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

Cameron to say face veils need to be removed for officials Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    My question is if it is a 'choice', then there shouldn't be a problem removing it should there?
    It is a choice. Nobody has to wear a burqah. Muslim women only need to cover their heads, chin to ankles and up-to their wrists. Face doesn't need to be covered and hands don't and feet don't. It's a cultural insecurity imposed by middle eastern society.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    but listen yeah
    not tryna sound rude or anything because I'm Muslim myself
    but it's a safety issue man!
    i've seen it myself teachers handing children out to any old lady (or could even be a man!!) in a burka because they don't know who the child's parents are
    if i was them I'd be like "show me your face before i give you the child"
    it's dangerous.... i'm all for freedom of expression of religion but when there's safety issues they take priority
    I'm muslim, and i think it looks ridiculous in general. There should be no need for it in society.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    Imo religion should be kept out of schools (except obviously RS)

    There are many schools around the country, Muslim and Jewish in particular, that are doing things like denying evolution and saying that creationism is the truth. I'm all for having your own beliefs but denying scientific proof when teaching and treating your religious story as fact..?
    Even in state schools where their catchment area is monopolized by people if the same faith, you have ideals pushed on you, creationist claims, teachers denied teaching a certain part of the syllabus because it contradicts their views. Sometimes I'd have to pretend to agree with something because I really didn't want to get rushed after school by these die hard religious kids which again was every single pupil in the school. Even in RS it was basically only one religion being taught all the way to A2 and surprise surprise it's the same religion most of the school believes in. It was mental.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mercuryman)
    I'm muslim, and i think it looks ridiculous in general. There should be no need for it in society.
    yeah ... i mean there's no need for it so what's the point :/ ?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    If you attended a Christian school that taught religion as fact from the time you were 4 or 5 years old, or have parents that are religious, then I find it extremely difficult to believe you came to that conclusion autonomously and uninfluenced. The only reason I thought for myself was because half of my family are Atheist. Had all of my family been religious, I likely would be convicted in my religious beliefs too.
    My parents belong to different religions. My brother is agnostic. I was allowed to make up my own mind. I did think for myself.

    The process of confirmation takes months. It requires a significant amount of reflection and study. I came to the conclusion that I believed in Christianity after this process.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    Thank you for sharing what you inferred of my tone from raw text. Though, your opinion adds nil to the discussion.
    Of course, if you wish to get rid of your rather prickly demeanor and instantly defensive attitudes, I'd be more than willing to help.

    Is it honestly that difficult to understand how if someone was surrounded by people preaching their faith from an early age, then it is likely that person believes those teachings to be truths? Sorry that I find it difficult to believe that their decision to follow their faith was purely autonomous and unswayed by their peers.
    Understand? Not so difficult.

    Use it as a case in point? No.

    What proof do you have that this individual has evaluated and engaged in rational thought? Rational thought would result in nihilism or the like. Adopting a religious view is quite literally the trade-off of logic for existential comfort.
    I'm not saying she has or has not. What I am saying is that the idea that someone has seems unfathomable to you because your mind is engineered, perhaps through experience, to think like that.

    Your thought process is resisting any and all attempts for people to tell you differently. You should most definitely keep an open mind and broaden your horizons before making such conclusive remarks.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    My parents belong to different religions. My brother is agnostic. I was allowed to make up my own mind. I did think for myself.

    The process of confirmation takes months. It requires a significant amount of reflection and study. I came to the conclusion that I believed in Christianity after this process.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    After months of study? Do you even understand basic human psychology?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Of course, if you wish to get rid of your rather prickly demeanor and instantly defensive attitudes, I'd be more than willing to help.
    I think I'll keep my attitude, just as others can keep their beliefs. Instead of making my apparent demeanour the subject of discussion, why not refute my arguments with logic?

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Understand? Not so difficult.

    Use it as a case in point? No.
    Can you justify why that isn't sufficient enough for you?

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I'm not saying she has or has not. What I am saying is that the idea that someone has seems unfathomable to you because your mind is engineered, perhaps through experience, to think like that.
    Engineered by logic, then? If you were to devise a calculation for the probability of the case being anything other than indoctrination, then you would see that the likelihood against that being the case is far greater. No, it's not unfathomable, but it's extremely improbable to be true and therefore deserving of scepticism. Unfortunately, blindly believing what I'm told is not something that I partake in.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Your thought process is resisting any and all attempts for people to tell you differently. You should most definitely keep an open mind and broaden your horizons before making such conclusive remarks.
    Perhaps you ought to learn how to distinguish unconvincedness and outright disbelief. I study philosophy, so I don't think having an open mind is something I lack, but thank you again for your insightful feedback.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    I think I'll keep my attitude, just as others can keep their beliefs. Instead of making my apparent demeanour the subject of discussion, why not refute my arguments with logic?
    As you wish.

    Can you justify why that isn't sufficient enough for you?
    I understand your position and I most likely agree with your understanding but to take that, and impose it upon a person who has clearly said to the contrary, is nothing short of deluding yourself.

    Engineered by logic, then? If you were to devise a calculation for the probability of the case being anything other than indoctrination, then you would see that the likelihood against that being the case is far greater. No, it's not unfathomable, but it's extremely improbable to be true and therefore deserving of scepticism. Unfortunately, blindly believing what I'm told is not something that I partake in.
    But doggedly believing in something, despite being told to the contrary, is something that you seem to partake in.

    That, is not logical and therefore I severely doubt that your thought process is engineered by anything less than denial and a stubbornness, if not a spice of superiority complex. Traits which probably make you susceptible to an extreme case of paranoia.

    Perhaps you ought to learn how to distinguish unconvincedness and outright disbelief. I study philosophy, so I don't think having an open mind is something I lack, but thank you again for your insightful feedback.
    The study of philosophy and being philosophical are two radically different concepts, You can attain the former without necessarily being aware of the latter.

    Frankly, I couldn't care less about what you study, for it certainly hasn't helped you keep an open mind. Instead, it seems to have sheltered you in a cocoon of self-righteousness.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    After months of study? Do you even understand basic human psychology?
    Yes. I have formally studied psychology for over three years.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    Yes. I have formally studied psychology for over three years.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    GCSEand A level I assume. If an idea is reinforced in a persons mind then they are more likely to believe it. And if you are religious why would you study psychology which debunks many christian theories?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    GCSEand A level I assume. If an idea is reinforced in a persons mind then they are more likely to believe it. And if you are religious why would you study psychology which debunks many christian theories?
    Psychology does not debunk religion. I understand my faith. I know what I believe. I studied psychology because I find it interesting.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    GCSEand A level I assume. If an idea is reinforced in a persons mind then they are more likely to believe it. And if you are religious why would you study psychology which debunks many christian theories?
    Which Christian theories does psychology debunk?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I understand your position and I most likely agree with your understanding but to take that, and impose it upon a person who has clearly said to the contrary, is nothing short of deluding yourself.
    So you understand my logic, yet you feel I should not apply it simply because I have been told otherwise? Since when did word-of-mouth become an irrefutable source? Since when did approaching a claim with scepticism become synonymous with delusion? Making that comparison is nothing short of bending the rules to make exceptions for an individual, simply because they claim to be rationally-minded. Do you believe what everyone says that easily? If you're religious yourself, that might be why you are.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    But doggedly believing in something, despite being told to the contrary, is something that you seem to partake in.
    I don't "believe" anything. I "disbelieve" their claim. It makes little sense to believe someone's claim when all signs point in the other direction.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    That, is not logical and therefore I severely doubt that your thought process is engineered by anything less than denial and a stubbornness, if not a spice of superiority complex. Traits which probably make you susceptible to an extreme case of paranoia.
    It's not logical to approach a claim on the basis of the likelihood of it being true versus the likelihood of it being false? Shall we blindly assume the truth, thou bastion of wisdom? I think I'll go for the former, thank you.

    Once again, you ignored my advice to learn to distinguish between outright denial and unconvincedness. It's okay, try again.

    I suppose paranoia is a probable result of an absence of the comfort that promises of an existential purpose and afterlife provide. Nonetheless, you really needn't to waver your p.h.D in psychology and attempt to diagnose me, as if it were a contribution of any worth. You do have a habit of digressing, don't you?

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The study of philosophy and being philosophical are two radically different concepts, You can attain the former without necessarily being aware of the latter.
    Nor are they mutually exclusive, and often the former is demanding of the latter. I'm willing to challenge adventurous ideas, but when your ideas are (in most cases) almost entirely influenced by false truths that were spoonfed to you as a child, I am less keen on taking the time to make a set of beliefs sound reasonable, despite their numerous contradictions (as religion has).

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Frankly, I couldn't care less about what you study, for it certainly hasn't helped you keep an open mind. Instead, it seems to have sheltered you in a cocoon of self-righteousness.
    And for you, I'm afraid, it has sheltered you in a bubble of belief in that an open-minded, irrational approach is favourable over a logical approach. For someone who claims to possess an open mind, you seem to suffer a severe deficiency of your own. I've considered religion, and I've chosen to reject it. Don't like it? Well, that's too bad.

    It's a sorry state of affairs when reasoning based upon logic is dismissed as self-righteousness, while we place irrational beliefs on a pedestal upon the basis of their "open-mindedness".

    In-fact, so far you've done nothing but insist that I broaden my horizons; you've yet to offer any argument for assuming a religious stance. I'm pretty certain you couldn't convince me, anyway, but given your determination in having me be open-minded, I'll be surprised if you have nothing to offer to me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    When I passed my IELTS, I was told to remove my coat, cell phone, jacket - even keys.

    I was disgusted to see that some girls kept their burqa.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    When I passed my IELTS, I was told to remove my coat, cell phone, jacket - even keys.

    I was disgusted to see that some girls kept their burqa.
    Disgusted to hear it too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    So you understand my logic, yet you feel I should not apply it simply because I have been told otherwise? Since when did word-of-mouth become an irrefutable source? Since when did approaching a claim with scepticism become synonymous with delusion? Making that comparison is nothing short of bending the rules to make exceptions for an individual, simply because they claim to be rationally-minded. Do you believe what everyone says that easily? If you're religious yourself, that might be why you are.
    As I have said, there is no faulting your logic but the application of your logic is irrational given the fact that it has clearly been contradicted by the person in question.

    Now, you may continue to exercise caution and skepticism but unless you can develop your case further (resorting to contrary proof if necessary), instead of your preferred choice of simply asserting whether someone is indoctrinated or not, then the discussion can progress.

    I don't "believe" anything. I "disbelieve" their claim. It makes little sense to believe someone's claim when all signs point in the other direction.
    With all due respect, it was you who has suggested that she is indoctrinated and continue to assert it so, without ever having proven anything of the like.

    It's not logical to approach a claim on the basis of the likelihood of it being true versus the likelihood of it being false? Shall we blindly assume the truth, thou bastion of wisdom? I think I'll go for the former, thank you.

    Once again, you ignored my advice to learn to distinguish between outright denial and unconvincedness. It's okay, try again.
    In your case, there is no distinction to be made, given the position that you have taken.

    Had the person in question simply stated "This is from my own reasoning" or something similar, then one can remain skeptical and indeed, unconvinced to the notion.

    However, where you have claimed that the person is indoctrinated and subsequently refused to accept their experience/s as proof to the contrary (not that they were obliged to present it in any case), one cannot help but assert that you are in denial.

    I suppose paranoia is a probable result of an absence of the comfort that promises of an existential purpose and afterlife provide. Nonetheless, you really needn't to waver your p.h.D in psychology and attempt to diagnose me, as if it were a contribution of any worth. You do have a habit of digressing, don't you?
    Unlikely for paranoia is rooted deeply in tangible concepts with irrational reasoning, and one might not be too far off the mark to say that it (paranoia) is quite the opposite of faith.

    As for the sarcasm and deflection, it is quite conceivable that you wish to draw attention away from the terrible arguments that you have made and instead, try to find some kind of flaw in my character to justify your own continued belief in what you espouse.

    Nor are they mutually exclusive, and often the former is demanding of the latter. I'm willing to challenge adventurous ideas, but when your ideas are (in most cases) almost entirely influenced by false truths that were spoonfed to you as a child, I am less keen on taking the time to make a set of beliefs sound reasonable, despite their numerous contradictions (as religion has).
    You are quite incorrect. It is not incumbent upon a philosopher to study the ways and manners of philosophy for it has no structure, no framework and is entirely dependent on the thoughts and observations of the philosopher. On the other hand, a student of philosophy is simply required to regurgitate fixed and historical notions which may or may not necessarily represent the context of which he or she is studying. Of course, the student is at liberty to pursue his own thoughts but this will be made within the context of what he or she has been taught. In very rare cases, does the student disagree with traditional thought.

    Generally speaking, it is incumbent upon the student of philosophy to peruse traditional thought but the philosopher is unencumbered to pursue his thoughts.

    And for you, I'm afraid, it has sheltered you in a bubble of belief in that an open-minded, irrational approach is favourable over a logical approach. For someone who claims to possess an open mind, you seem to suffer a severe deficiency of your own. I've considered religion, and I've chosen to reject it. Don't like it? Well, that's too bad.
    Whilst I try my best to be as understanding of different positions, I have not, as an absolute, ever claimed to possess an open mind.

    It's a sorry state of affairs when reasoning based upon logic is dismissed as self-righteousness, while we place irrational beliefs on a pedestal upon the basis of their "open-mindedness".
    You seem to be intent on arguing against an argument that was never made.

    In-fact, so far you've done nothing but insist that I broaden my horizons; you've yet to offer any argument for assuming a religious stance. I'm pretty certain you couldn't convince me, anyway, but given your determination in having me be open-minded, I'll be surprised if you have nothing to offer to me.
    Your incessant need to "be saved" or assumption that "I have come to save you" is simply a fantasy, a delusion that betrays the negativism of your thoughts.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Which Christian theories does psychology debunk?
    This argument is above you. Stick to your social justice theory.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    Psychology does not debunk religion. I understand my faith. I know what I believe. I studied psychology because I find it interesting.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Quite the contrary, it shows how being gay is natural as is transgenderism. It shows how the human mind has evolved over many centuries. It explains why humans act certain ways. No, you think you know what you believe, you are breaking two basic assumptions that humans make. 1. That the world is real 2. That we can learn something about it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    Quite the contrary, it shows how being gay is natural as is transgenderism. It shows how the human mind has evolved over many centuries. It explains why humans act certain ways. No, you think you know what you believe, you are breaking two basic assumptions that humans make. 1. That the world is real 2. That we can learn something about it.
    I'm not and nor have I ever been homophobic. I do not deny evolution. I have no idea what point your making with that one.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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
    Break up or unrequited love?
    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

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