Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
Protip:

Two kinds of people:

1) one of them wants to do stuff that affects only themselves because a magic skyperson told then so.

2) the other says that this doesn't affect me but he shouldn't be able to do it anyway if the reason for it is a skyperson because believing in a skyperson is stupid.

One of those people is an intolerant bigoted jackass. I'll let you decide which one.

You forgot the third kind of person, which isn't prevalent in France, as far as I know, but which does pop up here in the US a lot:

The guy who wants stuff to affect everyone else because a magic skyperson told him so.

Trust me, I have a French flag next to my post and that law does not allow the police to arrest someone because they are wearing a cap or a sweater.

Come on we both know thats a lie. Both France and Italy's constabularies have the full authority to arrest any person wearing a sweater that is just too gauche for the public good.

 d-usa wrote:
Protip:
Two kinds of people:
1) one of them wants to do stuff that affects only themselves because a magic skyperson told then so.
2) the other says that this doesn't affect me but he shouldn't be able to do it anyway if the reason for it is a skyperson because believing in a skyperson is stupid.

Who are those peoples exactly?
Because I am pretty sure the part in italics is a pure strawman.

 jasper76 wrote:
My only point about xenophobia, was that consumers of US press have seen alot of stories about isalmophopbia and homophobia in France in recent months (years?).

And you have no idea how much stories from the U.S.A. we have heard .
No, really, we are so much more exposed to everything that happens in the U.S. than you are to what happens in France. Or the rest of the world.
Anyhow, you got me a bit curious. What were those stories?

 jasper76 wrote:
If I ever have to right down "fromage" again in my life, I'll try and remember.

The right spelling is “write”. Okay, now I am being pedantic .

Yes, it's strawmen...

Hint: it is not, actually. Freedom of conscience is important. Freedom of religion need to die a long, painful and excruciating death.
If you want to do something, and the only reason you can think of why you should be able to do it is “because my religion says so”, it is a very good sign that this is not actually sometime you have a moral right to.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

squidhills wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Protip:

Two kinds of people:

1) one of them wants to do stuff that affects only themselves because a magic skyperson told then so.

2) the other says that this doesn't affect me but he shouldn't be able to do it anyway if the reason for it is a skyperson because believing in a skyperson is stupid.

One of those people is an intolerant bigoted jackass. I'll let you decide which one.

You forgot the third kind of person, which isn't prevalent in France, as far as I know, but which does pop up here in the US a lot:

The guy who wants stuff to affect everyone else because a magic skyperson told him so.

Good thing that nobody in this thread has advocated that position.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Anyhow, you got me a bit curious. What were those stories?

IIRC, protests against gay marriage, and the issue presented here. I was not trying to imply that we don't have similar issues over here, only that growing up in the US, we are given the impression that France is some sort of socialist paradise, where everyone is a lefty, everyone is super happy etc. My post was in response to someone who said something to the effect of "I thought secular socialist Eurpoe was supposed to be some kind of teolerant paradise." I was just responding to that. There does seem to be a rather vocal right-wing element of French society.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Anyhow, you got me a bit curious. What were those stories?

IIRC, protests against gay marriage, and the issue presented here. I was not trying to imply that we don't have similar issues over here, only that growing up in the US, we are given the impression that France is some sort of socialist paradise, where everyone is a lefty, everyone is super happy etc. My post was in response to someone who said something to the effect of "I thought secular socialist Eurpoe was supposed to be some kind of teolerant paradise." I was just responding to that. There does seem to be a rather vocal right-wing element of French society.

Nope... Humans can never tolerate others... simply trade one form of intolerant bigoted thought for another. The need to force everyone to think a single way and harm or isolate those who disagree is a cornerstone of our species it appears.

gak, I agree with someone with France. I fully agree that Freedom of Religion is something should've went the second we implemented separation of Church and State. Just because it's part of your religion doesn't mean you get to whatever you want. ( Like killing animals in unethical ways)

Yeah man. Freedom sucks, and should be limited wherever possible.

But seriously, it is possible to have freedom of religion, so long as the practice of religion doesn't break any laws (this is the current US Hobby Lobby problem, or your unethical treatment of animals scenario) or infringe on other people's rights.

But what makes it okay to target specific religions with laws when these laws only serve to stop something that has zero effect on anybody else?

Nothing, I agree, we should target all religions.

 jasper76 wrote:
only that growing up in the US, we are given the impression that France is some sort of socialist paradise, where everyone is a lefty, everyone is super happy etc.

Well, growing up in France, I was given the impression that for most U.S. citizen, socialist paradise is one of the strongest oxymoron they can think of .

 d-usa wrote:
But what makes it okay to target specific religions with laws when these laws only serve to stop something that has zero effect on anybody else?

Full face veil has an effect on other people though. Just like full nudity. There are some laws that prevent people from going naked in the street around here. There are other that prevent people from systematically covering their face. Both are there for the same reason: social norms. Do you advise removing both?
You are going to tell me that Islamic religious veil was explicitly targeted by the politicians behind the law. Of course it was, because they were the only offenders. Still, the problem was not as much them being Muslims as them not respecting that social norm.

 d-usa wrote:
Yes, it's strawmen...

Hint: it is not, actually. Freedom of conscience is important. Freedom of religion need to die a long, painful and excruciating death.
If you want to do something, and the only reason you can think of why you should be able to do it is “because my religion says so”, it is a very good sign that this is not actually sometime you have a moral right to.

So, how is that quote related in any way to your strawman?
You know, I am pretty sure there is no such thing as the “human right to do bowling on Saturday night”, that does not mean we should forbid to do bowling on Saturday night.
See just below.

 jasper76 wrote:
But seriously, it is possible to have freedom of religion, so long as the practice of religion doesn't break any laws (this is the current US Hobby Lobby problem, or your unethical treatment of animals scenario) or infringe on other people's rights.

For instance, it is very possible to have freedom to kill people provided that it does not break any law. Like with those castle laws/hold your ground laws/whatever laws in the U.S. about self-defense. Nobody will ever try to justify his or her action by “But freedom to kill people”. Because that “freedom” is in no way a human right that you are morally entitled to. Neither is any kind of religious practice. By the way, those have a non-empty intersection.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

You are going to tell me that Islamic religious veil was explicitly targeted by the politicians behind the law. Of course it was, because they were the only offenders. Still, the problem was not as much them being Muslims as them not respecting that social norm.

Wrong. Full Nudity is an Occupational Safety and Health issue. Being fully nude in public puts people at risk due to sanitary reasons... Wearing a full head covering does not. No Shirt, No Shoes, No service is due to OSH standards, not social norms.

nkelsch wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

You are going to tell me that Islamic religious veil was explicitly targeted by the politicians behind the law. Of course it was, because they were the only offenders. Still, the problem was not as much them being Muslims as them not respecting that social norm.

Wrong. Full Nudity is an Occupational Safety and Health issue. Being fully nude in public puts people at risk due to sanitary reasons... Wearing a full head covering does not. No Shirt, No Shoes, No service is due to OSH standards, not social norms.

Damn good catch on that NK. its OSHA though

Dept of health and Human Service DHS

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
For instance, it is very possible to have freedom to kill people provided that it does not break any law. Like with those castle laws/hold your ground laws/whatever laws in the U.S. about self-defense. Nobody will ever try to justify his or her action by “But freedom to kill people”. Because that “freedom” is in no way a human right that you are morally entitled to. Neither is any kind of religious practice. By the way, those have a non-empty intersection.

I find the phrase "freedom to kill people" a little off-the-mark, though technically true. It is really just the freedom to defend yourself.

You have to understand, if something goes down at my home, it'll take the cops about 20-30 minutes to get there on a good day. You better believe I'm going to hold on to my gun, because noone else can protect my family on short notice. Its my responsibility to do so. Hopefully, nothing like that will ever happen.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Because that “freedom” is in no way a human right that you are morally entitled to.

There are no rights that you are inherently entitled to as a human being. That is a religious myth and a political fiction. The only rights you have are those that your society protects.


But this is way off subject.

 Jihadin wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

You are going to tell me that Islamic religious veil was explicitly targeted by the politicians behind the law. Of course it was, because they were the only offenders. Still, the problem was not as much them being Muslims as them not respecting that social norm.

Wrong. Full Nudity is an Occupational Safety and Health issue. Being fully nude in public puts people at risk due to sanitary reasons... Wearing a full head covering does not. No Shirt, No Shoes, No service is due to OSH standards, not social norms.

Damn good catch on that NK. its OSHA though

Dept of health and Human Service DHS

Actually, Department of Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) act under DOL. People have to wear clothes to protect people's bodies from harm and to prevent the massive spread of fecal matter to cause disease. There are minimum for almost all businesses and public places. While there are 'decency' laws as well which some people put on top of OSH standards, if you removed all of people's arbitrary 'footloose town' reasons why people need to wear or not wear a specific look to please a controlling majorities social expectations, the underlying physical safety and sanitary justifications for wearing shoes and covering your 'waste makers' still exist.

Woops Health and Medical Service

France in this scenario is the very best example of dumbocracy at play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Better not trick or treat in france you paganist scum.
Ninja conventions? GTFO, no ninjas in france.

oh wait we will give you exemptions because this is a well thought out law that is neutral...

Exemptions from ban on public face covering
Motorcycle helmets
Face masks for health reasons
Face covering for sporting or professional activities
Sunglasses, hats etc which do not completely hide the face
Masks used in "traditional activities", such as carnivals or religious processions

.
So for all you bedouin lowlives....in order for you to modernise we will keep you indoors and socially isolate you from society because we claim the full face veil socially isolates you!

You facist islamists

"took into account the state's submission that the face played a significant role in social interaction.

Because getting fined, being socially ostracised, hassled and potentially arrested by the police has less of a significant role in social interaction that someone covering their face.

nkelsch wrote:
Wrong. Full Nudity is an Occupational Safety and Health issue. Being fully nude in public puts people at risk due to sanitary reasons...

Except it is not true! Nudist beaches do not put people are risk, yet nudist beaches are a tiny minority and other beaches do not allow nudity due to social norms, not sanitary concern.
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure .

 jasper76 wrote:
I find the phrase "freedom to kill people" a little off-the-mark, though technically true. It is really just the freedom to defend yourself.

The law allows you to kill people provided that you meet the legal requirement. That is exactly the same thing as what you described as freedom of religion. I think your description of freedom of religion is off-the-mark.
What about “Freedom to do what the law allows you to do”?

 jasper76 wrote:
You better believe I'm going to hold on to my gun, because noone else can protect my family on short notice.

Well, no-one else in your family can defend themselves and the rest of the family, using your gun or theirs or any other way?
You are such a hero!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
You better believe I'm going to hold on to my gun, because noone else can protect my family on short notice.

Well, no-one else in your family can defend themselves and the rest of the family, using your gun or theirs or any other way?
You are such a hero!

Well, my wife can. My 5-year old cannot, nor can my dog, nor can my ferrets.

You should train your ferrets.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
You better believe I'm going to hold on to my gun, because noone else can protect my family on short notice.

Well, no-one else in your family can defend themselves and the rest of the family, using your gun or theirs or any other way?
You are such a hero!

Well, my wife can. My 5-year old cannot, nor can my dog, nor can my ferrets.

And maybe if you Americans hadn't been so gun-happy, you wouldn't need to defend your family in the first place.
Here in the Netherlands, owning guns is illegal for most people, and injuring or killing an intruder is likely to get you in prison (unless you can prove your life or your family's lifes were in danger).
And despite those laws, people here rarely get injured or killed by intruders. In my opinion, giving people the right to kill intruders is just going to make the intruders more violent, which will lead to more casualties.

Or....It will lead to intruders going in when you are not there.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Or....It will lead to intruders going in when you are not there.

Most intruders do that regardless of guns or not.
If you were breaking in somewhere, you'd want to encounter as few people as possible methinks.

Yeah. But you really think that people should not be allowed to defend themselves from intruders? Oh wait, Netherlands. you guys where nuetral for the first part of the war.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah. But you really think that people should not be allowed to defend themselves from intruders? Oh wait, Netherlands. you guys where nuetral for the first part of the war.

You mean lile all the years the US sat on the sidelines in WWI? Or all the years the US sat o the sidelines in WWII?

However that may be, the neutrality of a country in any war, let alone one that happened decades ago has little to no relationship to their stance on "home defence".

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah. But you really think that people should not be allowed to defend themselves from intruders? Oh wait, Netherlands. you guys where nuetral for the first part of the war.

You mean lile all the years the US sat on the sidelines in WWI? Or all the years the US sat o the sidelines in WWII?

However that may be, the neutrality of a country in any war, let alone one that happened decades ago has little to no relationship to their stance on "home defence".

I think he was going for the "people who plant trees so German soldiers can march in the shade aren't the best to listen to when it comes to defending stuff" angle.

What about shooting arrows so that German soldiers can fight in the shade?
(Superfluous reference to 300 was necessary here )

Don't blame the French. The Germans need some place to vacation while they wait on the US to decide if they want to sit this one out.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And maybe if you Americans hadn't been so gun-happy, you wouldn't need to defend your family in the first place.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

Besides, I need a rifle for protection against bears, to scare off coyotes, and there have been mountain lion sightings here, too. All of which only really care about my true inherent rights as a human being, the right to be food, and the right to surrender food . The plain fact is that. in my situation, I'm much much more likely to need firearm protection from critters than from an aggressive human.

Well, wild land, wild customs .