France Bans Burqa

[LongLiveYorke 38]

that is their problem and is not justification to pass laws telling people what they can and cannot wear. this is so black and white and simple its not even funny.

For You:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...t&p=3394609

[Balloon guy 158]

I was mad at the French too. But then I was on the bus this morning and saw an incredibly pretty French girl, and suddenly all my ill feelings went away.Also, I saw a Muslim wearing a Burka the other day, but it was in Switzerland, not France. I wonder what would have happened had she tried to cross the border? (Of course, nothing would have happened because the border that I cross every day is completely unguarded, but that's beside the point).

How did you know she was French? I mean before she raised her arms and you saw her hairy arm pits?And I read that the ban doesn't take place for 6 months, so a lot of whining ( which is what the french do best ) then in 6 months the riots begin.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

How did you know she was French?

Well, it was in France, so it's not too far of a stretch.

[timwakefield 68]

One thing I thought was interesting is that they estimate there are around 2,000 women in France who wear a burqa, out of about 6 million Muslims in the country. So it is an extreme minority. Not saying that's here or there, I just thought it would be more people.

[CaneBrain 95]

One thing I thought was interesting is that they estimate there are around 2,000 women in France who wear a burqa, out of about 6 million Muslims in the country. So it is an extreme minority. Not saying that's here or there, I just thought it would be more people.

Maybe the militancy of European Muslims has been a bit overstated by alarmist conservatives, balloon proprietors and neuroscience professors?

[vbnautilus 48]

That is gross. And Bloomberg, predictably, is right again. There's no point in banning such a practice.

There's no point in banning it? Even given the medical risk? It's a totally unsanitary surgical practice. If a doctor licked your wound before sealing it you could successfully sue for malpractice. Seems to me like the law should protect children from this practice.

[timwakefield 68]

On a related note, I'm going to do whatever it takes this weekend to get the image of a mohel sucking the blood out of an infant's penis out of my head. So thanks I guess for giving me a purpose.

[Don Giovanni 0]

VB you totally glossed over the 'Ritual genital mutilation for religious purposes is wrong!' vs 'male circumcision' fallacy. I think it's actually an illustration of how religious and cultural behaviors that seem bizarre and even horrifying to some people can seem not only normal but even innate to humanity when seen by others.

but does that make said practices right??? speaking of fallacies...

[Don Giovanni 0]

That is gross. And Bloomberg, predictably, is right again. There's no point in banning such a practice.

no point in banning child abuse. interesting.

[Balloon guy 158]

There's no point in banning it? Even given the medical risk? It's a totally unsanitary surgical practice. If a doctor licked your wound before sealing it you could successfully sue for malpractice. Seems to me like the law should protect children from this practice.

So Jews got dirty mouths?Okay Scram

[LongLiveYorke 38]

There's no point in banning it? Even given the medical risk? It's a totally unsanitary surgical practice. If a doctor licked your wound before sealing it you could successfully sue for malpractice. Seems to me like the law should protect children from this practice.

no point in banning child abuse. interesting.

I was always under the impression that saliva was good for the process of coagulation. But I'm no doctor. Obviously there's a line that must be drawn between safety of the child and religious freedom. I'm not sure such a practice violates such a line, but again, I'm no doctor.And it's no more child abuse than regular circumcision. I mean, if we're already cutting off the kid's foreskin, how much more abusive is it to lick the wound after? It seems like curtains on the Titanic at that point.Also, suggesting that I support child abuse from the above is among the worse political / argument practices. And yet it's so easy. Step 1: Find some minor practice that people find icky. Step 2: demand the ban of that practice. Step 3: call those who don't support an outright legal ban of that practice based only on its ickiness supporters of that practice.It's often done, and leads to extremely pointless and ugly debates.

[vbnautilus 48]

I was always under the impression that saliva was good for the process of coagulation. But I'm no doctor. Obviously there's a line that must be drawn between safety of the child and religious freedom. I'm not sure such a practice violates such a line, but again, I'm no doctor.And it's no more child abuse than regular circumcision. I mean, if we're already cutting off the kid's foreskin, how much more abusive is it to lick the wound after? It seems like curtains on the Titanic at that point.Also, suggesting that I support child abuse from the above is among the worse political / argument practices. And yet it's so easy. Step 1: Find some minor practice that people find icky. Step 2: demand the ban of that practice. Step 3: call those who don't support an outright legal ban of that practice based only on its ickiness supporters of that practice.It's often done, and leads to extremely pointless and ugly debates.

did you miss the part about the herpes?

[antistuff 0]

where do you draw the line between what they are doing and something sexual?

[vbnautilus 48]

where do you draw the line between what they are doing and something sexual?

There's no sexual gratification or intention involved. This is much more like medical malpractice. A person can't just perform surgeries on people without a medical license; these guys shouldn't be allowed to engage in bad surgical practices on the basis of religion.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

There's no sexual gratification or intention involved. This is much more like medical malpractice. A person can't just perform surgeries on people without a medical license; these guys shouldn't be allowed to engage in bad surgical practices on the basis of religion.

I mean, you have an argument if you engage it from that angle, but then you'd have to address Mohels in general, and not just the freaky ones who use their mouth.

[Don Giovanni 0]

I mean, you have an argument if you engage it from that angle, but then you'd have to address Mohels in general, and not just the freaky ones who use their mouth.

ill do that. any person performing unlicensed surgery on infants should be in jail. the saliva bit and the resulting herpes are non-essentials to the argument (though not unpredictable). furthermore, circumcision should be banned even by licensed secular practitioners. it is a sickening mutilation of a child who has no say in the matter stemming from mysticism and nothing more.

[timwakefield 68]

but does that make said practices right??? speaking of fallacies...

That was my point.

furthermore, circumcision should be banned even by licensed secular practitioners. it is a sickening mutilation of a child who has no say in the matter stemming from mysticism and nothing more.

Something we agree on, except I don't think it stems from mysticism. I thought it had to do with hygiene, but since it's no longer 200 BC and we have showers and soap now, the hygiene issue is completely moot. I think that's similar to the reason for bans on shellfish and pork. The shellfish one makes particular sense, considering how many people are allergic or become allergic to shellfish, and the lack of medical knowledge just made a ban not only sensible but almost obvious...I'm kind of making a huge assumption there though, and I am anything but a religious or cultural scholar.

[timwakefield 68]

Interesting opinion piece on the burqa ban - it's 2 essayists debating it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1913005068.html

7) Also violated by the burqa/niqab is the fundamental liberal concept of equality. Only female identity is erased here; only the female half of the population effectively disappears from public view. To suggest that women can be separate but equal.... well, I don't need to spell the rest out.8) Who are we kidding? You can suppose that some of the women wearing the burqa/niqab genuinely want to do so. But you can be sure many of them do so only out of fear of abusive, sometimes murderous, husbands/brothers/fathers. The incidence of honor killings or of husbands mutilating their wives is on the rise throughout Europe, in part because Europe allows Muslim immigrants to get away with enforcing medieval social norms in their urban ghettos. This ought to be discouraged.

Basically, if you want to treat your women like slaves you're not welcome in France.

[Balloon guy 158]

Basically, if you want to treat your women like slaves you're not welcome in France.

Looks like the muslims aren't taking these new laws without responding in kind:

The Islamic Council of the southern Malaysian state of Malacca, where Muslims comprise some 60% of the 28 million population, has announced that it will permit Muslim girls under the age of 16 to marry in an attempt to curb the rise of unwed pregnancies.

Yep, 28 million people and in order to stem the tide of unwed pregnancies they are going to let them marry 15 year old girls...They better hurry too, the unwed pregnancy rate climbed 4% just last year alone.From 107 unwed pregnant teenagers to 111 in the first 4 months of 2008

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Looks like the muslims aren't taking these new laws without responding in kind:Yep, 28 million people and in order to stem the tide of unwed pregnancies they are going to let me marry 15 year old girls...They better hurry too, the unwed pregnancy rate climbed 4% just last year alone.From 107 unwed pregnant teenagers to 111 in the first 4 months of 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_ageSome States in the US allow marriage for 15 year olds.Here are a couple examples.Indiana: 18, 17 with parental consent, 15 in the case of pregnancy with both parental and judicial consentMassachusetts: 18 for first marriage, 14 (male) 12 (female) with parental and judicial consentAnd CanadaCanada: Varies by province, but generally 18 years old, 16 years with parental consent, 14 years with judicial consent.

[Balloon guy 158]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_ageSome States in the US allow marriage for 15 year olds.Here are a couple examples.Indiana: 18, 17 with parental consent, 15 in the case of pregnancy with both parental and judicial consentMassachusetts: 18 for first marriage, 14 (male) 12 (female) with parental and judicial consentAnd CanadaCanada: Varies by province, but generally 18 years old, 16 years with parental consent, 14 years with judicial consent.

No wonder more pervs move to Boston and Canada than anywhere else...you guys have set up the neon welcome sign.

[AmScray 355]

You all do know that France is a pretty great country, right?Faggots, cowards, obnoxious, yes, yes, yes, but nevertheless, those people know how to live life.

[Balloon guy 158]

You all do know that France is the greatest country on earth, right?Faggots, cowards, obnoxious, yes, yes, yes, but nevertheless, those people know how to live life.

Only because they took the massive amounts of German blood pumped into their gene pool during the occupation, and tempered it with their own French blood.Not that they planned to do this.

[CaneBrain 95]

You all do know that France is a pretty great country, right?Faggots, cowards, obnoxious, yes, yes, yes, but nevertheless, those people know how to live life.

Meh, I like how Italians live life a lot better.... plus Italians bathe.

[Balloon guy 158]

Meh, I like how Italians live life a lot better.... plus Italians bathe.

Infrastructure though