Choosing to wear a burqa makes it much harder to distinguish between a free woman who has that choice and an oppressed woman who doesn't.-Sun_Tzu-

Which is why better measures should be created to make it easier and safer for oppressed women to receive help. I can't think of any reason why it is important to know who it is oppressed and who isn't based upon their wearing of the burqa, unless it is important that we actively search for those who are oppressed by the burqa, and that seems a bit silly as well as counter-productive. It would be much easier to make it easier for these woman who need help to receive it.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Last time I checked, there isn't really a big problem concerning harsh, arid conditions in France, or any other European country. And where are all these burqa-wearing men in France, or in Denmark, or in the UK, who wear this garment every time they leave the house? They don't seem to exist.-Sun_Tzu-

You said simply that it was designed to restrict your movement and eliminate your peripheral vision, without explaining why it is so. Because of this, it is likely that someone may derive a false implication that it is a garment designed for the express purpose of restricting women, when that is not true as I've detailed. It is worn by the Tuareg of Algeria, to the people of Afghanistan, to the woman of France.

Because it is used by some husbands to restrict their wives, it doesn't mean it was designed for that purpose.

[QUOTE="Famiking"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Last time I checked, there isn't really a big problem concerning harsh, arid conditions in France, or any other European country. And where are all these burqa-wearing men in France, or in Denmark, or in the UK, who wear this garment every time they leave the house? They don't seem to exist.-Sun_Tzu-

We're talking about the Middle East. 25 degrees is winter. 40-50 with occasional sandstorms, where it rains like 10 times a year. These are the conditions we're talking about.

Perhaps to support the cultural heritage they identify with? There are many who choose to wear a burqa of their own volition.

I must add that it is not unusual to wear garments that don't match the climate or weather. It's winter where I live, and I go out in a jacket, t-shirt, and jeans, and it's freezing here. In the summer, I can be seen in sweats.

Banning women who would otherwise voluntarily choose to wear a burqa, while it is indeed restricting their freedom, is hardly oppressive. I can't drive on the wrong side of the road, no can I falsely shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater. Am I being oppressed? Obviously not; restrictions are being placed on my freedoms to ensure that I do not put other people in harms way.

As for me "seeing the other side of the coin", I have actually looked at the other point of view. I have read articles by Islamic women defending the burqa, Islamic women supporting a ban on the burqa, civil libertarians opposing this ban, feminists opposing this ban, as well as feminists supporting this ban. I have not arrived at this position without looking at other points of view.

-Sun_Tzu-

Driving on the wrong side of the road and shouting fire in a crowded movie theater causes accidents as well as chaos, while choosing to wear a burqa does neither. Being forced to wear a burqa is, however, a different issue, that is still not comparable to driving on the wrong side of the road and shouting fire in a movie theatre, but which goes against the rudimentary foundations of a modern democratic nation.

So in other words, it is inherently unlawful to make things illegal?

And sure, we as a society should do everything in our power to stop abuse and oppression, and to encourage the oppressed and the abused to come out and tell the proper authorities that their rights are being violated, and it is in my opinion that this is one of those things that we should do to help these women.

-Sun_Tzu-

It is inherently unlawful to force women to wear a burqa, which was my point, and I presume is yours as well. ;) Furthermore, it is not necessary for the burka to be banned when proper measures could be taken to make it easier and safer for a woman to leave an oppressive marriage, in which she is forced against her will to wear this clothing.

Banning the burka will restrict those who want to wear it. If it is those who are forced to wear it that we care about, banning the burka is not necessary.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] How am I being naive? It is designed to restrict your movements - it is designed to eliminate your peripheral vision. These things aren't just coincidences. -Sun_Tzu-

Um no, it was first designed as a sand-mask to prevent facial damage from the harsh, arid conditions of the desert. It is still commonly worn by women as well as men today.

You said simply that it was designed to restrict your movement and eliminate your peripheral vision, without explaining why it is so. Because of this, it is likely that someone may derive a false implication that it is a garment designed for the express purpose of restricting women, when that is not true as I've detailed. It is worn by the Tuareg of Algeria, to the people of Afghanistan, to the woman of France.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

And how do you distinguish between which women are voluntarily wearing burqas and those who are wearing the burqa against their will?

Bank robbery is illegal, but then so is wearing a ski mask in a bank. Why? Because if the latter weren't illegal it'd be harder to distinguish between regular people and bank robbers. The same logic applies here.

-Sun_Tzu-

The people wearing it against their will could always complain to the police, even still that's like saying lets ban all hats because someone might be wearing it against their will.

In a modern democratic nation, it is inherently unlawful for any individual to force another individual to wear something or do something they do not agree with. Instead of banning an article of clothing that is arguably not oppressive at all, why not make it easier and safer for woman, oppressed by their husbands, to receive help. I do not know what is so difficult about going to an agency, telling them that you're in an oppressive marriage, and that you desire a safe way of getting out of it.

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Well, I am arguing that the burqa is inherently designed to be oppressive.-Sun_Tzu-

even if it is, banning it will literally solve nothing and likely cause the Muslim populace to distrust civil authority even more, perpetuating problems of 'oppression' (abuse) that you seem to naively think are intrinsically tied to this clothing.

Um no, it was first designed as a sand-mask to prevent facial damage from the harsh, arid conditions of the desert. It is still commonly worn by women as well as men today.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Just out of curiosity, what does Maddow do in your opinion that warrants a comparison to Anne Coulter? -Sun_Tzu-

hahha I love Maddow, dont get me wrong, and in hindsight she isnt so bad that she warrants a comparison to The Grand Witch Coulter

but she is the liberal equivelent in some ways...she is not as mean spirited, but she really does tear into conservatives and demonize them in a similiar fashion to Coulter (who demonizes liberals).

But where Coulter is just mean, nasty, and cold...Maddow is just a smartass and funny.

The way I see it, Maddow is sort of a more informative/slightly less witty version of Jon Stewart.

I think this conservative vs liberal mentality is a bit whacked though, which is why I can't respect anyone in the media who participates in this superficial conflict, seeing how it is their job to inform the public.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

It was a missile.

This is a fact.

I know it to be a fact.

Theokhoth

It's interesting that the Russians admit that it was a missile, when before they denied it was a missile. Do you even know the actual physics that proves it was a missile, or are you just going by what a video on Youtube is telling you to be true?

Well, the fact that such phenomena has been demonstrated before--with missiles--tells me this is quite possible. Russia also reversed their statement almost immediately after denying it, particularly because it had been discovered that Russia had warned Norway of a missile test the week before.

Do you have any reason for me to doubt that it was a missile. . .at all, beyond doubting for the sake of doubting? If not, then I contend with 100% certainty that it was a failed missile launch from Russia.

How in the world can you know 100% that it was a missile? That's just pure nonsense. I kind of agree too that it was a missile after seeing the links you provided, but I still have reservations, and I'm not going to pretend that I just know "100% certainty that it was a missile."