I would just arguing against @Tzeentch's statement that

If a certain style of dress symbolizes something that conflicts with a society's values, I consequently see no issue in forbidding it. — Tzeentch

That statement didn't really have anything to do with the hijab.

Assumedly, you would let them wear whatever they want to in a free country.

Why should there be an exception?

If a certain style of dress symbolizes something that conflicts with a society's values, I consequently see no issue in forbidding it. — Tzeentch

Every country does this already. The difference between allowing the visibility of men's and women's nipples makes it easy to see this has cultural ideas built in, though really cultural ideas run through whatever the dress codes are. Further hijabs don't just symbolize something that conflicts with society's values, they are something that does. Or potentially do, depending on the society's values. We wouldn't say handcuffs merely symbolize state power. I do realize that's a more extreme example. In any case no one can wear whatever they want. Or not wear. Unless they are in certain private areas, like a nudist colony.

I think that you should be allowed to dress however you please, including the lack of clothes, regardless as to what "society's" values are.

Living in society involves negotiating the rules and regulations. IF one wants to be naked in public, one should expect a certain level of resistance. One can probably find a beach or park where people can get away with nakedness, but walking stark naked into Macy's or Target will not fly 99.99% of the time.

I approve of gay sex in the park and nude beaches (preferably with sex options) but I don't want sex and nakedness everywhere. It's distracting, for one thing. It's a major crossing of boundaries, which most people find annoying. There are reasons why stores and restaurants have "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rules.

Though, as far as clothing goes, I'm pretty tolerant. I find overly weird costumes off-putting, but I don't call the cops whenever I see somebody dressed strangely.

There are of course, reasons. Everything has reasons. That doesn't make them good. — thewonder

I would say it makes them neither good nor bad, but simply a logical consequence of circumstance.

Assumedly, you would let them wear whatever they want to in a free country. — thewonder

I don't know any "free" countries. Do you?

So, flashers flashing where they like and pedophiles getting off near schools?

I realize those are extreme examples, but then, that's one way to test.

And how do we determine what a child wants to wear and when a parent has done something wrong. Hairshirts, burkha, nude?

Then a small but important part of Harvey Weintein's behavior was using nakedness and partial nakedness in ambiguous meetings as part of a dominance and abuse practice. It would seem like worksplaces and then situations where there are serious power imbalances, authority roles, etc., might make complete freedom with clothing problematic.

And then private institutions, like corporations, have all sorts of control over employee garb. I would love to see that radically dismantled right off the bat. But I would, still, understand a bank wanting their tellers to be clothed.

Further hijabs don't just symbolize something that conflicts with society's values, they are something that does. Or potentially do, depending on the society's values. — Coben

The real problem is the eternally faulty epistemic stance of the populace of retarded imbeciles in the West. They do not believe something because of its justification -- they are way too stupid to verify the justification anyway -- but because of whom says it, e.g. the blue-pilled narrative of the manipulative mainstream media and official, state-controlled education/indoctrination system.

Of course, the Muslim population is not much under the spell of the same blue-pilled narrative that clouds the dumb skull of the western populace. Still, the manipulators would strongly desire to manipulate the Muslims too. So, they need to attack the alternative beliefs that prevents the Muslims from buying into the manipulative lies that the idiots in the West so strongly believe.

The manipulations are very strong and very successful at fooling these idiots.

In less than a hundred years, they have successfully managed to reverse what is normal with what is perverse. That what used to be normal, is now perverse in the West, and that what used to be perverse, is now normal.

A hundred years ago, marrying a 14-year old wife was normal, while having sex outside marriage was perverse. Today, it is exactly the other way around. The western populace of retards and other imbeciles even strongly believe in this inversion of perversion. They want it! They cannot imagine the reverse -- which is "normality" -- because they are too stupid for that and too deeply infected with perversity already.

Of course, perversity does not last. Normality will one day or the other reassert itself. It always does.

On that day, the perverted retards and other imbeciles in the West will simply run up to the 12th floor of the building they are in, and jump out of the window, because deeply invested as they are in their perversity, there is no way that they would still be able to handle normality.

Thank goodness one does not have to choose between the idiocy of the West or the idiocy of Islam.

But you seem to have little to worry about since it will all deterministically rebalance.

Both of you are right according to your viewpoint and l don't think you guys will solve it here . Lets call it a day.

The real problem is the eternally faulty epistemic stance of the populace of retarded imbeciles in the West. They do not believe something because of its justification -- they are way too stupid to verify the justification anyway -- but because of whom says it, e.g. the blue-pilled narrative of the manipulative mainstream media and official, state-controlled education/indoctrination system.

I would agree with you if you could replace retarded imbecciles with right wing islamophobes who watch fox news 24/7 .

"Hijab" is a confusing term because it might mean a decorative scarf over the hair.

If we are talking about clothes, which I would include the above in, we really can't second guess why people are wearing them. I think the conformity that compels some girls to look as if they have encountered the Slasher is oppressive.

Naked banking sounds pretty far out!

I just think that at all regulating how people dress is an overreach regardless as to that there are a few outliers which still pose certain problems.

I wouldn't pass a law banning head scarves. I might banning them in schools for children. I might not. But I don't care much about it being there. There are actual problems out there that I would rather focus on. It's an outward sign of something really rather horrendus. I don't think it is necessarily effective, and yes, it might be overreaching. On the other hand the ones most affects, nah, I don't really care. It's not in the Koran which simply says appropriate attire, so no religious freedom is being impinged upon. And the ideas about women swirling around this freedom to choose one's clothes is pretty pernicious. And it has little to do with freedom to choose one's clothing and more to do with women being man's property.

By the way, I can trivially trick you into saying things in the presence of Muslims that guarantees that they will slaughter you like a dog. Islam is a tool, my friend; and a very powerful one. — alcontali

It seems to turn, in your mind, people into violent automatons, and this is something you enjoy. I think your ancestors would not have respected you.

I don't think that banning them in schools is a good idea. It is a religous choice. It's one that I don't necessarily agree with, but I don't think that imposing a ban in schools is at all a good idea. You can't impose a ban on someone wearing a kippah or a cross. It kind of crosses too much over into the same kind of nebulous territory.

I don't think that banning them in schools is a good idea. It is a religous choice. — thewonder

But it isn't. Again, the Koran actually only says appropriate clothing. It is a regional choice or cultural choice. And schools tend to have rules about appropriate clothing themselves. Thouhg I have no problem banning wearing religious items either, it just isn't one. Of course one can argue about where the gray area is or where the boundary is. We wouldn't allow footbinding or hair shirts. So there will a a limit. Most schools will limit skin exposure and provocative women's clothes. Why should one worldview be protected and not all?

I'm not a moderator and am not going to assume that you made your earlier post in sincerity, but please do not make threats in this thread.


I don't even know what it is that you two are arguing about. This seems like a flame war that was just started for the sake of doing so.


Eh, I don't know. I suppose we just disagree. It seems to me that if a child comes from an extremely conservative family that imposes all too stringent rules on the child which impede the development and infringe upon the autonomy of the child, that, perhaps it is the case that someone should say something. I don't think overly simplistic solutions like imposing bans on styles of dress will do anything to help matters.

I guess I see the sliperry slope doing in the opposite direction. Enver Hoxha imposed a ban upon the wearing of beards. I see the ban on the hijab sort of like that. It's not like there isn't some fundamentalist injunction which stipulates the style of dress, but imposing a ban, to me, seems rather absurd. I can see what you're saying about children, but I still think that it would be an overreach of the State to too directly dictate how a child should be made to dress.

I don't think overly simplistic solutions like imposing bans on styles of dress will do anything to help matters. — thewonder

One thing it would do is say to the child that we, as a society, have a problem with what your parents wanted to do. And we have other laws that are like this. The parents will likely discuss this with the child, from their point of view, and I would guess most children would then be curious about the motivation on the other side. And that it is not just a few people who have this other view. I don't feel certain this is the right move, but I do see potential benefits.

I guess I don't think that I think that the hijab is something which can be considered to be socially disintegrative to where imposing a ban would at all be required. It's a personal choice. If a white nationalist family dressed their child in a Prussian Blue T-shirt, then I can see how a school might have to address that, but wearing the hijab doesn't disaffect anyone else. It's kind of just not the school's business.

If religious fundamentalism disaffects a young woman's studies then that is something that the school should address with her parents, but I ultimately see the ban on the hijab as being rather arbitray and somewhat absurd. To me, it is a simplistic solution that fails to address the real problems at hand. Better cultural dialogue will do better to undo intransigent fundamentalisms than somewhat offensive limitations imposed upon the expressions of one's faith such as the ban on the hijab.

The wearing of the hijab should be a matter of choice. That it isn't on either side is resultant of a lack of cultural understanding and an ostensible fundamentalism which is resultant of that lack of cultural understanding. As society becomes more open to Islam, Islam will become more open to society.

To me, it is a simplistic solution that fails to address the real problems at hand. Better cultural dialogue will do better to undo intransigent fundamentalisms than somewhat offensive limitations imposed upon the expressions of one's faith such as the ban on the hijab. — thewonder

I gotta keep saying it: it's not an expression of their faith. It's not in the Koran and people who are not Muslim will wear them. Better cultural dialogue can happen at the same time.

As society becomes more open to Islam, Islam will become more open to society. — thewonder

I don't think Islam (or fundamentalist Christianity, for example) really work with society. Or better put, not with one I want to live in. I don't think neo-conservatism does either, don't get me wrong, and they had a hat on their kids, I'd ban it from schools also.

I'm suggesting that better cultural dialogue will result in that fundamentalist Muslims become less fundamentalist.

As an Anarchist, I was kind of hoping that with the Arab Spring that people in the region would just abandon Islam altogether and start some sort of Anarchist insurrection, but that never quite panned out.

I guess I do think that you should respect a certain degree of cultural difference. I think that the ban hinders dialogue and, therefore, will not be resultant in that the wearing of the hijab becomes a matter of choice. People will continue to wear it in an act of protest which may reaffirm intransigent fundamentalist positions. Imposing the ban will only It is also the case that wearing the hijab as an act of protest will let for it to be reinterpeted, but that is beset by its own set of contradictions. Doing so will have its perils, but I think that it could even effect postive change.

Imposing the ban only substantiates that Muslims are persecuted by the West, in my opinion. Some other methods need to be taken to effect a better situation for women in Muslim society. The West should also have a much different approach to Islam in general. I see better cultural dialogue as the way to go, but ultimately don't really know what that precisely entails.

I'm suggesting that better cultural dialogue will result in that fundamentalist Muslims become less fundamentalist.

As an Anarchist, I was kind of hoping that with the Arab Spring that people in the region would just abandon Islam altogether and start some sort of Anarchist insurrection, but that never quite panned out. — thewonder

No, it even reinforced the power of Islam in some ways/places.

I guess I do think that you should respect a certain degree of cultural difference. — thewonder

Me too. I am trying on an interventionist hat, here,now. I am tired of what kids are put through. And Islam can hardly demand tolerance of cultural differences, not these days. And it is a very intolerant religion.

I think that the ban hinders dialogue — thewonder

Maybe.

Imposing the ban only substantiates that Muslims are persecuted by the West, in my opinion. Some other methods need to be taken to effect a better situation for women in Muslim society. The West should also have a much different approach to Islam in general. — thewonder

Sure, the biggest thing that could be done would be to stop messing around with the Arab nations under the guise of noble or self-protective bs, the whole regime change monstrous Project for a New Century long term plan they have been carrying out. That would be the place to start.

Sure, the biggest thing that could be done would be to stop messing around with the Arab nations under the guise of noble or self-protective bs, the whole regime change monstrous Project for a New Century long term plan they have been carrying out. That would be the place to start. — Coben

Oh, I agree, and the regime changes weren't always undertaken under the guise of Liberal virtues. I honestly don't know what can be done about the political situation in the region. The West has sort of left it in a state of disrepair. It'd take a radical reconceptualization of the West's approach to dealing with the political situation there. I'm not terribly hopeless. I think that some people could care enough to do this so as to make it possible. I'm just not sure that I can realistically effect any positive change there.

Who gives a shit about foreign radicals? How about the US where child abuse is encouraged in the form of ignorant parents instilling lies in their children.

Such religiously based carpet-bombing of the mind is disgusting, but because there are no immediate bruises or scars it is somehow deemed as ‘choice’. Would you lock a child in your house and teach it to speak German ONLY in an English speaking country? That, although on a fundamentally worse level, is what happens all the time with deluded maniacs preaching opinion as fact. It is mentally crippling, a disgrace of humanity, to hold children at arms length from understanding the natural world.

Headdress? Why care? Are innocent minds being destroyed by institutional stupidity/ignorance? Yes, and it is NOT due to the influx of foreign religious ideas but due to the paranoia, hypocrisy, megalomania and willful disregard to rational fact-based analysis.

Wonder -

Pacifist due to fear, more often than not. That is a BIG problem.

The world is under one umbrella now. Every corner of the globe is connected. Exposure to differences at a safe distance is generally a step in the right direction - regardless of what people appreciate through social media today the actual experience of something can never be replaced. The small worry is, for me at least, that instead of dispelling contrary tropes they’ll be reinforced and what could’ve cut the distance between peoples will do no more than bring the sense of ‘threat’ closer to home (note: false/delusional threats).

What appears to be missing in all this discussion is acknowledgement of the evolutionary trait of 'tribalism' which humans have in common with other primates.
What we call 'culture' or 'religion' are, in essence, merely bucket terms in which the us-them dichotomy is expressed through human differential actions including language ( the vehicle of thinking like 'self') and dress. Problems arise when individuals claim membership of different tribes, often for practical economic reasons, and competition for resources, raises tensions.
A secondary evolutionary trait of 'male dominance' tends to further complicate the situation.

Who gives a shit about foreign radicals? How about the US where child abuse is encouraged in the form of ignorant parents instilling lies in their children. — I like sushi

Yes, I remember public schooling also and the other parents also. The truths we were taught. What was considered normal. The great deadening of the heart, that's now been tranfered over to treatments with psychotopics and social media. Religous people can be very blunt and spastic with their mindtrashing. And secular people can be so much subtler and all Versailles about it.

Headdress? Why care? Are innocent minds being destroyed by institutional stupidity/ignorance? Yes, and it is NOT due to the influx of foreign religious ideas but due to the paranoia, hypocrisy, megalomania and willful disregard to rational fact-based analysis.

Yes, the neo-liberals and neo-cons have been trying these last five decades.

the evolutionary trait of 'tribalism' which humans have in common with other primates. — fresco

Then why is exotic erotic?

Forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest ?:wink: