.

[On Guard for Thee]

I keep coming back to the same point. It doesn't matter why she wore (wears) it. I support her right to wear it. None of that changes the fact that it is a symbol of the oppression of women. The two are not incompatible.

Why not just say you support her right to wear what she likes, and then full stop.

[Guest]

I do not understand that the posters who state bigoted beliefs get excited when they are identified as bigots.

The Mirriam-Webster dictionary defines bigot as :a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc: a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group).

You folks dislike Muslims and their ideas. You refuse to accept them. Muslims are a religious group.

Why do you try to reject what you are? Be proud of your beliefs and take ownership of your views.

You're confusing disliking a group with disliking certain aspects of the behaviour of certain members of a group. A common misconception on the left.

[Guest]

It's not a fact simply because you say it is. If it is a fact, you're wrong because the person who wears it says it isn't a sign of oppression.

Fact: Money comes in a variety of denominations.

Opinion: Money is a symbol of the economic oppression of the working class.

Is it really so hard to understand the difference? This stuff is taught in grade schools around the country.

Fact: The Swastika has been around for a long time, and has many and varied uses as a symbol

Fact: The Swastica is a symbol of Nazi atrocites.

The two facts are not incompatible.

Is it possible you can answer without accusing me of comparing Muslims to Nazis?

[Guest]

Why not just say you support her right to wear what she likes, and then full stop.

Then I wouldn't get to argue on here. Where's the fun in that?

Do you believe the niqab is not symbolic of the oppression of women?

[On Guard for Thee]

You're confusing disliking a group with disliking certain aspects of the behaviour of certain members of a group. A common misconception on the left.

Wait a minute, you said the niqab is about the oppression of women. Thats a group, thats not certain members. Apparently its the right who are a little confused.

[cybercoma]

Fact: The Swastika has been around for a long time, and has many and varied uses as a symbol

Fact: The Swastica is a symbol of Nazi atrocites.

The two facts are not incompatible.

Is it possible you can answer without accusing me of comparing Muslims to Nazis?

So the problem is that you still don't know what a fact is and you continue to demonstrate it.

For example, "The Swastika has been around for a long time" is not a fact. It's an opinion. It cannot be proven or disproven. What amount of time is long? It's subjective.

"The Swastika has many and varied uses as a symbol" is a fact, but it's banal and meaningless.

Your final point about it being a fact that the Swastika is a symbol of nazi atrocities is belied by the fact that it has "many and varied uses as a symbol." Therefore, it's an opinion, a single interpretation of many possible interpretations, that it's a symbol of Nazi atrocities. It's an inarguable point that can neither be proven nor disproven. Is it a symbol of Nazi atrocities? For some it is. For others it's a symbol of their religious faith.

Fact: The Swastika was the symbol of the National Socialist Party of Germany during the Second World War.

Opinion: The Swastika symbolizes the atrocities committed by the Nazis.

Edited March 17, 2015 by cybercoma

[Guest]

Wait a minute, you said the niqab is about the oppression of women. Thats a group, thats not certain members. Apparently its the right who are a little confused.

No, I was talking about this: "You folks dislike Muslims and their ideas. You refuse to accept them. Muslims are a religious group."

I don't. I couldn't care less about most Muslims or their ideas.

And the niqab is about the oppression of women. Again, no conflict there.

[Guest]

So the problem is that you still don't know what a fact is and you continue to demonstrate it.

For example, "The Swastika has been around for a long time" is not a fact. It's an opinion. It cannot be proven or disproven. What amount of time is long? It's subjective.

"The Swastika has many and varied uses as a symbol" is a fact, but it's banal and meaningless.

Your final point about it being a fact that the Swastika is a symbol of nazi atrocities is belied by the fact that it has "many and varied uses as a symbol." Therefore, it's an opinion, a single interpretation of many possible interpretations, that it's a symbol of Nazi atrocities. It's an inarguable point that can neither be proven nor disproven. Is it a symbol of Nazi atrocities? For some it is. For others it's a symbol of their religious faith.

Fact: The Swastika was the symbol of the National Socialist Party of Germany during the Second World War.

Opinion: The Swastika symbolizes the atrocities committed by the Nazis.

It's not belied. It's my point exactly, that both can be, and are, facts.

[On Guard for Thee]

Then I wouldn't get to argue on here. Where's the fun in that?

Do you believe the niqab is not symbolic of the oppression of women?

I believe if a woman chooses to wear it, then it is not by definition oppression. Which in fact makes your opinion a bit flawed in its generality.

Edited March 17, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[guyser]

And the niqab is about the oppression of women. Again, no conflict there.

What does the word 'oppression mean?

Definition of OPPRESSION

1

a: unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power

b: something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power

2

: a sense of being weighed down in body or mind

Ok, so then one who wants to wear it cannot by definition be oppressed.

Unless of course one can oppress themselves with free will.

Wanna explain that one?

[cybercoma]

It's not belied. It's my point exactly, that both can be, and are, facts.

All I can say then is that you don't know what a "fact" is then. Facts can be proven true or false. Opinions are sometimes based on facts, but are subjective and usually cannot be proven. You can't prove that the Swastika a symbol of Nazi oppression. It's a symbol of oppression because you feel that way. It's a subjective and based on emotion. It describes how you feel about the Swastika, how you interpret the Swastika in a particular context. If you want to turn that opinion into a fact, you could say: "There are people who see the Swastika as a symbol of Nazi oppression." That can be proven by showing to me people who believe that. The idea that it's a symbol of nazi oppression alone is not, however, a fact. It's a subjective opinion.

[Guest]

What does the word 'oppression mean?

Ok, so then one who wants to wear it cannot by definition be oppressed.

Unless of course one can oppress themselves with free will.

Wanna explain that one?

No, I agree with you entirely.

[Big Guy]

Two women walking down the street in Ontario. One is wearing a niqab and the other is topless, baring her breasts. Both are legally attired by law.

Which one do you find offensive - or more offensive?

AND

Should women be allowed to take the citizenship oath if they are topless?

Edited March 17, 2015 by Big Guy

[Guest]

I believe if a woman chooses to wear it, then it is not by definition oppression. Which in fact makes your opinion that it is a bit flawed in its generality.

Right. Again we return to the idea that somehow it cannot be symbolic of the oppression of women if a woman chooses to wear it. The one doesn't negate the other.

[cybercoma]

Right. Again we return to the idea that somehow it cannot be symbolic of the oppression of women if a woman chooses to wear it. The one doesn't negate the other.

It can be used as a tool for oppression, but not necessarily so and never when a woman chooses to wear it of her own free will and especially against the will of her family. It certainly doesn't require a law banning it at citizenship ceremonies in Canada, which is the subject of the thread, since women are free to choose how they dress here and immigrants are not required to give up their cultural and religious identities to be citizens.

Edited March 17, 2015 by cybercoma

[On Guard for Thee]

Two women walking down the street in Ontario. One is wearing a niqab and the other is topless, baring her breasts. Both are legally attired by law.

Which one do you find offensive - or more offensive?

AND

Should women be allowed to take the citizenship oath if they are topless?

Neither.

[Guest]

Two women walking down the street in Ontario. One is wearing a niqab and the other is topless, baring her breasts. Both are legally attired by law.

Which one do you find offensive - or more offensive?

AND

Should women be allowed to take the citizenship oath if they are topless?

I don't find either offensive. I'll assume both are doing so because they want to, because they are in Canada. It doesn't have to be so, but that's the kind of guy I am.

Even in the middle East, the single act cannot be said to be offensive because you can't know the reasoning behind a decision. The garment is symbolic of the oppression of women. That does not mean, as I have stated until blood flowed from under my fingernails, that all women who wear it are coerced into doing so.

Edited March 17, 2015 by bcsapper

[guyser]

Two women walking down the street in Ontario. One is wearing a niqab and the other is topless, baring her breasts. Both are legally attired by law.

Provided they stay on the street, yes.

Which one do you find offensive - or more offensive?

Kind of like the nude beach scenario, those that should be topless dont, those that shouldnt ....do.

Ugh.

AND

Should women be allowed to take the citizenship oath if they are topless?

No

[On Guard for Thee]

Right. Again we return to the idea that somehow it cannot be symbolic of the oppression of women if a woman chooses to wear it. The one doesn't negate the other.

Some people are forced to work in Bangladeshi sweat shops. Does that make all work oppressive...

[Big Guy]

Wearing a ring through your nose.

Is it a cultural message, is it a sign of rebellion, is it face jewelry, is it a sign of oppression?

I suggest that when you look at what one is wearing then it does not represent what you think it does, it represents what the wearer believes it does.

[Guest]

It can be used as a tool for oppression, but not necessarily so and never when a woman chooses to wear it of her own free will and especially against the will of her family. It certainly doesn't require a law banning it at citizenship ceremonies in Canada, which is the subject of the thread, since women are free to choose how they dress here and immigrants are not required to give up their cultural and religious identities to be citizens.

I agree. I was against the laws in Europe and I would be against any such restriction here. The only time I would ever be for such would be where photo ID is used.

[jacee]

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/canada/2015/03/17/tory-mp-on-niqab-issue-stay-the-hell-where-you-came-from.html

If youre not willing to show your face in the ceremony that youre joining the best country in the world, then frankly . . . if you dont like that or dont want to do that, then stay the hell where you came from, Miller said during the show.

Oooooo ... idiot cpc'rs shooting themselves in the foot everywhere these days! ?

Attaboy! Make yourself look like a total dweeb! Plays well with the base(st).

.

Edited March 17, 2015 by jacee

[Argus]

I guess bigots dont have much need for a brain. Where do their thoughts come from I wonder, the guts maybe...

Again with the insults. Why don't you just develop an all-purpose response whenever you don't know what to say, something like:

"Dear ... I hate what you said and I wish I had some kind of witty or intelligent or thoughtful, or even coherent response, but I'm just not capable of any of that. So you're a bigot. Nah, nah, nah, nah naaa nahh."

[Keepitsimple]

I do not understand that the posters who state bigoted beliefs get excited when they are identified as bigots.

The Mirriam-Webster dictionary defines bigot as :a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc: a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group).

You folks dislike Muslims and their ideas. You refuse to accept them. Muslims are a religious group.

Why do you try to reject what you are? Be proud of your beliefs and take ownership of your views.

You are completely out to lunch. You don't even understand that we're talking about a very small group of Niqab wearers who happen to be Muslims. Not ALL Muslims and I'll sorry but I have to use the term..... Dimwit! That comment itself is fear mongering, dishearttening and plain stupid. Hijabs on the other hand - can be beautiful garments - some absolutely stunning - and they DO fulfil a religious purpose - and there's absolutely nothing for people to complain about. We're talking Niqabs here - and if an Irishman was wearing one, I'd be telling him the same thing.....don't be covering your face. Smarten up.

[Argus]

What I can't understand is the lack of an argument. It's like, if people say bigot, or xenophobe often enough, the uncomfortable facts just go away and don't need to be confronted.

It's really all they're capable of. Thoughtful, intelligent responses are beyond them.