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

Swiss win EU case - Muslim girls must swim with boys Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Keep ranting it's not gonna make you right. Nor is me not accepting your "arguments" making me wrong. If all you can do is resort to moron then maybe you should stop debating.
    Pfff mate you called me embarrassing before I called you anything. Don't get all butthurt when people strike back.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    Yes that would be a problem because this means that they couldn't co-exist in society.

    Why's that relevant here?
    So there is a limit to accommodating parents' ideological beliefs? You are fine if co-existance is eradicated in specific situations (such as contact in the swimming pool) but it is not OK if co-existance is eradicated altogether?

    What about if the white parents in my hypothetical situation said that, based on their religious beliefs, they are fine for their children to be around black people but object to any physical contact, so would not agree to their children having P.E. lessons, etc. with black children. Would that be OK?

    It's relevant because I am testing how far you are willing to subscribe to your position/logic about it being unjust to limit parents' wishes based on ideology when it comes to how their children are brought up.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    Pfff mate you called me embarrassing before I called you anything. Don't get all butthurt when people strike back.
    Yes I called your reasoning embarrassing. As I said you made no argument and no reference to my argument and just called me a moron.

    You still are unable to see it, that is quite embarrassing. Then again, the ability to admit an error is almost non existent on the Internet, so you are just another drone.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    So there is a limit to accommodating parents' ideological beliefs? You are fine if co-existance is eradicated in specific situations (such as contact in the swimming pool) but it is not OK if co-existance is eradicated altogether?

    What about if the white parents in my hypothetical situation said that, based on their religious beliefs, they are fine for their children to be around black people but object to any physical contact, so would not agree to their children having P.E. lessons with black children. Would that be OK?

    It's relevant because I am testing how far you are willing to subscribe to your position/logic about it being unjust to limit parents' wishes based on ideology when it comes to how their children are brought up.
    Well in your case, it's clear as day that people just can't co-exist with that kind of mentality.

    My limit is set by the liberty principle. So long as these kids do not limit the rest of the kids to practice their religion, they should be provided reasonable accommodations. What is reasonable or not is difficult to determine a-priori but in this case, I think it's reasonable to have this demand catered for (how, it depends on individual circumstances - whether by providing alternative exercise or other extra classes for those kids at the end of the day is up to the shool and the parents to decide based on their resources and preferences).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Yes I called your reasoning embarrassing. As I said you made no argument and no reference to my argument and just called me a moron.

    You still are unable to see it, that is quite embarrassing. Then again, the ability to admit an error is almost non existent on the Internet, so you are just another drone.
    No you called me embarrassing and then you get your panties in a knot because I bite back. Yes I won't have abuse from a dude who thinks it's unreasonable to demand one extra class at the end of the day for a group of one's co-citizens. Yeah I do find it hilarious that you think you've made some grand point here and I was so grossly in error that I should be embarrassed to admit it.

    Enough.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The thing I don't understand is:
    Gender segregated swimming is not going to harm anyone
    Mixed swimming is going to hurt Muslims and some other religious groups

    So why not choose the option that satisfies everyone??
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    No you called me embarrassing and then you get your panties in a knot because I bite back. Yes I won't have abuse from a dude who thinks it's unreasonable to demand one extra class at the end of the day for a group of one's co-citizens. Yeah I do find it hilarious that you think you've made some grand point here and I was so grossly in error that I should be embarrassed to admit it.

    Enough.
    Still don't get it. You're point is not embarrassing, you're use of logic and reason is.

    Still don't get it, loooool.

    You would really do well in taking some time to think about things before you type.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    Well in your case, it's clear as day that people just can't co-exist with that kind of mentality.

    My limit is set by the liberty principle. So long as these kids do not limit the rest of the kids to practice their religion, they should be provided reasonable accommodations. What is reasonable or not is difficult to determine a-priori but in this case, I think it's reasonable to have this demand catered for (how, it depends on individual circumstances - whether by providing alternative exercise or other extra classes for those kids at the end of the day is up to the shool and the parents to decide based on their resources and preferences).
    Funny that you should think it is part of liberty to allow Liberty oppressing ideologies to be catered for. Then again, your logic has already been shown to be sloppy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    So why not choose the option that satisfies everyone??
    Several probable reasons, a few of which are:

    The availability of the pool, and/or the cost of its hire.

    The school timetable.

    The availability of teachers.

    The need for the children to learn to get on together in a mixed activity (unsegregated swimming is a better preparation, when available, for life in the west than segregated swimming).

    The general lesson that integration means fitting in with society as a whole, rather than society bending to meet the needs of the few.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    The thing I don't understand is:
    Gender segregated swimming is not going to harm anyone
    Mixed swimming is going to hurt Muslims and some other religious groups

    So why not choose the option that satisfies everyone??

    Because gender segregated swimming harm's Muslims.It deprives Muslim children of the opportunity to interact with the opposite sex.Just because their parents believe something backwards does not mean they should have the right to inflict it upon their children.Especially when said beliefs are based upon imaginary concepts.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    My limit is set by the liberty principle.
    But, with all your love of religious liberty, you totally ignore the fact that Islam itself doesn't accord free observance to other faiths under Sharia, do you not?

    As I am sure you are aware, followers of those faiths which are tolerated at all (Christianity and Judaism) have to succumb to dhimmitude and a protection racket called the Jizya.

    And their legal entitlements are inferior to Muslims. They are second class citizens under the law.

    And you are worried about mixed swimming classes. :rolleyes:

    You would make a good dhimmi yourself.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Several probable reasons, a few of which are:

    The availability of the pool, and/or the cost of its hire.

    The school timetable.

    The availability of teachers.

    The need for the children to learn to get on together in a mixed activity (unsegregated swimming is a better preparation, when available, for life in the west than segregated swimming).

    The general lesson that integration means fitting in with society as a whole, rather than society bending to meet the needs of the few.
    And these reasons are more important than people actually having to disobey the rules of their religion and being forced to swim with people of the opposite gender when they do not ageee with it?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    And these reasons are more important than people actually having to disobey the rules of their religion and being forced to swim with people of the opposite gender when they do not ageee with it?
    Of course! They are connected with real problems, as opposed to superstitious beliefs.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Great. Why would this segregation be necessary anyway, its not the changing rooms or toilets?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by parrot16)
    Great. Why would this segregation be necessary anyway, its not the changing rooms or toilets?
    Res[onding to your point about segregation is classrooms, do you mean like this?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...t-faith-schoo/

    or

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...itish-campuses
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    good. if mixed swimming is a fact of policy for children, then at least apply equality of the law to all. religious people shouldn't have privilege over that system of equality. if they don't like a culture, why on earth would they immigrate to it? the culture shouln't adapt to them, THEY should adapt to that culture. especially when that culture is nestled within a liberal democracy where people are largely free to do as they want. moving to a country where they will be essentially a perpetual electoral minority really shouldn't give them any kind of prestige. if anything, it should grant them the opposite.

    (Original post by cbreef)
    Really not sure how I feel about this as it is probably an infringement on religious freedom. They shouldn't be forced to swim with boys, but they certainly shouldn't be allocated their own separate pool either.
    I think the problem of your interpretation of "religious freedom" is that you're placing it higher than "freedom" without a religious context. don't the kids have the freedom to not swim? why does "religion" make a difference to that freedom? if somebody doesn't want to swim, why is it that only religion can give a person sufficient privilege to get themselves off the hook? I don't get that.

    religion isn't "special" as far as the practice of liberty in concerned. religion is just a person's beliefs. well what if the kids have non-religious "beliefs" about swimming? what if they don't desire to swim? giving religious people more freedom is against secularism, isn't it? it would mean that religious people have more rights than non-religious people. if the point of religious liberty is to allow people to live their lives how they want, then why is that any different to simply "freedom in general"?

    so really if we allow religious people to be free to not swim with certain people, surely we must allow *all* people to have the right to not swim with certain people if we are to give people of both religious and non-religious beliefs equal rights?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    But, with all your love of religious liberty, you totally ignore the fact that Islam itself doesn't accord free observance to other faiths under Sharia, do you not?

    As I am sure you are aware, followers of those faiths which are tolerated at all (Christianity and Judaism) have to succumb to dhimmitude and a protection racket called the Jizya.

    And their legal entitlements are inferior to Muslims. They are second class citizens under the law.

    And you are worried about mixed swimming classes. :rolleyes:

    You would make a good dhimmi yourself.
    I fail to see what this has to do with anything? Yes, Sharia doesn't allow for religious liberty. Is that an argument for us becoming more like them?

    And no, I'm not familiar with the jizya, I don't know much about Islam nor do I care about it at all (and my experience with Muslims has been mostly negative). But my personal experiences have nothing to do with this. We're talking about politics and how the issue of freedom of conscience should be approached. I don't want us to become like them, I'm concerned with maintaining a liberal order.

    Don't start with personal attacks too. I don't want to argue at that level again (it was a mistake for me to even respond to a kid in the first place - the yudo kid, not u).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Res[onding to your point about segregation is classrooms, do you mean like this?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...t-faith-schoo/

    or

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...itish-campuses
    [QUOTE=Good bloke;69486060]Res[onding to your point about segregation is classrooms, do you mean like this?

    Yes.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    I don't want us to become like them, I'm concerned with maintaining a liberal order.
    The problem is that the attitude of naive people like you will allow this intolerant, backward and politically aggressive superstition to gain a stronger foothold in Europe. You are inviting in a political ideology that seeks to defeat the one you yourself espouse. There is only one logical end to the process of liberality to Islamic migration.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nutz99)
    I think you will find that in most schools there are kids who will not be able to go swimming either through disability, illness or allergies. They are excused and have to be supervised elsewhere.
    Again, someone comparing religious privilege to disability!
    They are not the same thing. It is ridiculous to say "Well, he isn't swimming because he has cerebral palsy, so my children shouldn't have to because if they swim with boys, they will have sex".
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.