow any LAWS! Also I'm directoy from HELL! OH YEAH!

In these ages, there is so much exposition of sex and erotic in society and the media that it's just fucking ridiculous that some poeple still seem to think showing their hair or even their face may degrade them to a sex object...
And strangely I often do have fantasies about raping nuns.

Also it's time for some burka porn! Make this topic nsfw!

[Philip K Dick]

hey

kott






shut up

[ZekeySpaceyLizard]

hey

kott






shut up

[billy]

hey

kott






shut up

most

(citation missing)

[Wasim]

[size=]

FUCK THE HATERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[/size]

[billy]

[trent bortknob]

i highly doubt that sarkozy gives two shits about women's rights. i would bet anything that sarkozy hates the veil simply because it is non-french and doesn't mesh with the french culture

hey nice ad hominem circumstantial

an ad-hominem circumstantial is when you try to prove that someone's argument is wrong by showing that the person who said it is not credible. this is usually done by belittling the other person, or bringing up some sort of character flaw that isn't really relevant to the argument. which i did not do.

a good example of an ad-hominem circumstantial would be:  "taylors opinion on islam is wrong becuase he's a dipshit who thinks atheism is a religion"

exactly, and you're saying "oh the ruler only doesn't like it because it's non-french" which is claiming that his argument is wrong because of his circumstance. the same thing would be if a teacher made an argument and someone said "oh he has to do that since he's a teacher otherwise he might lose his job"

even if that is true it doesn't make them wrong so your attack is irrelevant. even if deep down the ruler only dislikes the burka because it is non-french, that isn't the argument he's making so your point has no merit other than an attack on the person

and also im not going to bother responding to your atheism whatever comment because you obviously didnt keep up with the thread and don't know what you're talking about

[billy]

i highly doubt that sarkozy gives two shits about women's rights. i would bet anything that sarkozy hates the veil simply because it is non-french and doesn't mesh with the french culture

hey nice ad hominem circumstantial

an ad-hominem circumstantial is when you try to prove that someone's argument is wrong by showing that the person who said it is not credible. this is usually done by belittling the other person, or bringing up some sort of character flaw that isn't really relevant to the argument. which i did not do.

a good example of an ad-hominem circumstantial would be:  "taylors opinion on islam is wrong becuase he's a dipshit who thinks atheism is a religion"

exactly, and you're saying "oh the ruler only doesn't like it because it's non-french" which is claiming that his argument is wrong because of his circumstance. the same thing would be if a teacher made an argument and someone said "oh he has to do that since he's a teacher otherwise he might lose his job"

even if that is true it doesn't make them wrong so your attack is irrelevant. even if deep down the ruler only dislikes the burka because it is non-french, that isn't the argument he's making so your point has no merit other than an attack on the person

and also im not going to bother responding to your atheism whatever comment because you obviously didnt keep up with the thread and don't know what you're talking about

[rtil]

most

(citation missing)

Polls suggest that a large majority of the French favour the ban. A January 2004 survey for Agence France-Presse showed 78% of teachers in favour. A February 2004 survey by CSA for Le Parisien showed 69% of the population for the ban and 29% against. For Muslims in France, the February survey showed 42% for and 53% against. Among surveyed Muslim women, 49% approved the proposed law, and 43% opposed it.

Complex reasons may influence why an individual either supports or opposes this amendment. They range from ensuring sex equality, preventing girls from being pressured into wearing the headscarf, or a desire to see the Muslim community assimilated into French society on the one hand; to upholding the rights of individuals of any religion to dress as their religion requires or opposing what may be seen as discrimination against Muslims on the other.

more recent polls:
64% want ban or fine - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63N0KS20100424
70% of french support burqa ban, above majority in spain, italy, UK & germany - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e0c0e732-254d-11...144feab49a.html
57% http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1983871,00.html

[shura]

you're saying "oh the ruler only doesn't like it because it's non-french" which is claiming that his argument is wrong because of his circumstance.

lmao this makes no fuckin sense

even if that is true it doesn't make them wrong so your attack is irrelevant. even if deep down the ruler only dislikes the burka because it is non-french, that isn't the argument he's making so your point has no merit other than an attack on the person

i never once said sarkozy argument was wrong and i didn't try to take away sarkozy's credibility by pointing out some sort of flaw or anything. an ad-hominem is a logical fallacy. what i wrote is a justification of why somebody doesn't like something. even if it isn't true, it isn't a logical fallacy. you clearly dont know what an ad hominem circumstance is and probably just said it to try and sound smart

[BluPhoenix]

this issue reminds of a certain french ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8VB8eg--SgI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8VB8eg--SgI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[trent bortknob]

i never once said sarkozy argument was wrong and i didn\\\'t try to take away sarkozy\\\'s credibility by pointing out some sort of flaw or anything. an ad-hominem is a logical fallacy. what i wrote is a justification of why somebody doesn\\\'t like something. even if it isn\\\'t true, it isn\\\'t a logical fallacy. you clearly dont know what an ad hominem circumstance is and probably just said it to try and sound smart

it really sounds like you\\\'re arguing semantics here

"i was only saying why he banned it, not claiming his argument is wrong" doesn\\\'t really make any sense because by saying that he is wrong because he is just biased against non french things, you\\\'re still making an attack on the decision which he argued for.

even if that\\\'s NOT what you were doing, you sure did make it look like it. by the way you posted it you made it seem like you were saying "oh that snobby french guy is banning something just because it\\\'s not french". that is definitely ad hominem circumstantial, being as it\\\'s an attack against the person (ad hominem) based on the person\\\'s position (circumstancial) and not their argument

you clearly dont know what an ad hominem circumstance is and probably just said it to try and sound smart

this is both ad hominem abusive AND ad hominem circumstantial NOPE YOU\\\'VE NEVER USED THAT SHIT BEFORE WHAT WAS I THINKING

[rtil]

i\\\'m still waiting for a response to the real issue behind this topic

the burka is a symbol of radical islam, a religious sect that promotes male supremacy, suppression and physical abuse of women, incest, rape, and a system of law that treats women like objects. there is nothing tolerant or free about the burka and what it represents. any woman that likes to wear the burka is brainwashed.

they aren\\\'t brainwashed. these women want to cover up their bodies for the same reason that chrisitian nuns want to conceal their bodies. they care very much about their religion and relationship with god and want to be modest. many women wear the neck and head scarf because they dont want to be seen as sexual objects and want to be valued for their mind. i dont believe that the burqua is a symbol of all the things that are wrong with radical islam.  

the burka may be used as a tool to control and oppress women in the middle east, but i dont believe it is wrong for a woman to choose to wear it if she wants to.  these women are non-violent good people who aren\\\'t harming anybody by wearing it, and the government has no right to tell people what they can and cannot wear.

i\\\'m not saying they do - but i\\\'m just trying to explain to you why most europeans feel the way they do about it. the burka comes from societies where children will have their arms run over by cars by force for stealing a loaf of bread. where you can be put to death for not following islam. where you are raised to believe that anyone who doesn\\\'t believe what they do deserves to be killed. that is brainwashing and most of these women come from this kind of background.

i\\\'m just wondering how you would feel if, say, 1-2% of our population demanded that their religion deserved a special status above all others in which their should be special courts to serve their religious laws and that they be barred from criticism or federal law because of their beliefs, and that if you didn\\\'t give them this they reacted violently and pledged to take over your country by force. and for the record, their prophet had sex with a 9 year old girl.

[billy]

most

(citation missing)

Polls suggest that a large majority of the French favour the ban. A January 2004 survey for Agence France-Presse showed 78% of teachers in favour. A February 2004 survey by CSA for Le Parisien showed 69% of the population for the ban and 29% against. For Muslims in France, the February survey showed 42% for and 53% against. Among surveyed Muslim women, 49% approved the proposed law, and 43% opposed it.

Complex reasons may influence why an individual either supports or opposes this amendment. They range from ensuring sex equality, preventing girls from being pressured into wearing the headscarf, or a desire to see the Muslim community assimilated into French society on the one hand; to upholding the rights of individuals of any religion to dress as their religion requires or opposing what may be seen as discrimination against Muslims on the other.

more recent polls:
64% want ban or fine - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63N0KS20100424
70% of french support burqa ban, above majority in spain, italy, UK & germany - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e0c0e732-254d-11...144feab49a.html
57% http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1983871,00.html

Sorry, I didn't quote you properly...

where you are raised to believe that anyone who doesn't believe what they do deserves to be killed. that is brainwashing and most of these women come from this kind of background.

I don't think most muslims who wear the burka feel this way. I have spoken to several students (quite possibly not indicative of the majority of burka wearers) who wear the burka and they were not wearing it as some sort of insidious statement that the country will burn and rise up again as a muslim nation etc. They were wearing it completely of their own free will because it was their way of getting closer to god and being modest. They did not seem brainwashed or oppressed.

Furthermore, just because a majority of people want something banned does not mean it should be banned. If that were the case the majority groups of a population would constantly oppress the minorities.

[rtil]

I don't think most muslims who wear the burka feel this way. I have spoken to several students (quite possibly not indicative of the majority of burka wearers) who wear the burka and they were not wearing it as some sort of insidious statement that the country will burn and rise up again as a muslim nation etc. They were wearing it completely of their own free will because it was their way of getting closer to god and being modest. They did not seem brainwashed or oppressed.

were they american or european? are they immigrants?

Furthermore, just because a majority of people want something banned does not mean it should be banned.

never said that.

[billy]

They were american immigrants.

[rtil]

that's interesting. i've never seen an american muslim that wore a burqa. while there are a lot of different kinds, the very concealing ones with the mesh have been used to commit crimes in many european countries and you should have to show your face when going around in public. do i support the ban of a head garment like that - yes. does the european ban go further than that - probably.

i think their anger is justified in europe, though. the resurgence of the burqa does partially stem from the taliban and the radical islam movement. and they do want to take over europe. they speak about it all the time. and if they don't get what they want, they threaten violence. we all know this and we've seen it in the media. that's unacceptable behavior in a modern society. and when the europeans retaliate against it in a civil way i think that's completely understandable.

[billy]

I think it's justifiable but not correct. Anything can be justified, but that doesn't make it the correct course of action. I don't know what the correct course of action is, but I'm pretty positive it's not a ban on people's personal freedoms.

[rtil]

like i said before, a lot of those women are abused and are forced to wear those garments. personally i would not call that freedom. i suppose people should be free to wear things that conceal their face, but it's pretty much the equivalent of walking around with a ski mask on. try walking into a bank with your face covered and see how that blows over.

the proper response is for the government to not acknowledge their religion. separation of church and state is the only way to truly have freedom of religion. but over the past few years public officials have given in to a lot of ridiculous demands by radical islam. people are sick of it and this is how they react. unfortunate i guess, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the barbaric and hateful actions religious zealots inflict on innocent people.

[billy]

Yep.