- Joined
- Mar 5, 2016
- Messages
- 7,310
- Reaction score
- 0
You do not agree that Europe and North America should maintain a white majority?
If there is a brown minority over time the races will mix and you will have a light brown coutnry.
You do not agree that Europe and North America should maintain a white majority?
I agree with that post up to the intention of the end. We should have strict vetting where there is danger. Simple as that. If a certain group or area has more radicalism currently in it, those people need to be vetted very well before we consider letting them in. Im pretty sure we do that already though
Argument is Islam is incompatible with basic human rights. All those that adhere to it need to be kept out.
Don't let in people that think rape/subjugation of women and fucking kids is normal.
Clearly not working all that well given refugees have committed terror attacks on US soil.
Cant vet what some one truly believes and will act on given an opportunity. they can always lie. only real solution is keeping them out.
I completely understand and agree, those wearing gotta recognize it presents a security risk. But as a pointless exercise let's say a law was created in a state that forbade all clothing because of security risks (maybe concealed weapon risks or whatever), would you be ok with your mom being refused entrance into a bank because she was uncomfortable with getting naked? Would you tell her to just get naked despite her feeling it is not appropriate? Or would you argue that their exists technology that would allow her her dignity while also ensuring us our safety?If there's a compelling reason then why not? Masks are banned to varying degrees in different parts of the West. At the very least they're often banned in places like banks where they present a potential security issue. IMO the burqa should just be treated legally as a mask so that wherever a Halloween mask is banned so to is the burqa.
I completely understand and agree, those wearing gotta recognize it presents a security risk. But as a pointless exercise let's say a law was created in a state that forbade all clothing because of security risks (maybe concealed weapon risks or whatever), would you be ok with your mom being refused entrance into a bank because she was uncomfortable with getting naked? Would you tell her to just get naked despite her feeling it is not appropriate? Or would you argue that their exists technology that would allow her her dignity while also ensuring us our safety?
I'm no fan of any religion or burqas, I think it's all stupid fairy tales. But I certainly don't like government telling me what I can and can't wear when there are other options available.
Personally, I would have no problem if Islam was banned outside of Islamic dominant countries. Islam and mass immigration has definitely made me question everything I thought I believed about liberalism, race relations, equality, freedom of religion and so on. Politically, I am not so sure if banning Islam is a realistic goal at the moment as long as fads like multiculturalism and equal outcomes rule the day. In fact, I am starting to think that white Christians are going to have to take some inspiration from Israel and start their own country where whites will be the dominant demographic.
There are muslims you could bring here who don't believe those things, thus my point about strict vetting. If there are radical views in a group, you look to see with each individual is doing/ supports that. A burqa in itself isn't subjegation of women, especially if we let that couple in the US where she would be free to also not wear it. The vetting serves to see if these people support basic human rights... you know, like freedom of religion or to be able to wear a silly scarf and not have the government going after you for it.
You can list statistics to me and I'd be open to reconsidering how well they are doing. I was talking about normal immigration policies. I've been on the fence about the refugee crisis and whether that was handled properly. If there were any deaths, we could've always done better
I see what you're saying and of course there has to be a balance struck. I think though that the burqa is just too extreme an article of clothing. It prevents identification which not only acts as a barrier to empathy and understanding in mundane social situations but as we've discussed presents a security issue.I completely understand and agree, those wearing gotta recognize it presents a security risk. But as a pointless exercise let's say a law was created in a state that forbade all clothing because of security risks (maybe concealed weapon risks or whatever), would you be ok with your mom being refused entrance into a bank because she was uncomfortable with getting naked? Would you tell her to just get naked despite her feeling it is not appropriate? Or would you argue that their exists technology that would allow her her dignity while also ensuring us our safety?
I'm no fan of any religion or burqas, I think it's all stupid fairy tales. But I certainly don't like government telling me what I can and can't wear when there are other options available.
I don't see why covering only the hair really matters though. Hair length and color are easily changed and not really vital for identifying a person IMO, so long as the face is visible I think that should suffice for ID related purposes. Hillary Clinton wearing a hijab is still obviously Hillary Clinton.I have absolutely no problem with burqas. However, I think you should not be allowed to wear it for official documentation photographs such as driver's licenses. I hold this to apply for all potential hair coverings that obscure the color or length of hair. I absolutely disagree with full face coverings that hide a wears features except for very specific circumstances while in public. Such circumstances would include holiday observations that may incorporate masks or cultural festivals where traditional clothing would be highlighted.
I hate to be the one to tell you but Australia isn't in Europe
EDIT: Austria, not Australia lol. I will leave this here as a monument to careless posting, a warning to others!
Personally, I would have no problem if Islam was banned outside of Islamic dominant countries. Islam and mass immigration has definitely made me question everything I thought I believed about liberalism, race relations, equality, freedom of religion and so on. Politically, I am not so sure if banning Islam is a realistic goal at the moment as long as fads like multiculturalism and equal outcomes rule the day. In fact, I am starting to think that white Christians are going to have to take some inspiration from Israel and start their own country where whites will be the dominant demographic.
You are of course right that length and color can be changed but I still think it's just a good precedent to not allow any coverings that obscure any significant portion of the head for official documentation.I see what you're saying and of course there has to be a balance struck. I think though that the burqa is just too extreme an article of clothing. It prevents identification which not only acts as a barrier to empathy and understanding in mundane social situations but as we've discussed presents a security issue.
A hijab is very different, there's not much difference between it and a non-religious headscarf so for me banning that would be an egregious overreach but the burqa just carries with it issues that the hijab does not so I think its fair to ban it. That said I don't think its a good idea to really target the burqa and as I said before I prefer just treating it as a mask legally speaking and if you want to remove it from certain spaces then ban all items of clothing that cover the face in those spaces.
I don't see why covering only the hair really matters though. Hair length and color are easily changed and not really vital for identifying a person IMO, so long as the face is visible I think that should suffice for ID related purposes. Hillary Clinton wearing a hijab is still obviously Hillary Clinton.
I don't understand the idea of making a Christian country based around whites being the majority. Are you saying the US isnt this already? Would you rather us be a theocracy then what we have in place at the moment
What does that matter? Its like saying that a person who has never had the desire to exercise their right to protest should not care if protesting is banned.Did you at any point in your life have the desire to wear a burqa in public? I think you are being a little unreasonable with the "government better not tell me what I can or cannot wear" rhetoric.
I don't think its the greatest oppression in the world but it just seems unnecessary if the face is clearly visible.You are of course right that length and color can be changed but I still think it's just a good precedent to not allow any coverings that obscure any significant portion of the head for official documentation.
What does that matter? Its like saying that a person who has never had the desire to exercise their right to protest should not care if protesting is banned.
Maybe reread what I wrote, the point was clear. The lack of a desire to engage in activity or exercise a right is not mutually exclusive to wanting to defend the ability to exercise that right or engage in that activity. In other words, your argument was bad.How does something reasonable like banning an oppressive religious garb in public places relate to the banning of protest?
If there is a brown minority over time the races will mix and you will have a light brown coutnry.