Multiculturalism

[caroljane]

Re Presentism, Columbus et al.

Everyone, including the visionaries in their various fields like Columbus, accepted and lived with the norms of their times as must everyone. But in every time there have always been those who did not accept and saw further. One such was Champlain who on encountering the aboriginal peoples of the new country he came to colonize, saw them as potential allies, separate but equal.

The David Fischer biography, Champlain's Dream,is a good survey of the much and the little we know of this intriguing man, the Columbus of Canada.

Apologies to Leif the Lucky, John Cabot and Jacques Cartier.

Edited April 10, 2011 by daunce lynam

[bmacwilliam]

They are elitist and exclusionist, even in language: French has a very small vocabulary because the Acadamie Francais allows no word which is not provedly French into its dictionary; and you can't give your baby a non-French name without government permission. The racism in France is not solely a response of bewilderment and fear of waves of strange Muslim immigrants, either.

Well, it's hard to deny the traditional French "challenges" with racial issues - Quebec too of course ("l'argent et le vote ethnique..."). But I strongly support secular human rights trumping any religious or cultural practice. Dressing women in ninja-suits and treating them like crap is not acceptable - anywhere, anytime, period. Drawing a line is a good thing.

Bob

[anthony]

They are elitist and exclusionist, even in language: French has a very small vocabulary because the Acadamie Francais allows no word which is not provedly French into its dictionary; and you can't give your baby a non-French name without government permission. The racism in France is not solely a response of bewilderment and fear of waves of strange Muslim immigrants, either.

Well, it's hard to deny the traditional French "challenges" with racial issues - Quebec too of course ("l'argent et le vote ethnique..."). But I strongly support secular human rights trumping any religious or cultural practice. Dressing women in ninja-suits and treating them like crap is not acceptable - anywhere, anytime, period. Drawing a line is a good thing.

Bob

Yes but, Bob,

How can anyone prescribe to another how he, or she, chooses to implement their culture?

With the big proviso that 'Church' and State shall forever remain apart, naturally.

How many of those Muslim women hold high value in pleasing their husbands and society by conforming to such dress? I think many.

It is beyond my ken, and apparently yours, too, but it does not necessarily mean they are "treated like crap."

Look at fundamental Christian and Jewish groups, and you see similar; everybody wants some structure in their lives.

Thing is, I see such women quite regularly at shopping malls - getting out of top-of- the range 4x4's, Mercs and BM's (most Muslims here are very wealthy) - covered from head to toe in chamdors,(though they are a minority) and wonder about their lives. It is very likely that their husbands find them very atractive this way, and that they gain huge status within their community for dressing so soberly. So what does one expect? Rational-individualist libertarians who are also religious?

(Many Muslim women are beautiful, and with French lingerie underneath, which is de rigueur I hear - I can almost see their,and their husbands' point of view...from ascetic, to sexy in one motion.)

Um,well, back to what I was saying - I don't believe there is as much coercion and lack of voluntarism applied to Muslim dress codes, as is popularly bandied about.

Anyway, the women who oppose the codes will eventually get their way, and more power to them.

Tony

Edited April 11, 2011 by whYNOT

[caroljane]

It could be said that OL itself is an example of a type of multiculturalism. A German and a Canadian, influenced by a Floridian, are reading an American work of literature. A Michigander and a South African have joined an obscure pan-Arctic aboriginal organization which is under the eye of international security agencies. An Australian goth discusses gender issues with a Brazilian expat classical musician.

The disparate cultures of anarchism, minarchism, libertarianism, even, er, socialism, coexist in grumpy truce, with frequent border clashes and myriad kaleidoscopic alliance changes. Many frequently combine to make sport of Coloradians, Californians and New Zealanders.There are also regular skirmishes with the Republic of Coates.

The multiculture is centred in Chicago, home to both MSK and Obama. You can't find a better example than that.

Edited April 12, 2011 by daunce lynam

[Selene]

The City of Big Shoulders is slumped in shame that "O'biwan the diminished" decided to launch his "career" from it's sacred shores!

[caroljane]

The City of Big Shoulders is slumped in shame that "O'biwan the diminished" decided to launch his "career" from it's sacred shores!

Chicago Shrugged too late.

[Peter]

Daunce wrote:

. . . . The disparate cultures of anarchism, minarchism, libertarianism, even, er, socialism, coexist in grumpy truce, with frequent border clashes and myriad kaleidoscopic alliance changes. Many frequently combine to make sport of Coloradians, Californians and New Zealanders. There are also regular assaults on the Republic of Coates . . . . The multiculture is centred in Chicago, home to both MSK and Ombama. You can't find a better example than that . . . . Chicago Shrugged too late.

End quote

We are blessed, Daunce. What did we do to deserve you? I hope we will continue to receive your praise. You are an excellent and witty writer. I especially liked “border clashes,” “coexist in grumpy truce,” “the Republic of Coates,” and “Chicago Shrugged too late.”

However, you also said something about the small French vocabulary, which is believable, but I don’t think I have seen any language with more silent letters! Those silent, but superfluous letters may add to the French language’s fine historical sense, but The Academy should excise those dead letters anyway.

Then maybe we English speakers will follow suit.

Coff! Excus me. I hav had allergees sins, Wensday. Thar is no dum nawledg, but we and the French shood get rid of the word yawt. Then we can celebrate with a glass ov Champan. Enuf is enuf! Rit this wrong!

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We are blessed, Daunce. What did we do to deserve you?

Peter,

I echo your sentiments.

I have learned not to be eating or drinking anything when reading her posts. Not unless I like cleaning laugh-spew off the computer screen, and I don't like doing that.

Michael

[Martin Radwin]

They are elitist and exclusionist, even in language: French has a very small vocabulary because the Acadamie Francais allows no word which is not provedly French into its dictionary; and you can't give your baby a non-French name without government permission. The racism in France is not solely a response of bewilderment and fear of waves of strange Muslim immigrants, either.

Well, it's hard to deny the traditional French "challenges" with racial issues - Quebec too of course ("l'argent et le vote ethnique..."). But I strongly support secular human rights trumping any religious or cultural practice. Dressing women in ninja-suits and treating them like crap is not acceptable - anywhere, anytime, period. Drawing a line is a good thing.

Bob

"Dressing women in ninja-suits"? The very way you worded this implies that the women are dressed, like so many children, rather than that the women dress themselves this way because they choose to. Has it ever occurred to you that the women who dress this way choose to do so of their own free will? The type of assumption you have made is common among both "liberal" and "conservative" statists, who use it to justify all kinds of oppressive laws against behavior they disapprove of. For example, surely no woman would ever choose, of her own free will, to work as a prostitute. No, the only explanation for her career choice is that it is not a choice at all, that she is being compelled to work as a prostitute by the evil, much more powerful men around her. And so prostitution is made illegal, and women who choose to work as prostitutes are not infrequently arrested and put in jail, all for their own good, of course. And no person would ever voluntarily, of their own free will, choose to use illegal drugs. No, they must be being coerced into using drugs, either by other people or by their own loss of free will due to the drugs themselves. And so the war on drugs goes on and on and on, and illegal drug users and arrested and put in jail, all for their own good, of course. And the prisons are filled with victimless criminals.

Enough of this paternalistic bullshit! Government has absolutely no right to tell people what drugs they can put into their bodies, who they may have sex with on what terms, or how they may dress. This is a despicable form of totalitarianism in the personal realm. That you defend it, all the while thinking that you are upholding human rights, is truly pathetic.

Martin

[Selene]

Martin:

Agree with your general position.

Acts that would fall under:

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

For example, most human beings feel that murder of other human beings is wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, consider driving laws. In the U.S., people drive on the right-hand side of the road. In the UK and other states of the Commonwealth, people drive on the left-hand side. Violation of these rules is an example of a malum prohibitum law because the act is not inherently bad, but is forbidden by law, as set forth by the lawmakers of the jurisdiction. Malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state.

This concept was used to develop the various common law offences.^[1] It may be criticized by remarking that if murder and rape may be considered generally defined as crimes, the inclusion of different behaviors that can be punished under such indictments is culturally variable (see marital rape, statutory rape, infanticide).

References

1. ^ Canadian Law Dictionary, John A. Yogis, Q.C., Barrons: 2003

This would apply to protecting children from certain acts.

Adam

[caroljane]

Daunce wrote:

. . . . The disparate cultures of anarchism, minarchism, libertarianism, even, er, socialism, coexist in grumpy truce, with frequent border clashes and myriad kaleidoscopic alliance changes. Many frequently combine to make sport of Coloradians, Californians and New Zealanders. There are also regular assaults on the Republic of Coates . . . . The multiculture is centred in Chicago, home to both MSK and Ombama. You can't find a better example than that . . . . Chicago Shrugged too late.

End quote

We are blessed, Daunce. What did we do to deserve you? I hope we will continue to receive your praise. You are an excellent and witty writer. I especially liked “border clashes,” “coexist in grumpy truce,” “the Republic of Coates,” and “Chicago Shrugged too late.”

However, you also said something about the small French vocabulary, which is believable, but I don’t think I have seen any language with more silent letters! Those silent, but superfluous letters may add to the French language’s fine historical sense, but The Academy should excise those dead letters anyway.

Then maybe we English speakers will follow suit.

Coff! Excus me. I hav had allergees sins, Wensday. Thar is no dum nawledg, but we and the French shood get rid of the word yawt. Then we can celebrate with a glass ov Champan. Enuf is enuf! Rit this wrong!

Peter

Peter,

Jorj Burnd shau agres with u. Me 2. Hop ur bettur. Thank u 4 nis wrdz.

[Selene]

Peter:

I see that you are fighting out of your weight class again!

Remember how we had to rush you to the emergency room the last time?

Adam

[anthony]

We are blessed, Daunce. What did we do to deserve you? I hope we will continue to receive your praise. You are an excellent and witty writer. I especially liked “border clashes,” “coexist in grumpy truce,” “the Republic of Coates,” and “Chicago Shrugged too late.”

Peter

I vote for Carol getting her own spot.

'The Daunce Corner', where at least her boundless energy and great ideas can be contained - a little.

Tony

{just remembered I don't get a vote; OL being a benign autocracy not a democracy - thankfully.}

Edited April 13, 2011 by whYNOT

[bmacwilliam]

"Dressing women in ninja-suits"? The very way you worded this implies that the women are dressed, like so many children, rather than that the women dress themselves this way because they choose to. Has it ever occurred to you that the women who dress this way choose to do so of their own free will? The type of assumption you have made is common among both "liberal" and "conservative" statists, who use it to justify all kinds of oppressive laws against behavior they disapprove of. For example, surely no woman would ever choose, of her own free will, to work as a prostitute. No, the only explanation for her career choice is that it is not a choice at all, that she is being compelled to work as a prostitute by the evil, much more powerful men around her. And so prostitution is made illegal, and women who choose to work as prostitutes are not infrequently arrested and put in jail, all for their own good, of course. And no person would ever voluntarily, of their own free will, choose to use illegal drugs. No, they must be being coerced into using drugs, either by other people or by their own loss of free will due to the drugs themselves. And so the war on drugs goes on and on and on, and illegal drug users and arrested and put in jail, all for their own good, of course. And the prisons are filled with victimless criminals.

Enough of this paternalistic bullshit! Government has absolutely no right to tell people what drugs they can put into their bodies, who they may have sex with on what terms, or how they may dress. This is a despicable form of totalitarianism in the personal realm. That you defend it, all the while thinking that you are upholding human rights, is truly pathetic.

Martin

Complete nonsense.

"Has it ever occurred to you that the women who dress this way choose to do so of their own free will?"

The same argument is used to describe 15 year old girls in plural marriages - both irrational. This nonsense in no way justifies abuse. It is foolish to believe that just because "free will" can be snuck into the scene that these women have "chosen" this path.

The so-called "choice" is almost always a result of years of abuse and in the vast majority of cases simply doesn't count as a choice. Same with prostitution. Sure this is "choice" for some women, but most often (almost always) it's a choice of complete desperation, and while I do not defend arresting these women, I contend that it an immoral act of the highest(lowest) order for a man to hire one.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

"Dressing women in ninja-suits"? The very way you worded this implies that the women are dressed, like so many children, rather than that the women dress themselves this way because they choose to. Has it ever occurred to you that the women who dress this way choose to do so of their own free will? The type of assumption you have made is common among both "liberal" and "conservative" statists, who use it to justify all kinds of oppressive laws against behavior they disapprove of. For example, surely no woman would ever choose, of her own free will, to work as a prostitute. No, the only explanation for her career choice is that it is not a choice at all, that she is being compelled to work as a prostitute by the evil, much more powerful men around her. And so prostitution is made illegal, and women who choose to work as prostitutes are not infrequently arrested and put in jail, all for their own good, of course. And no person would ever voluntarily, of their own free will, choose to use illegal drugs. No, they must be being coerced into using drugs, either by other people or by their own loss of free will due to the drugs themselves. And so the war on drugs goes on and on and on, and illegal drug users and arrested and put in jail, all for their own good, of course. And the prisons are filled with victimless criminals.

Enough of this paternalistic bullshit! Government has absolutely no right to tell people what drugs they can put into their bodies, who they may have sex with on what terms, or how they may dress. This is a despicable form of totalitarianism in the personal realm. That you defend it, all the while thinking that you are upholding human rights, is truly pathetic.

Martin

Complete nonsense.

"Has it ever occurred to you that the women who dress this way choose to do so of their own free will?"

The same argument is used to describe 15 year old girls in plural marriages - both irrational. This nonsense in no way justifies abuse. It is foolish to believe that just because "free will" can be snuck into the scene that these women have "chosen" this path.

The so-called "choice" is almost always a result of years of abuse and in the vast majority of cases simply doesn't count as a choice. Same with prostitution. Sure this is "choice" for some women, but most often (almost always) it's a choice of complete desperation, and while I do not defend arresting these women, I contend that it an immoral act of the highest(lowest) order for a man to hire one.

Bob

Or go to a Nevada brothel? Worse than rape or murder? Kidnapping, rape and then murder? Burning a family alive in an arson fire? Genocide?

The hardest thing about reading stuff on line is people really not knowing what they are talking about.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

"Dressing women in ninja-suits"? The very way you worded this implies that the women are dressed, like so many children, rather than that the women dress themselves this way because they choose to. Has it ever occurred to you that the women who dress this way choose to do so of their own free will? The type of assumption you have made is common among both "liberal" and "conservative" statists, who use it to justify all kinds of oppressive laws against behavior they disapprove of. For example, surely no woman would ever choose, of her own free will, to work as a prostitute. No, the only explanation for her career choice is that it is not a choice at all, that she is being compelled to work as a prostitute by the evil, much more powerful men around her. And so prostitution is made illegal, and women who choose to work as prostitutes are not infrequently arrested and put in jail, all for their own good, of course. And no person would ever voluntarily, of their own free will, choose to use illegal drugs. No, they must be being coerced into using drugs, either by other people or by their own loss of free will due to the drugs themselves. And so the war on drugs goes on and on and on, and illegal drug users and arrested and put in jail, all for their own good, of course. And the prisons are filled with victimless criminals.

Enough of this paternalistic bullshit! Government has absolutely no right to tell people what drugs they can put into their bodies, who they may have sex with on what terms, or how they may dress. This is a despicable form of totalitarianism in the personal realm. That you defend it, all the while thinking that you are upholding human rights, is truly pathetic.

Martin

Complete nonsense.

"Has it ever occurred to you that the women who dress this way choose to do so of their own free will?"

The same argument is used to describe 15 year old girls in plural marriages - both irrational. This nonsense in no way justifies abuse. It is foolish to believe that just because "free will" can be snuck into the scene that these women have "chosen" this path.

The so-called "choice" is almost always a result of years of abuse and in the vast majority of cases simply doesn't count as a choice. Same with prostitution. Sure this is "choice" for some women, but most often (almost always) it's a choice of complete desperation, and while I do not defend arresting these women, I contend that it an immoral act of the highest(lowest) order for a man to hire one.

Bob

Or go to a Nevada brothel? Worse than rape or murder? Kidnapping, rape and then murder? Burning a family alive in an arson fire? Genocide?

The hardest thing about reading stuff on line is people really not knowing what they are talking about.

--Brant

What the hell are you talking about?

Nowhere did I say that that it is worse that the crimes you mention.

However, it is indeed firmly in the abuse category and as a result is a very serious moral transgression.

Would you rather have your daughter get beat up once, or become a prostitute?

Bob

[Martin Radwin]

"Dressing women in ninja-suits"? The very way you worded this implies that the women are dressed, like so many children, rather than that the women dress themselves this way because they choose to. Has it ever occurred to you that the women who dress this way choose to do so of their own free will? The type of assumption you have made is common among both "liberal" and "conservative" statists, who use it to justify all kinds of oppressive laws against behavior they disapprove of. For example, surely no woman would ever choose, of her own free will, to work as a prostitute. No, the only explanation for her career choice is that it is not a choice at all, that she is being compelled to work as a prostitute by the evil, much more powerful men around her. And so prostitution is made illegal, and women who choose to work as prostitutes are not infrequently arrested and put in jail, all for their own good, of course. And no person would ever voluntarily, of their own free will, choose to use illegal drugs. No, they must be being coerced into using drugs, either by other people or by their own loss of free will due to the drugs themselves. And so the war on drugs goes on and on and on, and illegal drug users and arrested and put in jail, all for their own good, of course. And the prisons are filled with victimless criminals.

Enough of this paternalistic bullshit! Government has absolutely no right to tell people what drugs they can put into their bodies, who they may have sex with on what terms, or how they may dress. This is a despicable form of totalitarianism in the personal realm. That you defend it, all the while thinking that you are upholding human rights, is truly pathetic.

Martin

Complete nonsense.

"Has it ever occurred to you that the women who dress this way choose to do so of their own free will?"

The same argument is used to describe 15 year old girls in plural marriages - both irrational. This nonsense in no way justifies abuse. It is foolish to believe that just because "free will" can be snuck into the scene that these women have "chosen" this path.

The standard libertarian position is that consenting adults have the right to make their own choices in life, as long as they don't violate the equal rights of others. This applies specifically to adults, not to children. By bringing up the case of 15 year old girls, you have employed here a common technique used by those opposed to consenting adults having the freedom to make their own choices in life, by implying that the potential abuse of children constitutes a valid reason for violating the liberty of adults.

For women wearing this kind of dress in Saudi Arabia, you would be right that their consent cannot be inferred, being as they live in a ruthlessly oppressive society that severely punishes them for dressing in any other way. But in France, women have the right to dress in any damn way they please. The only way lack of consent can occur there is if the woman's husband or family are using coercion by physically threatening her if she doesn't dress according to their wishes. In such case, the proper solution is for anyone threatening the woman with physical violence to be arrested. It is not to arrest, fine, or otherwise harass the woman. The fact that some women may be physically coerced into dressing in a certain way doesn't justify the assumption that all of them are, such that the government may pass laws limiting their freedom to dress as they choose.

The so-called "choice" is almost always a result of years of abuse and in the vast majority of cases simply doesn't count as a choice. Same with prostitution. Sure this is "choice" for some women, but most often (almost always) it's a choice of complete desperation, and while I do not defend arresting these women, I contend that it an immoral act of the highest(lowest) order for a man to hire one.

Bob

For adults, any actions they take are a choice, unless they are being coerced. These are not "so-called choices", they are real choices. Just because you don't like the choices they make, or think that they are somehow degrading, does not mean that they are not real choices. Your argument that they are not real choices has been used over and over and over again to justify victimless crime laws, imprisoning people who have violated noone's rights, using the theory that these people's rights are not really being violated, since what they are doing is not really their free choice anyway. In your original post to which I responded, you advocated the French law that would fine women for dressing in a particular way that you find offensive. All in the name of protecting them, of course.

Martin

[bmacwilliam]

The standard libertarian position is that consenting adults have the right to make their own choices in life, as long as they don't violate the equal rights of others. This applies specifically to adults, not to children. By bringing up the case of 15 year old girls, you have employed here a common technique used by those opposed to consenting adults having the freedom to make their own choices in life, by implying that the potential abuse of children constitutes a valid reason for violating the liberty of adults.

For women wearing this kind of dress in Saudi Arabia, you would be right that their consent cannot be inferred, being as they live in a ruthlessly oppressive society that severely punishes them for dressing in any other way. But in France, women have the right to dress in any damn way they please. The only way lack of consent can occur there is if the woman's husband or family are using coercion by physically threatening her if she doesn't dress according to their wishes. In such case, the proper solution is for anyone threatening the woman with physical violence to be arrested. It is not to arrest, fine, or otherwise harass the woman. The fact that some women may be physically coerced into dressing in a certain way doesn't justify the assumption that all of them are, such that the government may pass laws limiting their freedom to dress as they choose.

For adults, any actions they take are a choice, unless they are being coerced. These are not "so-called choices", they are real choices. Just because you don't like the choices they make, or think that they are somehow degrading, does not mean that they are not real choices. Your argument that they are not real choices has been used over and over and over again to justify victimless crime laws, imprisoning people who have violated noone's rights, using the theory that these people's rights are not really being violated, since what they are doing is not really their free choice anyway. In your original post to which I responded, you advocated the French law that would fine women for dressing in a particular way that you find offensive. All in the name of protecting them, of course.

Martin

You are making wide generalizations regarding "common techniques" and attributing these to my arguments and that's inappropriate.

The problem with 15 year old girls is that even when they're adults they're choice is tainted (and not inferred) because of a lifetime of oppression and abuse. So a 25 yo woman who chooses to remain in this situation does NOT have valid choice. I remind you this is your argument, not mine.

You apply this same reasoning (rightly so) to Saudi Arabia. But then your argument completely jumps the shark.

You say France is free. Try living life as a young girl in a fundamentalist Islamic family in France and tell me how free you are. Your argument says her choice is only a "so called" choice in Saudi Arabia, but a "real" choice in France. France being free is irrelevant. The individual's situation is the only relevant fact. What if she was locked up in a basement? In France this is different? Nonsense.

Your argument is inconsistent and irrational.

EDIT: And I only stated that prostitution is highly immoral - especially for the purchaser. Should it be illegal? Different question and I'm inclined to say no.

Bob

Edited April 13, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

The fact that some women may be physically coerced into dressing in a certain way doesn't justify the assumption that all of them are, such that the government may pass laws limiting their freedom to dress as they choose.

Here's a little inconvenient "fact" for you Martin.

In virtually every instance in a free society where Islam is not present now or in the past, almost every single woman who is alive now OR has EVER lived, has NOT chosen to dress in a manner with only her eyes showing. Sure there are religious orders that dress in ways approaching this, but the point is that outside of coercive pressure, women basically NEVER, EVER choose this.

Therefore, the possibility that these women actively and properly (by your definition) choose this Objectively approaches zero.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

"Dressing women in ninja-suits"? The very way you worded this implies that the women are dressed, like so many children, rather than that the women dress themselves this way because they choose to. Has it ever occurred to you that the women who dress this way choose to do so of their own free will? The type of assumption you have made is common among both "liberal" and "conservative" statists, who use it to justify all kinds of oppressive laws against behavior they disapprove of. For example, surely no woman would ever choose, of her own free will, to work as a prostitute. No, the only explanation for her career choice is that it is not a choice at all, that she is being compelled to work as a prostitute by the evil, much more powerful men around her. And so prostitution is made illegal, and women who choose to work as prostitutes are not infrequently arrested and put in jail, all for their own good, of course. And no person would ever voluntarily, of their own free will, choose to use illegal drugs. No, they must be being coerced into using drugs, either by other people or by their own loss of free will due to the drugs themselves. And so the war on drugs goes on and on and on, and illegal drug users and arrested and put in jail, all for their own good, of course. And the prisons are filled with victimless criminals.

Enough of this paternalistic bullshit! Government has absolutely no right to tell people what drugs they can put into their bodies, who they may have sex with on what terms, or how they may dress. This is a despicable form of totalitarianism in the personal realm. That you defend it, all the while thinking that you are upholding human rights, is truly pathetic.

Martin

Complete nonsense.

"Has it ever occurred to you that the women who dress this way choose to do so of their own free will?"

The same argument is used to describe 15 year old girls in plural marriages - both irrational. This nonsense in no way justifies abuse. It is foolish to believe that just because "free will" can be snuck into the scene that these women have "chosen" this path.

The so-called "choice" is almost always a result of years of abuse and in the vast majority of cases simply doesn't count as a choice. Same with prostitution. Sure this is "choice" for some women, but most often (almost always) it's a choice of complete desperation, and while I do not defend arresting these women, I contend that it an immoral act of the highest(lowest) order for a man to hire one.

Bob

Or go to a Nevada brothel? Worse than rape or murder? Kidnapping, rape and then murder? Burning a family alive in an arson fire? Genocide?

The hardest thing about reading stuff on line is people really not knowing what they are talking about.

--Brant

What the hell are you talking about?

Nowhere did I say that that it is worse that the crimes you mention.

However, it is indeed firmly in the abuse category and as a result is a very serious moral transgression.

Would you rather have your daughter get beat up once, or become a prostitute?

Bob

My inference was valid. It could be you don't believe in logical extrapolations or you write in a code convenient to you for your snappy comebacks? I notice you've now shoved it up higher on the rungs of hell. And what's it about the offensive and stupid remark about my supposed daughter? It belongs in the "Are you still beating your wife?" category.

--Brant

Edited April 13, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[anthony]

The fact that some women may be physically coerced into dressing in a certain way doesn't justify the assumption that all of them are, such that the government may pass laws limiting their freedom to dress as they choose.

Here's a little inconvenient "fact" for you Martin.

In virtually every instance in a free society where Islam is not present now or in the past, almost every single woman who is alive now OR has EVER lived, has NOT chosen to dress in a manner with only her eyes showing. Sure there are religious orders that dress in ways approaching this, but the point is that outside of coercive pressure, women basically NEVER, EVER choose this.

Therefore, the possibility that these women actively and properly (by your definition) choose this Objectively approaches zero.

Bob

What do you call coercive pressure? Custom, culture, tradition, tribalism, prestige, status, or a woman happily pleasing her husband?

You are applying Western standards to an Oriental milieu.

"In a free society where Islam is not present" is begging the question.

Few, or no, other cultures or religions have such dress codes.

Anyway, I did supply personal observations of a number of wealthy Muslims with quite liberal husbands, who CHOOSE this form of public dress. Do you have personal contact with Muslims that contradicts that?

Anyway, bottom line, a State that bans this dress in public is totalitarian.

That's coercive for you.

Tony

[Martin Radwin]

The standard libertarian position is that consenting adults have the right to make their own choices in life, as long as they don't violate the equal rights of others. This applies specifically to adults, not to children. By bringing up the case of 15 year old girls, you have employed here a common technique used by those opposed to consenting adults having the freedom to make their own choices in life, by implying that the potential abuse of children constitutes a valid reason for violating the liberty of adults.

For women wearing this kind of dress in Saudi Arabia, you would be right that their consent cannot be inferred, being as they live in a ruthlessly oppressive society that severely punishes them for dressing in any other way. But in France, women have the right to dress in any damn way they please. The only way lack of consent can occur there is if the woman's husband or family are using coercion by physically threatening her if she doesn't dress according to their wishes. In such case, the proper solution is for anyone threatening the woman with physical violence to be arrested. It is not to arrest, fine, or otherwise harass the woman. The fact that some women may be physically coerced into dressing in a certain way doesn't justify the assumption that all of them are, such that the government may pass laws limiting their freedom to dress as they choose.

For adults, any actions they take are a choice, unless they are being coerced. These are not "so-called choices", they are real choices. Just because you don't like the choices they make, or think that they are somehow degrading, does not mean that they are not real choices. Your argument that they are not real choices has been used over and over and over again to justify victimless crime laws, imprisoning people who have violated noone's rights, using the theory that these people's rights are not really being violated, since what they are doing is not really their free choice anyway. In your original post to which I responded, you advocated the French law that would fine women for dressing in a particular way that you find offensive. All in the name of protecting them, of course.

Martin

You are making wide generalizations regarding "common techniques" and attributing these to my arguments and that's inappropriate.

The law in France applies to adult women. The crux of the argument is whether adults should be free to make their own uncoerced choices. By bringing up the hypothetical of 15 year old children, this changes the nature of the argument, because the same rules do not apply to children as to adults. This may not have been your intention, but this type of argument is used all the time by the opponents of free choice in adults. It has led to the rather sarcastic rejoinder, "But what about the children?", made against people who use children to argue against the freedom of adults. This type of argument is used all the time by people who justify limiting the freedom of adults because of the hypothetical hazard such freedom may pose to children.

The problem with 15 year old girls is that even when they're adults they're choice is tainted (and not inferred) because of a lifetime of oppression and abuse. So a 25 yo woman who chooses to remain in this situation does NOT have valid choice. I remind you this is your argument, not mine.

The issue with regard to individual liberty is not whether or not the choice is "tainted" but whether or not the choice is coerced. One can argue that all kinds of choices are "tainted", based on the previous influences to which people have been subjected as children. Based on this criterion, pretty much an infinite number of a person's choices are "tainted". If a person becomes a practicing Jew or Catholic or Mormon, this choice was probably influenced by their upbringing. Are we then justified in passing a law banning the practice of Judaism, Catholicism, or Mormonism, because the individuals practicing these religions have made choices that are "tainted" and thus, not truly free?

You apply this same reasoning (rightly so) to Saudi Arabia. But then your argument completely jumps the shark.

You say France is free. Try living life as a young girl in a fundamentalist Islamic family in France and tell me how free you are. Your argument says her choice is only a "so called" choice in Saudi Arabia, but a "real" choice in France. France being free is irrelevant. The individual's situation is the only relevant fact. What if she was locked up in a basement? In France this is different? Nonsense.

If she was locked in a basement, the police should have arrested the sob parents who did this to her, something that they would have far more resources available to do if they weren't going around fining women for their choice in dress or busting people for a wide variety of other victimless crimes. Your solution to the problem of children being abused seems to be to fine or arrest them for the choices they make after they become adults, rather than going after the people who abused them in the first place. Once you deny that choices are freely made by adults when they have been abused as children, there is no limit to the number of choices you can argue are not freely made, for there is no shortage of physical and emotional abuse committed against children. And thereby you create endless justifications for government to interfere in the personal liberty of adults.

Your argument is inconsistent and irrational.

EDIT: And I only stated that prostitution is highly immoral - especially for the purchaser. Should it be illegal? Different question and I'm inclined to say no.

Bob

You're inclined to say no? So you're not sure if women and men who have sex in exchange for money, along with their paying clients, should be arrested, prosecuted, and locked up in jail? Just whose body and whose money is it, anyway? It's interesting that, on the one hand, you seem to imply compassion for people whom you view as victims of abuse. On the other hand, you're still debating the question of whether or not their lives should be ruined by being locked up in prison, just as you argued above that you support the law in France that would fine women for wearing Islamic clothing, so that the same women who have supposedly been victimized by their own families should also be victimized by the police. This is the kind of compassion that victims of abuse do not need or deserve.

Martin

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In virtually every instance in a free society where Islam is not present now or in the past, almost every single woman who is alive now OR has EVER lived, has NOT chosen to dress in a manner with only her eyes showing. Sure there are religious orders that dress in ways approaching this, but the point is that outside of coercive pressure, women basically NEVER, EVER choose this.

Bob,

That's a very good point.

I don't agree that "coercive pressure" is the only thing operating (if that is what you are saying). A lot comes from growing up around role models, traditions, etc. But coercive pressure is most definitely there within the social structures to keep the custom going.

(God, I just had a horrible vision! I hope you don't think I'm going to make a habit of agreeing with you. )

Michael

[Selene]

And then there is the one about the sexy nun who tried to kick the habit...

[Martin Radwin]

The fact that some women may be physically coerced into dressing in a certain way doesn't justify the assumption that all of them are, such that the government may pass laws limiting their freedom to dress as they choose.

Here's a little inconvenient "fact" for you Martin.

In virtually every instance in a free society where Islam is not present now or in the past, almost every single woman who is alive now OR has EVER lived, has NOT chosen to dress in a manner with only her eyes showing. Sure there are religious orders that dress in ways approaching this, but the point is that outside of coercive pressure, women basically NEVER, EVER choose this.

Therefore, the possibility that these women actively and properly (by your definition) choose this Objectively approaches zero.

Bob

The type of dress we have been talking about is specifically an Islamic type of dress. In a society in which Islam is not present now or in the past, noone living in the society would be raised according to Islamic customs. So why would you expect a woman not raised in an Islamic family to wear this type of dress? Similarly, in a society without Catholic influence, there would presumably be no nuns or priests wearing the type of dress associated with these jobs. And in a society without Jewish influence, there would presumably be no men wearing the traditional clothes worn by Hassidic jews. Can we extrapolate from this that nuns and priests and Hassidic jews do not choose, of their own free will, to wear the type of clothes that they wear?

Martin