Muslim headscarves (1 Viewer)

[AsyLum]

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

Sorry was editing and accidently hit the button.

Refer to above post

 

[MoonlightSonata]

If you want to put forward an argument that equality is of itself a bad thing, be my guest.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Forced equality is in many circumstances a bad thing...
i.e. I wasn't born a good writer, it's not right that people should have to buy my books, or that I should even be a writer if I'm not good at it. I should use the gifts that I naturally have.

 

[AsyLum]

Haha, any argument put forward to suggest otherwise from your point of conditioning and social context would be cast down and rejected. Thats how conditioning and context works. Conflict arises due to this, and to do so would be as pointless an exercise as suggesting those people being conditioned are in the wrong, whilst you declare yourself arbiter of all that is 'equal' and 'right'

White is only the social norm, because Western dominance has effectively ingrained it, institutionalised, and normalised the concept. If it were the throwback, and Black-ness was the social norm, any such cries for White equality would fall on very much the same ears.

Discrimination and prejudice is knowing of these differences and contextual conditioning and still pursuing a path which places one above another.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Haha, any argument put forward to suggest otherwise from your point of conditioning and social context would be cast down and rejected.

Any rejection of your arguments by myself will be based on my ability to use reason and logic. If you're going to argue that the innate reasoning abilities of man, formalised into dialectic systems (eg. deductive logic) is dependant on social context, then I'd like to see you prove those systems wrong. For they are, after all, about the pursuit of truth. If you want to prove reason and logic wrong, you will have to prove that their valid application, as set out in those systems, does not lead to truth. All I can say on that one is good luck

whilst you declare yourself arbiter of all that is 'equal' and 'right'

Haha. We should rename this day "ad hominem day". If you have something against my argument, best to attack it, not me.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Forced equality is in many circumstances a bad thing...
i.e. I wasn't born a good writer, it's not right that people should have to buy my books, or that I should even be a writer if I'm not good at it. I should use the gifts that I naturally have.

That's true. Though I would rephrase that by saying:

Equality is of itself a good thing, unless in a certain situation the application of equality would lead to more harm being done than good.

 

[AsyLum]

Any rejection of your arguments by myself will be based on my ability to use reason and logic. If you're going to argue that the innate reasoning abilities of man, formalised into dialectic systems (eg. deductive logic) is dependant on social context, then I'd like to see you prove those systems wrong. For they are, after all, about the pursuit of truth. If you want to prove reason and logic wrong, you will have to prove that their valid application, as set out in those systems, does not lead to truth. All I can say on that one is good luck

Your very reasoning is based upon a logic and language, as you have put it, a linguistic based upon a cultural and socially contextual makeup which is dictated by various rules and customs. That is not to say that logic and reason are not inherent, rather the rules upon which you determine them, say Socratic dialectic, is expressed via some rules or conventions, these discourses are themselves the product of a context.

On the flip-side i could go into metaphysics and deny that man is inherently anything more than non-physical matter attached via some form of neuro-logical or spatial/temporal biosphere and a secondary metaphysical force which surmounts the psyche and the unexplainable, ala soul.

Haha. We should rename this day "ad hominem day". If you have something against my argument, best to attack it, not me.

Oh but i am attacking your argument, any indications that suggest otherwise i apologise. I am merely stating that the very argument you use to suggest that this "conditioning" could perform a) could very well, and is in play, in our very own socio-context

 

[transcendent]

MoonlightSonata provides arguments.
Asylum instead of attacking the arguments based on evidence from, I'm guessing, legal proceedings, goes back to the fundamental roots of which society is based on instead of providing a counter argument.

Because of this MoonlightSonata has to go back and redefine society, language and the shebang thereby wasting time and going no where with the actual argument being raised.

Can you, for once, skip the philosophy and sociology and get to the counterargument about why equality is bad? Please?

 

[AsyLum]

Equality is a buzz word.

Equality pre-supposes that a suitable and universal concept of levels can be achieved and thereby some form of "middle ground" upon which everyone in some way, shape or form conforms to.

Now if we were to find this very concept, 'equality' is reached, but on what grounds? Can 'equality' really be achieved? To 'equalise' is to group everyone into being the same, being of the middle, the mediocre/best/worst at once.

transcendent: Dismissing my arguments? Why I must ask? Are "facts" and "figures" to your liking? Well, i'd really appreciate you providing some facts which suggest equality is right, without using any form of socio-philosophical reasoning.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Your very reasoning is based upon a logic and language, as you have put it, a linguistic based upon a cultural and socially contextual makeup which is dictated by various rules and customs. That is not to say that logic and reason are not inherent, rather the rules upon which you determine them, say Socratic dialectic, is expressed via some rules or conventions, these discourses are themselves the product of a context.

They may well be expressed in conventions formed through different social contexts. But if you want to prove the foundations of my language and reasoning is somehow flawed, you must prove that those systems do not produce truths through an examination of their application. Since you cannot, the reason and logic that I am using must be defeated using that same logic.

Bottom-line: it is the very best we have, it is prudent to accept it, and it is the most objective way of thinking that exists.

On the flip-side i could go into metaphysics and deny that man is inherently anything more than non-physical matter attached via some form of neuro-logical or spatial/temporal biosphere and a secondary metaphysical force which surmounts the psyche and the unexplainable, ala soul.

Yes, for whatever strange reason that may compel you to do such a thing, you could advance that argument. But I would endeavour to ensure that you failed wonderfully

 

[AsyLum]

Haha, and thus why i said putting forward any argument would be useless

We come from two very different schools of thought, but ah, its fun to debate like this

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Haha, and thus why i said putting forward any argument would be useless

We come from two very different schools of thought, but ah, its fun to debate like this

It is indeed

*cheers to sociological inquiry*

 

[transcendent]

transcendent: Dismissing my arguments? Why I must ask? Are "facts" and "figures" to your liking? Well, i'd really appreciate you providing some facts which suggest equality is right, without using any form of socio-philosophical reasoning.

Nah not dismissing them. I think MoonlightSonata's already provided the reasoning I was thinking along since I'm not as good in wordplay or debate.

You said it best: We come from two very different schools of thought, but ah, its fun to debate like this

Debate is good, just I tend to skim over the main points from both sides and go straight into who won the argument.

 

[Wesnat]

A good thing about this debate is that none of us actually touched the point that the headscarves represent 'defiance', a paranoid view taken by Bishop.

Summary of the debate: equality is a reason why Muslim women perhaps shouldn't wear it (although I don't know the exact reason why they must wear it), but it is not a reason why it should be banned.

Banning headscarves is a sudden, forceful act that would require many Muslims to change their values, which would offend them. Why do we want to do this at times when relationships with the Islamic communities are volatile?

Besides, remember that Muslim cleric who criticised women who 'reveal too much'? What was our one response?

"Women should wear anything they want."

So let us not be hypocritical.

I know that some women probably are forced to wear the headscarves, but that's a whole different story isn't it? Many, many women of Islamic faith believe that it's the right thing to do. If you want to change their values, do it by presenting them with the other side of things, and let they decide for themselves what to wear.

 

[futile_blather]

A good thing about this debate is that none of us actually touched the point that the headscarves represent 'defiance', a paranoid view taken by Bishop.

Summary of the debate: equality is a reason why Muslim women perhaps shouldn't wear it (although I don't know the exact reason why they must wear it), but it is not a reason why it should be banned.

Banning headscarves is a sudden, forceful act that would require many Muslims to change their values, which would offend them. Why do we want to do this at times when relationships with the Islamic communities are volatile?

Besides, remember that Muslim cleric who criticised women who 'reveal too much'? What was our one response?

"Women should wear anything they want."

So let us not be hypocritical.

I know that some women probably are forced to wear the headscarves, but that's a whole different story isn't it? Many, many women of Islamic faith believe that it's the right thing to do. If you want to change their values, do it by presenting them with the other side of things, and let they decide for themselves what to wear.

What crap are you ranting on about? How would it force them to change their values - the ban would only be active in school jurisdictions, not for the entirety of society. They can wear what they like out of the school environment, thus it would have no discernable effect on their values.

 

[muhammad 1]

Just like to point out that equality does not necessarily lead to fairness

 

[chubbaraff]

A case of the liberals not being so liberal. Would someone expel Bronwyn Bishop, I'm far from a liberal (see below) but she has pissed some liberals off with this one...freedom is such a selective word sometimes. If only she hung around people who wore hijab's she would understand that most of these women are not only highly educated but more Australian than her... SHAME

 

[Wesnat]

How would it force them to change their values - the ban would only be active in school jurisdictions, not for the entirety of society. They can wear what they like out of the school environment, thus it would have no discernable effect on their values.

These women believe that they must wear it all the time (in public, if I'm not mistaken), irrelevant of where they are. This ban still requires them to change their values to a certain extent. Otherwise, they won't be offended, which obviously is not the case.

EDIT: wasn't there a fuss about a Muslim high schooler who was suspended from school for wearing the headscarf a few months ago? If I recall correctly, she said something along the lines of interfering with her beliefs. So, obviously this ban does have an effect on their beliefs and values.

On a side note, I've read some letters in the newspapers. Apparently some people are offended by the sight of women wearing the headscarves...

 

[soha]

On a side note, I've read some letters in the newspapers. Apparently some people are offended by the sight of women wearing the headscarves...

thats kinda like how i get offended when i see half naked people
with major cleavage
really mini skirts
belly buttons exposed..bikinis
etc..

 

[MoonlightSonata]

A case of the liberals not being so liberal. Would someone expel Bronwyn Bishop, I'm far from a liberal (see below) but she has pissed some liberals off with this one...freedom is such a selective word sometimes. If only she hung around people who wore hijab's she would understand that most of these women are not only highly educated but more Australian than her... SHAME

There aren't many people wearing hijabs in our electorate...