Basketball rules changed to allow players to wear hijabs

You're missing the point, muslim women in most parts of the middle east don't chose to wear the hijab, they are forced, and are beaten up if they don't comply.

You're missing the point, muslim women in most parts of the middle east don't chose to wear the hijab, they are forced, and are beaten up if they don't comply.

Im sure most women do want to wear it , in all honesty how do you know they dont want to wear it?

Erm, because they decided not to wear it?

LOL, what kind of a question is that

Although this is true, I still don't see the problem with a woman willingly wearing a hijab in the west.

But you said they are forced to wear it? How do you know they are forced??

Because its written into the theocratic constitutions in countries like Sudan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

They didn't even need to wear the hijab, it's women's basketball, so men aren't watching them anyway

And how many women are forced?

Like how old are you?

I feel like i am arguing with a little 14 year old kid.

What does the amount have to do with anything?


The fact that there are rules in place forcing women to wear pieces of clothing is bad enough, the amount of women it affects is completely irrelevant

Don't be ignorant, Islam is the most feminist religion. Did Islam burn witches?

Women should be free to do and wear whatever they see please.

This is relative. In Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries no women should not be free to do and wear whatever they please.

In the west they should be because that is the system of law you've chosen. The Muslims in those countries have chosen Islamic law.

It's like China saying "British citizens should be free to eat whatever animals they want, like cats and dogs" when this clearly is a relative statement.

Are you really comparing theocratic gender subjugation with preference of what to eat? that is the largest false equivalence I have ever seen.

What other moral relativisms are you fine with? This sets a risky precedent.

Are you really comparing theocratic gender subjugation with preference of what to eat? that is the largest false equivalence I have ever seen.

Are you not a moral relativist?

Assume there are people in the UK that would like to eat cats and dogs but they are not allowed to because the UK law says they can't. China hear this and they are outraged and say "those citizens are being discriminated against, they should be allowed to eat whatever animals they want.

No they shouldn't... because the UK law prohibits eating cats and dogs. Just as Saudi Arabia prevents women dressing like skanks and not observing the hijab.

It's really very simple when you snap out of your own biased viewpoint.

Only when it suits me to excuse my own bad behaviour! But otherwise I tend to agree with Blackburn's stance that since it cannot arbitrate disagreements, it fails as a coherent system. I also tend on the side that you needn't be a moral realist to confine moral 'laws' to a coherent logic.

No, that is a lazy cop-out that allows for all sorts of monstrous actions provided that they are in some place legislated in law. The question is not 'is it legal', but 'is it right'.

The question is not 'is it legal', but 'is it right'.