Philosophy Now Forum

I suspect the ban owes more to the French idea of universal citizenship, that has always been fairly hostile to "alien" cultures, than it does to improving the rights of Muslim women.

.



Kayla wrote: i suppose the question is just what proportion of women wear such things voluntarily wear them?


I happen to notice that you Kayla actually chose to cover your face in your author profile.


sooooooooooooooo..............you Kayla, are one of the women that voluntarily wear such things and you remind us of that EVERY time you post..


Interesting.
kneading chin
questioning look




...............................




.

You do know that's not actually Kayla in her profile picture unless Kayla is actually the actress Lyndsy Fonseca

.


Thanks John.


I couldn't tell...err...her face was covered.



.

its actually chloe moretz as hit girl

loved her in kick ass the movie

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



Kayla wrote: i suppose the question is just what proportion of women wear such things voluntarily wear them?


I happen to notice that you Kayla actually chose to cover your face in your author profile.


sooooooooooooooo..............you Kayla, are one of the women that voluntarily wear such things and you remind us of that EVERY time you post..



.

An excellent point Bill. Kayla would be illegal in France.

Surely they have a dispensation for superheroes?

this is the enlarged version of my avatar

but last halloween i went as hit girl but i dont have a good photo of that

.





.................................











.

He doesn't.

Its generally a cultural requirement of certain of those who have embraced Islam.

Arising_uk wrote:He doesn't.

Its generally a cultural requirement of certain of those who have embraced Islam.

Who's "He"?

I think you might be missing the irony.

I get the joke but its not in reference to its existence, as it assumes it.

Arising_uk wrote:I get the joke but its not in reference to its existence, as it assumes it.

The assumption is YOURS. You have inferred what was not necessarily implied.
I am able to see the joke as an atheist because any religious nuttery calls into question God's existence.

However, I am assuming that Bill, who presented the joke is not making a "my god is holier than thou" statement.

.


You are correct Chaz.


It was just a general joke.

The pic was, like all the photos I use, from stock.


My intent was not meant to be a, my god is holier than thou joke.



I have enjoyed all the different perspectives that were displayed upon this thread.

My own opinion was changed a few times.


I appreciate that there are many different validates towards this topic and even toward the last pic & joke I used.


I want to thank everyone who participated.

It was a fun thread.




.

chaz wyman wrote:The assumption is YOURS. You have inferred what was not necessarily implied.
I am able to see the joke as an atheist because any religious nuttery calls into question God's existence.

Fair point and I agree that 'jokes' such as these are not necessary, given that 'god/s' do not exist and such behaviour is a cultural one and not a 'god' given one. But the point of them is apparently to make the point that there is a contradiction in the believers faith. A 'joke' that I think fails on a couple of counts, one that the religion in question, as you have pointed out, does not advocate such apparel, so its a cultural inheirtence and two that its pretty much pointless as where does logic and reason come into religious belief anyway? It also assumes a 'samness' in 'god/s' as wwhy should their 'god' not wish to take the lesser of two 'evils' as I thought the justification for such gear is to reduce inflaming the male passions and to protect the female from such inflament.