jacee Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) You're the one splitting hairs. I'm merely pointing out that there's a difference between fact and opinion. Saying that the niqab is a symbol of female oppression is not a fact. You're the one who has come in to split hairs about an irrelevant example.The Cons are now painting themselves the great defenders of womens' rights ... as long as women do and wear what they tell them. . Edited March 18, 2015 by jacee Quote
Argus Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 I take it you didn't read the link, then. I take it you are unable to answer the question, then. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 Sigh. Your constant and baseless assumptions indicate a mode of thinking that is in a bit of a rut, and not likely to accept any of the various posts and posters who have pointed that out. So....carry on I guess. What is it you think I'm assuming, other than your ignorance about Muslim law and Muslim domestic abuse? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Black Dog Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 I take it you are unable to answer the question, then. So your view is that any woman who claim they chose the niqab (in some cases explicitly against the wishes of their spouse) is lying/brainwashed. Seems legit. Quote
Argus Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 Those aren't "our rules" according to the court. You don't have the right to dictate what a woman wears in public. . He didn't say you could. He sad that most Canadians would prefer people with the attitude evidenced by this woman stay home and not come to Canada. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
poochy Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 The Cons are now painting themselves the great defenders of womens' rights ... as long as women do and wear what they tell them. . Yes, and the left defends almost anything from a culture that oppresses women, gays, and well, you name it. That moral high ground you think you're standing on is a swamp and you're quickly sinking into it. How many women not of that religion choose to wear a Niqab? Right, so tell us again that it isn't a part of the religion that tells them to sit at the back of the room when menstruating, or not allow them to eat with men, etc etc etc. It's really people like you who don't know what they stand for, the left wing schism rears it's ugly head once again. But good job defending that oppression while bleieving in your heroic status as the defenders of rights and freedoms, it's always impressive. Quote
Argus Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 So your view is that any woman who claim they chose the niqab (in some cases explicitly against the wishes of their spouse) is lying/brainwashed. Seems legit. Any woman who wears a shroud everywhere she goes is either mentally deranged, a religious fanatic or the hostage to someone who is one or both. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Black Dog Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 Any woman who wears a shroud everywhere she goes is either mentally deranged, a religious fanatic or the hostage to someone who is one or both. Hitting the sauce early today are we? Quote
guyser Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 Any woman who wears a shroud everywhere she goes is either mentally deranged, a religious fanatic or the hostage to someone who is one or both. Honestly have no idea why you shoot your own arguments full of holes with this sort of stuff. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 What is it you think I'm assuming, other than your ignorance about Muslim law and Muslim domestic abuse? Domestic abuse exists in all societies. Your assumption that a woman from Muslim society could not possibly make her own decision as to what she wears only demonstrates your ignorance, and thats not all, but the other stuff has already been discussed at length here. Quote
Argus Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 Hitting the sauce early today are we? If so, I'd say this whole country is drunk because most everyone in it would agree with me. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 Honestly have no idea why you shoot your own arguments full of holes with this sort of stuff. How so? Only a religious extremist/fanatic would want to shroud themselves everywhere they go for their entire life if she wasn't being forced to wear the damn thing. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 How so? Only a religious extremist/fanatic would want to shroud themselves everywhere they go for their entire life if she wasn't being forced to wear the damn thing. You just cant help yourself from coming up with these over reaching assumptions it seems. I guess the woman this thread is about went to court to fight the ban because her husband was beating her, right... Quote
Argus Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Domestic abuse exists in all societies. This is the kind of bullshit answer we see from the left all the time. Sure domestic abuse occurs in all societies. So does gum disease. But it occurs in some societies one whole heaping hell of a lot more than it does in others. When your religious/cultural value set says a wife must obey her husband then not only can he physically abuse her but is justified in doing so. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/pew-report-on-muslim-world-paints-a-distressing-picture/equality/ The Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that over ninety percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually — for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal or failing to give birth to a male child. Dominating their women by violence is a prerogative Muslim men cling to tenaciously. In Spring 2005, when the East African nation of Chad tried to institute a new family law that would outlaw wife beating, Muslim clerics led resistance to the measure as un-Islamic. Daughter-beating and sister-beating is just as routine as wife-beating and psychologically “seasons” girls to accept such treatment when they are grown. http://www.frontpagemag.com/upload/pamphlets/ViolentOpp.pdf Edited March 18, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 Yes, and the left defends almost anything from a culture that oppresses women, gays, and well, you name it.Naw , they do not . No one stands up and says 'Hey we defend you oppressing such and such" That moral high ground you think you're standing on is a swamp and you're quickly sinking into it.You know, with your argument here, I can pretty much tell you are shouting up to us. So how is it down in that swamp? How many women not of that religion choose to wear a Niqab?How many men not Jewish wear a yarmulke? non christian wear a cross? Prayer beads? So? Right, so tell us again that it isn't a part of the religion that tells them to sit at the back of the room when menstruating, or not allow them to eat with men, etc etc etc.Why are you telling us about the Jewish orthodox faith? But you have some of it wrong , its not the back of the holy place, they bhave to separate for 7 days. It's really people like you who don't know what they stand for,As opposed to some who write not knowing (or willfully ignoring-your pick) that some of this goes on in other religions we have no concerns about , unless one is xenophobic about Muslims. Which apparently you are. But good job defending that oppression while bleieving in your heroic status as the defenders of rights and freedoms, it's always impressive.No one supports oppression, that an old canard done by those who are myopic. So ..........good job. Quote
Argus Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 You just cant help yourself from coming up with these over reaching assumptions it seems. I guess the woman this thread is about went to court to fight the ban because her husband was beating her, right... Maybe she was lying, or maybe she's a religious extremist, or mentally deranged. Can you think of another reason to wear a shroud everywhere you go? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 How so? Only a religious extremist/fanatic would want to shroud themselves everywhere they go for their entire life if she wasn't being forced to wear the damn thing.Except you know.....the ones who have stood up to say that your opinion is wrong. Quote
Argus Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 Naw , they do not . No one stands up and says 'Hey we defend you oppressing such and such" True. But there's such a thing as enabling. And I wonder how much all the 'open minded' liberals loudly saying there's nothing wrong with wearing a shroud are helping to enable these kinds of misogynistic cultural traits in Canada. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 Except you know.....the ones who have stood up to say that your opinion is wrong. Name one. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 Name one.TH Star article posted here earlier, the one that pretty much was entirely opposite to your opinion. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 This is the kind of bullshit answer we see from the left all the time. Sure domestic abuse occurs in all societies. So does gum disease. But it occurs in some societies one whole heaping hell of a lot more than it does in others. When your religious/cultural value set says a wife must obey her husband then not only can he physically abuse her but is justified in doing so. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/pew-report-on-muslim-world-paints-a-distressing-picture/equality/ The Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that over ninety percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually — for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal or failing to give birth to a male child. Dominating their women by violence is a prerogative Muslim men cling to tenaciously. In Spring 2005, when the East African nation of Chad tried to institute a new family law that would outlaw wife beating, Muslim clerics led resistance to the measure as un-Islamic. Daughter-beating and sister-beating is just as routine as wife-beating and psychologically “seasons” girls to accept such treatment when they are grown. http://www.frontpagemag.com/upload/pamphlets/ViolentOpp.pdf Again, you are not seeing the forest for the trees. This woman went to court to fight a ban on her right to wear what she wants, not to fight a ban against violence. That is already banned by the criminal code, and not likely to be changed any time soon. Quote
guyser Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 True. But there's such a thing as enabling. And I wonder how much all the 'open minded' liberals loudly saying there's nothing wrong with wearing a shroud are helping to enable these kinds of misogynistic cultural traits in Canada.Conflation Sir. If a woman chooses to wear it, then she by design is not enabling any misogynistic trait. Quote
Argus Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 TH Star article posted here earlier, the one that pretty much was entirely opposite to your opinion. She gave a reason other than being a religious extremist? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 Again, you are not seeing the forest for the trees. This woman went to court to fight a ban on her right to wear what she wants, She didn't go to court to fight a ban on wearing 'what she wants' but to fight a ban on wearing what she believes she is required to wear by her extremist view of her religion. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 18, 2015 Report Posted March 18, 2015 Conflation Sir. If a woman chooses to wear it, then she by design is not enabling any misogynistic trait. So if a woman chooses to remain with her violently abusive husband and chooses not to charge or report him then it's all good? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.