Philosophy Now Forum

I LOVE it when modern multi-culturalism comes into conflict with feminism and with freed of speech and with freedom of religion and with freedom from religious establishment. It just throws all the ideologues into a tizzy fit. Their heads spin around while steam spews from their ears.

What to do? Medieval muslims make their women cover themselves head to toe and set their daughters on fire if they have an affair or pre-marital sex. Understandably, feminists and progressives do not like this. But the multi-culturalists think it anathema to criticize any culture other than Western culture. What to do? Banning these swim suits obviously violates freedom of religion and probably freedom of speech (expression). But it is also downright medieval. What can a modern progressive do?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/fig ... id=SL5BDHP

Wyman wrote:I LOVE it when modern multi-culturalism comes into conflict with feminism and with freed of speech and with freedom of religion and with freedom from religious establishment. It just throws all the ideologues into a tizzy fit. Their heads spin around while steam spews from their ears.

What to do? Medieval muslims make their women cover themselves head to toe and set their daughters on fire if they have an affair or pre-marital sex. Understandably, feminists and progressives do not like this. But the multi-culturalists think it anathema to criticize any culture other than Western culture. What to do? Banning these swim suits obviously violates freedom of religion and probably freedom of speech (expression). But it is also downright medieval. What can a modern progressive do?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/fig ... id=SL5BDHP

Sorry I posted the OP twice. Please delete one.

'Burkini'. Love it. What does 'multiculturalism' even mean? As far as I can tell it means a bunch of people going to live in a nice country with a completely different culture from the one they apparently didn't like, which is why they left it, then demanding that the host culture pander to their 'cultural needs' (which they can't have liked in the first place or they wouldn't have left). Anyone who objects to this 'multicultural utopia' is a 'racist'.

You can delete your own post, Wyman. They do ask for a reason, though, so no one deletes their posts haphazardly, or with bad intent.

It is great to see governments of certain, and divided, parts of the earth enforcing their own believed ideologies onto the peoples who decide to wander across or walkabout on that piece of land.

"You HAVE TO wear clothes, but now, you CAN NOT wear to much. (But we may also change that rule soon. We are just not sure yet)."

Next the police states will be looking at the thread count in our clothes to make sure that that it is JUST RIGHT.

Why do some people, and governments, judge and despise the wearing of head coverings by others and see it as medieval and/or a form of repression BUT also despise people walking around naked near them, or in a certain parcel of land that they walk about on. These people, who like to judge, then insist that the government should enforce those people without clothes to wear clothes. But, now it seems, just not too much as to then cover the head?

WHY is it seen by some to be all right to repress human beings into wearing clothes but totally unacceptable to repress human beings into wearing "too much" clothing?

HOW blind can some people get by their own ideologies?

Enforcing human beings to wear clothes, otherwise they will be fined and/or punished if they do not, is just as repressive as enforcing human beings to wear head coverings. And, I am pretty sure some of the people who grew up, "being forced", to wear clothes would not just as easily remove part or all of those clothes, as easily as they expect others to remove part of their clothing, if they also had to, or wanted to, go and live in a country were the people living there did not have to and did not wear any clothes at all?

freedom of religion is wonderful

state mandated atheism is even better

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:freedom of religion is wonderful

state mandated atheism is even better

-Imp

So, another person wanting the government to mandate, punish and enforce, yet another ideology, which they themselves believe in.

When will this ever end?

Why are human beings so fixed in the idea of wanting and of "forcing" others to see and believe the exact same way they do?

Freedom of ALL religions would be great. But atheism IS just another religion.

ken wrote:

Impenitent wrote:freedom of religion is wonderful

state mandated atheism is even better

-Imp

So, another person wanting the government to mandate, punish and enforce, yet another ideology, which they themselves believe in.

When will this ever end?

Why are human beings so fixed in the idea of wanting and of "forcing" others to see and believe the exact same way they do?

Freedom of ALL religions would be great. But atheism IS just another religion.

we can't build the socialist or communist utopia if anyone disagrees... no way...

Stalinist purges for the soviet state? Jihadist slaughter to build caliphate?

only the dead know the end of war... Santayana

-Imp

ken wrote:

Impenitent wrote:freedom of religion is wonderful

state mandated atheism is even better

-Imp

So, another person wanting the government to mandate, punish and enforce, yet another ideology, which they themselves believe in.

When will this ever end?

Why are human beings so fixed in the idea of wanting and of "forcing" others to see and believe the exact same way they do?

Freedom of ALL religions would be great. But atheism IS just another religion.

Have enough muslims practicing their 'freedom of religion' and we won't have any FREEDOM left. I don't know why limp-wristed, passionless PC idiots bother to express an opinion at all.

I know lots of muslims. They are perfectly fine, including many who would (I assume) prefer to be covered up when at the beach as they choose to be elsewhere. They should certainly be granted that freedom by any democracy which claims it guarantees liberty except in cases of harm to others.

Burkiniphobia is about the most pathetic thing I have ever heard of.

FlashDangerpants wrote:I know lots of muslims. They are perfectly fine, including many who would (I assume) prefer to be covered up when at the beach as they choose to be elsewhere. They should certainly be granted that freedom by any democracy which claims it guarantees liberty except in cases of harm to others.

Burkiniphobia is about the most pathetic thing I have ever heard of.

Ironically it's laws that give us the 'liberty' we crave. How 'free' are wild animals? What do you mean by 'fine'? A 'fine' person respects the customs and values of their adopted country. Americans have a very warped idea of what 'freeom' actually is. It's very strange. The more people get blown up, the more nauseating and drivelling the PC become.

Wyman wrote:I LOVE it when modern multi-culturalism comes into conflict with feminism and with freed of speech and with freedom of religion and with freedom from religious establishment. It just throws all the ideologues into a tizzy fit. Their heads spin around while steam spews from their ears.

What to do? Medieval muslims make their women cover themselves head to toe and set their daughters on fire if they have an affair or pre-marital sex. Understandably, feminists and progressives do not like this. But the multi-culturalists think it anathema to criticize any culture other than Western culture. What to do? Banning these swim suits obviously violates freedom of religion and probably freedom of speech (expression). But it is also downright medieval. What can a modern progressive do?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/fig ... id=SL5BDHP

Screw the rules of any culture! In the end of each of our lives, it shall only be each individual one of us laying there, dying; the elements returning to their origin. As such, each of our lives are ours alone, and by god or whatever force, it's up to each of us owners, to be the ones that dictate what we shall do with ourselves. So any law that women of any culture shall wear what ever, is bull shit, regardless of which side of the fence one stands. People should be allowed to wear what ever they damned well please, as wearing anything other than ones birthday suit, is only for their benefit, and their benefit alone. This slave crap, has got to end, people!

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Ironically it's laws that give us the 'liberty' we crave. How 'free' are wild animals?

Wild animals are able to indulge in unrestrained liberty. Obviously the enjoyment of that is constrained by other factors and thus freedom for the pike is death for the minnow and so on. So you can say that some laws give us positive liberty of a sort that natural law does not.

But some laws don't, they just take away liberties and replace them with nothing. A prohibition against offending the sensibilities of fuckwits by wearing more clothes than they want you to is a fine example of that.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:What do you mean by 'fine'? A 'fine' person respects the customs and values of their adopted country.

Question asked and answered. I know lots of muslims, most of them are nice. Last time I checked none of them has ever stolen christmas from me. Most of them actually join in many of our frivolous customs, they eat roast turkey at christmas etc (they tend to eschew the Jebus, brandy and ham though). They don't seem to be inherently worse than other people, nor do they hate this country, nor even do they despise our way of life. Allowing them to continue to pray to whichever God they like seems unlikely to result in any loss of FREEDOM or even liberty. Allowing them to wear whatever clothes they like seems even less dangerous.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Americans have a very warped idea of what 'freeom' actually is. It's very strange. The more people get blown up, the more nauseating and drivelling the PC become.

I'm definitely not American.
I'm also probably not PC. Although if we're going to get all pissy about what 'fine', 'freedom' and 'multicultural' mean, you may as well define that term.

FlashDangerpants wrote: I'm also probably not PC.

The PC always sat that. I also wasn't aware of huge protests by the PC against the evil American and British invasion of Iraq, nor of their continued rape of the region. I might despise islam and its 'values', but I'm one of the few who is genuinely against blowing up muslims and destroying their countries. Who's the 'racist'? The 'West' is getting what it deserves, but it's the innocent who have to pay for it (as usual).

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I might despise islam and its 'values'..... Who's the 'racist'?

I'm not 'sure' I get the point of all the 'unnecessary' quote 'marks' in this thread. But either way, that is another case of asked and answered.
Other people may be bigots too, but your bigotry is not really in doubt.