Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    Except you are allowed to do that on nudist beaches.. If this was REALLY about secularism, they'd ban kippahs and crosses too. They allow people to wear wet suits, they allow men to cover up, but God forbid that this wet suit sounds Muslamic. They don't care if it's something to do with non Muslims...
    Except this is about the French prohibiting things on the basis of their social and moral values, as they do with being naked. If you think France banning the burkini based on social and moral values is wrong, why do you not apply the same logic to nudism?

    In relation to your first point, I doubt you would agree to France allowing the burkini only on set beaches segregated from everyone else?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Europe is going to **** because we are too busy blaming foreign cultures/religions for our problems
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retropattern)
    Oh right, you're one of those feminazi liberals. I'm done talking to you, now skip along naked whilst your bitten to death everywhere (and yes everywhere) by mosquitoes and your paper thin skin is scratched and grazed by almost anything and you freeze to death at night. Bye bye now.
    What you mean is that you're incapable of defending your point.

    Yes, I'm a feminist. I believe that while men and women are different sexes that in no way means one is superior to the other.

    If that you don't believe that, whether you've been told so, read it in your holy book, or are just a general bigot then I have to say, I am baffled as to why. It is really not hard to understand that we are all human.

    Goodbye ^^
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Okay, but I think that's beside the point I'm making. The social value of covering up female nipples exists independently of the support given by the clothing. If the clothing was forcibly taken away, I suspect that women's immediate concern would be that their tits would be on show, with a secondary (or at least unrelated) pragmatic concern about the lack of support.*

    As it happens I agree with you re free the nips, in the sense that women should have the choice to bare them if they wish, but we're talking about actually forcing people to be half-naked (which is the equivalent, in my hypothetical, of banning the burka).
    Sure, women would be annoyed. As well as social issues and self consciousness, there are practical aspects to clothing. I don't see that functionality limited by the burkini ban (as you can still use any of the non religious alternatives out there). The law isn't Muslim women must show their arms or legs or hair; the ban is just that they can't hide themselves behind a specific type of clothing.

    Plus, (and there's many who'll disagree with me for saying this but) I don't think religion adds any practical value to society & clothing choices - as in, clothing protects you from scratches, cold, the sun, and some of it offers support or stops chafing etc., gotta say the only benefit of specifically religious clothing is inside your head. (Cue Dumbledore lmaoo)

    Soo I get your point. I see the comparison. Buuut i don't hold religion in a high place in my mind so I don't see it the same way as others out there.

    Tbh I just fundamentally see little point to wearing religious clothing at all - I struggle with the idea of a god at all, nevermind one that cares about dress codes lol. Seems like a pretty trivial thing for an omnipotent being to care about. But yanno getting deep now n all should probs stop rambling.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1010marina)
    Sure, women would be annoyed. As well as social issues and self consciousness, there are practical aspects to clothing. I don't see that functionality limited by the burkini ban (as you can still use any of the non religious alternatives out there). The law isn't Muslim women must show their arms or legs or hair; the ban is just that they can't hide themselves behind a specific type of clothing.

    Plus, (and there's many who'll disagree with me for saying this but) I don't think religion adds any practical value to society & clothing choices - as in, clothing protects you from scratches, cold, the sun, and some of it offers support or stops chafing etc., gotta say the only benefit of specifically religious clothing is inside your head. (Cue Dumbledore lmaoo)

    Soo I get your point. I see the comparison. Buuut i don't hold religion in a high place in my mind so I don't see it the same way as others out there.

    Tbh I just fundamentally see little point to wearing religious clothing at all - I struggle with the idea of a god at all, nevermind one that cares about dress codes lol. Seems like a pretty trivial thing for an omnipotent being to care about. But yanno getting deep now n all should probs stop rambling.
    Being an atheist, I don't think religious dress matters much either. As a straight guy I'm very much pro female nudity, but I can't expect everyone to get on board with that unfortunately.*
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Being an atheist, I don't think religious dress matters much either. As a straight guy I'm very much pro female nudity, but I can't expect everyone to get on board with that unfortunately.*
    Just baffles me that a pec is acceptable but a boob causes uproar, especially if there's a baby attached. Hmm.

    At any rate, perhaps your username doesn't apply anymore :P
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    ''White people are practically worshipped in India. Yeah a few incidents on liveleak = government-sanctioned laws lmao.''

    You may be right with that one. I just wanted to give an example... i think somewhere like Egypt would have been better. The examples i give are never good. But undoubtedly there are some if not most countries near the middle east.dangerous places in those sort of countries (excluding war torn areas of course) that are not safe. I have heard lots of stories but the news only show what they want/others want to hear so...

    with live leak typing in India white violence wont likely come up with stuff. I admit my examples are **** but there was a female interviewer in Egypt during a religious festivle.. a large group of men chanting she is a jew ''rape her'' ''kill her''.. thats one example but there are more stories.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Except this is about the French prohibiting things on the basis of their social and moral values, as they do with being naked. If you think France banning the burkini based on social and moral values is wrong, why do you not apply the same logic to nudism?

    In relation to your first point, I doubt you would agree to France allowing the burkini only on set beaches segregated from everyone else?
    It's against French social and moral values to cover up? Do they also ban nuns then? Would you want segregated beaches, as that's what we do with nudist beaches now?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    It's against French social and moral values to cover up? Do they also ban nuns then? Would you want segregated beaches, as that's what we do with nudist beaches now?
    The French have decided this specific item of clothing is against their moral and social values, as they have decided nudism is, despite people being allowed to walk around barely naked.

    My point is that there is already a precedent for this. People seem fine to say we should ignore the ideological beliefs of nudists, but suddenly rally around the ideological beliefs of burkini-wearers. This is hypocritical in my view.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    The French have decided this specific item of clothing is against their moral and social values, as they have decided nudism is, despite people being allowed to walk around barely naked.

    My point is that there is already a precedent for this. People seem fine to say we should ignore the ideological beliefs of nudists, but suddenly rally around the ideological beliefs of burkini-wearers. This is hypocritical in my view.
    They've decided that wetsuits are against their morals and social values? Nudism is sexualised, hence we have nudist beaches. Would you be OK with burkinis on their own beaches as we do have those for nudists?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    They've decided that wetsuits are against their morals and social values?
    How is that comparable? That's like trying to compare us allowing a white t-shirt with black text on saying "[insert quirky catchphrase here]" but banning a white t-shirt with black text on with grossly racist language. It's the symbol rather than the literal garment that is in question here.

    Nudism is sexualised, hence we have nudist beaches. Would you be OK with burkinis on their own beaches as we do have those for nudists?
    I don't like the idea of segregated beaches for either - but it appears many who are saying this burkini ban is unjust are conveniently forgetting that France also bans nudism in public on the basis of social and moral justifications.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    Why are Jewish kippahs allowed on the beach then? And Christian crosses?
    When was the last time you heard about a jewish or christian suicide bomber? Its not unreasonable considering 200 people have been killed in the last 2 years for the french to want to limit extreme versions of Islam.And tbh if you cant go swimming without having your hair uncovered then you are taking islam to the extreme and hence more likely to be an islamic extremist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    How is that comparable? That's like trying to compare us allowing a white t-shirt with black text on saying "[insert quirky catchphrase here]" but banning a white t-shirt with black text on with grossly racist language. It's the symbol rather than the literal garment that is in question here.
    I don't like the idea of segregated beaches for either - but it appears many who are saying this burkini ban is unjust are conveniently forgetting that France also bans nudism in public on the basis of social and moral justifications.
    So if the French do decide to ban t-shirts on any made up moral grounds, would you say it would be a double standard for people to oppose this if they already oppose public nudity?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    When was the last time you heard about a jewish or christian suicide bomber? Its not unreasonable considering 200 people have been killed in the last 2 years for the french to want to limit extreme versions of Islam.And tbh if you cant go swimming without having your hair uncovered then you are taking islam to the extreme and hence more likely to be an islamic extremist.
    When was the last time you heard about a female suicide bomber, let alone one wearing a burkini?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    So if the French do decide to ban t-shirts on any made up moral grounds, would you say it would be a double standard for people to oppose this if they already oppose public nudity?
    Yes, unless they can show the reasoning is somehow objective. We oppose racist t-shirts for the same strand of subjective reasoning as we oppose nudism: public morality, causing offence, preventing people from feeling distressed, etc.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    When was the last time you heard about a female suicide bomber, let alone one wearing a burkini?
    Well how about those three girls who were killed after joing isis. Anyway I never said they were suicide bombers.But all suicide bombers tend to have islam in common.I actually said they were more likely to be islamic extremists maybe the non violent kind but still extreme.Terrorists dont just suddenly decide to be a terrorist one day,they're raised in households where extreme islam is practiced and this includes women covering up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Yes, unless they can show the reasoning is somehow objective. We oppose racist t-shirts for the same strand of subjective reasoning as we oppose nudism: public morality, causing offence, preventing people from feeling distressed, etc.
    So if there were reasoning for banning t-shirts it needs to be similar to that opposing nudity?

    EDIT: Technically, if your going down the philosophical route of 'good' and 'bad', without axioms, (arguably) you can never objectively say something is moral or immoral.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Well how about those three girls who were killed after joing isis. Anyway I never said they were suicide bombers.But all suicide bombers tend to have islam in common.I actually said they were more likely to be islamic extremists maybe the non violent kind but still extreme.Terrorists dont just suddenly decide to be a terrorist one day,they're raised in households where extreme islam is practiced and this includes women covering up.
    Anomalies. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Err... :ninja:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    They've decided that wetsuits are against their morals and social values? Nudism is sexualised, hence we have nudist beaches. Would you be OK with burkinis on their own beaches as we do have those for nudists?
    There's no rule against clothing on nudist beaches. If you wear a top nobody bats an eyelid.

    But if you had a burkini beach, it wouldn't be acceptable to wear a bikini, would it? There'd definitely be some tensions there... Also I gotta say, not sure if many men would attend that one o.O
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Are you serious? You can get away with saying that when one terrorist is islamic.When pretty much all terrorists say they're doing it in the name of one particular religion which also has a long history of violence.Not to mention brutal repression in any middle eastern state where it holds power.I think we can safetly say Islam is a major cause of terrorism in the world.Anyone who denys this now is just being willfuly blind.
    I don't think I understood what you said. I never said terrorists aren't related to Islam.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 18, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.