Argus Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Interesting views. There are a number of practices that have evolved over the years in different populations in different parts of the world. There are many which I do not understand, I find bizarre and would never practice - but that does not make those folks inferior to me. They are different. They may be looking at my culture and finding it bizarre, strange and laden with distasteful rituals. That too is their choice. It is inherently human to look and judge others by our own actions and beliefs. That does not necessarily make us right and them wrong and one must be careful of practicing a chauvinistic view in equating those values which differ from ones own as wrong. Where you fall off the logic wagon and enter the realm of moral bankruptcy is by stretching that logic to the point of refusing to judge any foreign culture for any practice, regardless of the obvious barbarity and brutality of that practice. ISIS practices genocide and has established a sex slave market for trading in 'infidel' girls and women. In Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other countries, women in public are monitored by the religious police, and beaten or arrested if they show hair or makeup. Gays are subject to harsh, religious based punishments, and religious minorities are either banned or persecuted. Enraged mobs can be incited to murder by the mere rumor that someone insulted the prophet or the koran. Corruption is rampant. To suggest cultures where some or all of these are widely exhibited cannot be condemned as inferior is to suggest there are no moral standards which are universal. Would we, upon finding a lost tribe of sun worshiping cannibals say their culture was equal with ours, that neither was better nor worse? Well, some would, I suppose, striving to attain some sort of non-judgmental state of moral purity. For me, to label something as inferior to mine then I am assuming that mine is superior to theirs. That is arrogance. Why is it arrogant when it is indisputably true? I personally do believe that all men (women) are created equal and due the same respect. Do you think an illiterate cannibal from the deep jungles is equal to Arthur B MacDonald, of Queens U, who just won the Nobel prize in physics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 My point is that you take a newborn from a village in Africa or a tent in the Sahara or a brothel in Calcutta and place them into a stable family in North America, then you will end up in a few years with a stable, well adjusted and educated teenager. But then they would be raised in OUR culture, not theirs. So how does that support your argument? The more educated, stable and wealthy societies tend to treat all people equally. The gulf coast states, including Saudi Arabia, are wealthy, stable and educated, but they don't treat people equally. Iran is wealthy, educated and stable, and it doesn't treat people equally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 And some people like to feel superior to those who disagree with them because those some people claim to make more money using phrases like "I make more money than you pay in taxes". It makes them feel important and their arguments whatever they are make them better people. This is known as a confusing non-sequitor, also flamebait and off-topic. For the record, however, if you accuse someone of being a 'loser' then that person's income is more than pertinent in response. Maybe if you in future confine your personal insults to other subjects my income or your lack thereof will no longer arise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) deleted. Edited October 13, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 When a culture implements public policy so that some people have to make a choice between working or not working, going to school or not going to school, being arrested or staying home based entirely on single item of clothing - that's inferior.So it's a chicken and egg endless loop in your mind....so if the niqab didn't exist, would we invent it just so we could be against it? Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Another idiotic judgmental arrogant post fed on negativity and personal attacks. A typical conservative way. I'm sorry, did my sarcastic response to your decision to insert a personal attack on me out of the blue from some other topic hurt your feelings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) I deleted my posts Argus. It is childish what we post and I am as guilty. This is supposed to be a political debate among civil mature people!!!!. Edited October 13, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) No your arrogance that you don't know me or my level of income and make a judgement on me makes me angry and your level of ignorance amazes me that you think making a lot of money makes you a winner (and not a loser in life which I measure a winner in life based on the size of heart and mind rather than the size of your wallet) So I should work less, let my family have less while relying upon someone else to work more and help pay for my needs, and it's OK because i have a 'big heart'? Conversely should I work even more, (I worked more in just extra time last year than is required to qualify for EI) so the government can take more and give it to 'big hearted people'?, What happens when we all have big hearts but no one is willing to work to pay for them? Is that Nirvana? I don't concern myself with your income, but some of you surely do seem concerned with mine, but i'm sure you're just a distant observer, perhaps a millionaire with a big heart desperate to give your money away, there are things called charities for that, just an fyi. Edited October 13, 2015 by poochy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) @poochy - Again to clarify that IF and only IF you are making over $200,000 then your taxes would rise a bit. Trudeau plan gives more to the middle class than it takes away (if he takes away anything as he denies that given tax credits would be cancelled) so please don't fall for campaign of lies and fear by the conservative party. Edited October 13, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 @poochy - Again to clarify that IF and only IF you are making over $200,000 then your taxes would rise a bit. Trudeau plan gives more to the middle class than it takes away (if he takes away anything as he denies that given tax credits would be cancelled) so please don't fall for campaign of lies and fear by the conservative party. Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 I've never heard anyone in Canada be a proponent of outlawing the niqab. I have heard they should not be worn when taking citizenship oaths to become part of our Canadian family. I agree. Banning the niqab seems to be what this thread is about. As in "Even Muslim countries ban the niqab, why not Canada". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 But ours IS superior to theirs on every conceivable metric. Ours is open to democracy, to religious freedom, to free choices of morality and sexuality among individuals, to compromise and inclusiveness, to equality and non-violence.So. let's not even think about implementing policy that removes someone's right to religious freedom, to free choices about what they should wear, let's compromise and include these women and their families, let's accept them and respect their choices. Let's not incite persecution and violence by targeting a select group of people as being disrespectful, alien, wrong, misogynistic, "barbaric". Let's show them, through our actions, a better way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 So it's a chicken and egg endless loop in your mind....so if the niqab didn't exist, would we invent it just so we could be against it? Wow. Maybe you could restate this so it makes some sense in relation to my comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Banning the niqab seems to be what this thread is about. As in "Even Muslim countries ban the niqab, why not Canada". Even the OP doesn't state he believes the niqab should be banned. Also, the OP puts it forth as a question: If they can, how come we can't? Not: they do, so should we. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Even the OP doesn't state he believes the niqab should be banned. Also, the OP puts it forth as a question: If they can, how come we can't? Not: they do, so should we. You don't see how your first 2 statements contradict each other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 You don't see how your first 2 statements contradict each other? Asking if something can be banned is not the same as stating it should be banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Asking if something can be banned is not the same as stating it should be banned. The wording "how come we can't" is pretty indicative don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 The wording "how come we can't" is pretty indicative don't you think? Asking a question is not stating it should be. If you find it contradictory, sorry, poor choice of words on my part? Regardless, the OP is not stating the niqab should be banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Asking a question is not stating it should be. If you find it contradictory, sorry, poor choice of words on my part? Regardless, the OP is not stating the niqab should be banned. It's not a poor choice of words on anybody's part, just that this particular choice of words telegraphs the sentiment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Nope. Everybody will pay more! Didn't you see Harper pretending to be Bob Barker today? :D Edited October 13, 2015 by ReeferMadness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) I deleted my posts Argus. It is childish what we post and I am as guilty. This is supposed to be a political debate among civil mature people!!!!. Congratulations on your restraint. When posting anonymously, any coward is able to express radical views on minorities while being restrained only by the moderators of the venue. Is very easy to fall into the same trap when responding to those kind of posts. I suggest that: 1. You remember that the intent of these posters is to aggravate others and to be as irritating as possible. Consider that before sending a reply and jumping into the same sand box. 2. Use language that would be acceptable as a letter to the editor. 3. Ask yourself - If given the opportunity, would I add my name to my post and accept the consequences of my published views? If you would, then send the message. If not, then ask yourself why not? There are a few very angry cowards that use these anonymous public access boards to bait and satisfy rather unhealthy personality weaknesses. I do find it ironic that many of those who argue that it is wrong for Muslims to be able to hide behind their niqab are the same folks who hide behind their chosen anonymity. Edited October 13, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Congratulations on your restraint. When posting anonymously, any coward is able to express radical views on minorities while being restrained only by the moderators of the venue. Is very easy to fall into I do find it ironic that many of those who argue that it is wrong for Muslims to be able to hide behind their niqab are the same folks who hide behind their chosen anonymity. Thank you Big Guy. Wow your last paragraph is right on. So nicely said. Edited October 13, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 You realize that if 90% of the population refused to support the Charter it would be gone, right?No I don't.Do you have any examples of democratic populations electing to get rid of their constitutions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 The wording "how come we can't" is pretty indicative don't you think? I think the point is that the politically correct are saying that banning the niqab is an attack on Muslims, which makes little sense given that some Muslim countries ban it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 No I don't. Do you have any examples of democratic populations electing to get rid of their constitutions? My point is that if 90% of the people didn't support the Charter it would be rewritten with terms they did support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.