Difference between wearing a mask and a niqab?

Watch
Yazziii
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
Realised France doesn’t know the difference...
0
reply
zz2002
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
Same
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
(Original post by Yazziii)
Realised France doesn’t know the difference...
Nor do the UK. Unless you are wearing a surgical mask or one that proports to offer evidential protection all masks are pretty useless other than to limit the wearer exhaling virus.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
The purpose, plus a mask alone rather won't scare anyone, while those women in Niqabs look like demons. If I saw any of them as a five years old, I'd have probably started crying and running away out of fear.

(Original post by ByEeek)
all masks are pretty useless other than to limit the wearer exhaling virus.
No one ever claimed there is any point other than limiting the range of infected air when people are breathing.
Last edited by PTMalewski; 1 month ago
0
reply
Yazziii
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by ByEeek)
Nor do the UK. Unless you are wearing a surgical mask or one that proports to offer evidential protection all masks are pretty useless other than to limit the wearer exhaling virus.
But the uk won’t force one to remove their religious garments but then insist on one to wear a face covering

(Original post by PTMalewski)
The purpose, plus a mask alone rather won't scare anyone, while those women in Niqabs look like demons. If I saw any of them as a five years old, I'd have probably started crying and running away out of fear.

No one ever claimed there is any point other than limiting the range of infected air when people are breathing.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but when wearing a mask, you could only see ones eyes which is equally the same for the niqab (both face covering at the end of the day) but have different reasons behind wearing them. Demon? Rather disrespectful of you to say no?
1
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by PTMalewski)
The purpose, plus a mask alone rather won't scare anyone, while those women in Niqabs look like demons. If I saw any of them as a five years old, I'd have probably started crying and running away out of fear.
How do you know what "demons" look like?
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by Yazziii)
Realised France doesn’t know the difference...
Niqabs are associated with a religion; specifically a foreign seeming one. It constitutes overt non-conformism with Western culture, and gives off the vibe of "I don't care what you think of me". It's a bit like openly walking into a pub full of Manchester United football fans wearing a Manchester City shirt; it's bound to annoy some people. Our tribal instincts have given us some innate suspicion towards people who seem to belong to a rival gang. In this case, it comes from exactly the same part of the psyche as racism does.

Of course, people find this hard to admit because it is an irrational and evil way of thinking at the end of the day. So they'll try to come up with some lame excuse for it after the fact (e.g. "it poses a security risk!" or "we oppose all face coverings in public, not just the niqab!"). But these never really reflected their true motivations in the first place.
Last edited by tazarooni89; 1 month ago
4
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by Yazziii)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but when wearing a mask, you could only see ones eyes which is equally the same for the niqab (both face covering at the end of the day) but have different reasons behind wearing them.
This is exactly what I said.

(Original post by Yazziii)
Demon? Rather disrespectful of you to say no?
I've given you my honest impression. It's up to you how do you wish to interpret it.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
How do you know what "demons" look like?
A dark figure without a face is pretty close to many depictions of demons or phantoms that can be found in books and cartoons, not to mention an unknown being in black is not something anyone would be keen to meet in a forest at night.

Moreover, from what I've seen niqabs are typically black, and this color is a symbol of death in European culture. These niqabs have to make a gloomy impression on Europeans, and certainly scared some people in the evenings when they first started turning up in Europe.
Last edited by PTMalewski; 1 month ago
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by tazarooni89)
Of course, people find this hard to admit because it is an irrational and evil way of thinking at the end of the day.
It depends. Radical Muslims commiting acts of terrorism have given Muslims bad image. They probably also expect their women to wear face coverings.
Now imagine that since always, Europe demanded and enforced that everyone should be dressed according to local standards.

The radical Muslims probably wouldn't be keen on living in a country where their women are forced not to cover themselves with niqabs and this sort of thing. It would have eliminated a lot of the internal threat coming from Muslim terrorism for these countries.
0
reply
Yazziii
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by PTMalewski)
A dark figure without a face is pretty close to many depictions of demons or phantoms that can be found in books and cartoons, not to mention an unknown being in black is not something anyone would be keen to meet in a forest at night.

Moreover, from what I've seen niqabs are typically black, and this color is a symbol of death in European culture. These niqabs have to make a gloomy impression on Europeans, and certainly scared some people in the evenings when they first started turning up in Europe.
Your opinion is awfully nonsensical but each to their own. Just because they’re worn for different reasons doesn’t mean they can’t be worn as a face covering to protect oneself or for 2 different reasons. Being scared (which you seem to be) of what someone is wearing is weird, perhaps you should live on the edge and stop generalising people. Hope you know the reason to why they’re wearing...
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by Yazziii)
Your opinion is awfully nonsensical but each to their own. Just because they’re worn for different reasons doesn’t mean they can’t be worn as a face covering to protect oneself or for 2 different reasons.
1. Begin scared of demons is equally nonsensical as Islam is.
2. This has never been a subject of this thread.

(Original post by Yazziii)
Being scared (which you seem to be) of what someone is wearing is weird, perhaps you should live on the edge and stop generalising people. Hope you know the reason to why they’re wearing...
No, you just refuse to understand what was written in this thread and have no imagination.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
The difference is what they represent to the wearer and the viewer.

One is a safety personal protective equipment which says to both wearer and viewer, I'm taking on scientific advice looking after my local community health and mine. The other is a religious garment which says two different things

(The wearer) I and/or my family follow a religion and my culture/religion is more important to me and/or my family than western cultures/religions.

(The viewer) this person follows doctrine based on zero evidence, symbolic of oppression inequality to some in western more liberal cultures.

That's the difference as much as you wont like it, that's the truth. I'm not passing opinion on if the niqab should be banned or allowed but trying to claim there is no difference between a niqab and front line PPE on the fight against Covid-19 is nonsensical.
Last edited by Burton Bridge; 1 month ago
1
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
The difference is what they represent to the wearer and the viewer.

One is a safety personal protective equipment which says to both wearer and viewer, I'm taking on scientific advice looking after my local community health and mine. The other is a religious garment which says two different things

(The wearer) I and/or my family follow a religion and my culture/religion is more important to me and/or my family than western cultures/religions.

(The viewer) this person follows doctrine based on zero evidence, symbolic of oppression inequality to some in western more liberal cultures.


That's the difference as much as you wont like it, that's the truth. I'm not passing opinion on if the niqab should be banned or allowed but trying to claim there is no difference between a niqab and front line PPE on the fight against Covid-19 is nonsensical.
I think the point is that, for someone to argue that the niqab ought to be banned, there needs to be more of a reason than "I don't like what it represents", according to the principle of freedom of expression (and specifically religious expression). There needs to be some practical, real-life harm or inconvenience caused to other people before we consider banning it; but in this respect there is no difference between a niqab and a mask.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by tazarooni89)
I think the point is that, for someone to argue that the niqab ought to be banned, there needs to be more of a reason than "I don't like what it represents", according to the principle of freedom of expression (and specifically religious expression). There needs to be some practical, real-life harm or inconvenience caused to other people before we consider banning it; but in this respect there is no difference between a niqab and a mask.
I'm not arguing for them to be banned, I'm just pointing out comparing them to front line PPE is nonsense.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
I'm not arguing for them to be banned, I'm just pointing out comparing them to front line PPE is nonsense.
I don't think that anyone's comparing them to front-line PPE. They're comparing them to the ordinary cloth masks that you see people wearing in shops etc. The point is that if wearing a face mask doesn't inconvenience others then neither should wearing a niqab. Subjectively speaking, they may have different connotations associated with them, but as already mentioned, that's quite irrelevant when making it a punishable offence to wear something.

This point is particularly pertinent when considering that most people who argue in favour of banning niqabs try to come up with a practical reason for it (e.g. "it poses a security risk"), rather than just admit that xenophobia is the root of it. France has, in theory, banned all face coverings to appear consistent with this, however in practice the ban has only been enforced against niqabs - and now they're driven into further inconsistency during Covid times with the mandatory face masks.
Last edited by tazarooni89; 1 month ago
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by tazarooni89)
I don't think that anyone's comparing them to front-line PPE. They're comparing them to the ordinary cloth masks that you see people wearing in shops etc. The point is that if wearing a face mask doesn't inconvenience others then neither should wearing a niqab. Subjectively speaking, they may have different connotations associated with them, but as already mentioned, that's quite irrelevant when making it a punishable offence to wear something.

This point is particularly pertinent when considering that most people who argue in favour of banning niqabs try to come up with a practical reason for it (e.g. "it poses a security risk"), rather than just admit that xenophobia is the root of it. France has, in theory, banned all face coverings to appear consistent with this, however in practice the ban has only been enforced against niqabs - and now they're driven into further inconsistency during Covid times with the mandatory face masks.
I'm sorry that's not true the question is

Difference between wearing a mask and a niqab?

The OP thinks france does not know the difference, when they clearly are not the same things, so it's a nonsense argument, compares apples and pears.

Your second paragraph is got on my nerves also, you just dictate that any opposition to wearing a niqab is due to xenophobia, then tried to back this bigoted vote point up by effectively calling a ENTIRE country racist, quite a liberal left leaning country too boot. Bigotry at its core!

Im sorry but your opening line doesn't add up to me you are trying to make a difference between a cloth mask worn in a medical environment and a cloth mask worn in supermarkets.... sorry they are the same thing, both are considered front-line PPE reducing the risk of infection of Covid-19, IE providing front line protection. You are trying to make a racially charged arguement where one doesn't exist, not uncommon in the modern world as we become America's litte brother.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
I'm sorry that's not true the question is

Difference between wearing a mask and a niqab?

The OP thinks france does not know the difference, when they clearly are not the same things, so it's a nonsense argument, compares apples and pears.

Your second paragraph is got on my nerves also, you just dictate that any opposition to wearing a niqab is due to xenophobia, then tried to back this bigoted vote point up by effectively calling a ENTIRE country racist, quite a liberal left leaning country too boot. Bigotry at its core!

Im sorry but your opening line doesn't add up to me you are trying to make a difference between a cloth mask worn in a medical environment and a cloth mask worn in supermarkets.... sorry they are the same thing, both are considered front-line PPE reducing the risk of infection of Covid-19, IE providing front line protection. You are trying to make a racially charged arguement where one doesn't exist, not uncommon in the modern world as we become America's litte brother.
Of course they are different. But the only difference you have pointed is what they subjectively represent, and their purpose.

There’s no difference objectively speaking. It is not as if one is more of an inconvenience to others than the other. This means there is no reason to ban one but not the other. Objectively speaking, both are face coverings, with the same effect.

I don’t claim an entire country is xenophobic. The decision to ban the niqab in France was not made by the entire country. Perhaps it was made for some reason other than xenophobia; but it is rather doubtful given that they are unable to be consistent/honest with the reasoning behind it.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by tazarooni89)
Of course they are different.
Agreed different in every way, the ONLY similarity is they cover the wearers nose and mouth.


(Original post by tazarooni89)
But the only difference you have pointed is what they subjectively represent, and their purpose.
Mmm
And what they cover
and their colour
and their style
and the rational for using them

The list is almost endless.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
There’s no difference objectively speaking. It is not as if one is more of an inconvenience to others than the other.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here, if objectively speaking means you ignore all other differences then your right and what does inconvenience have to do with it? Thats the strangest strawman I've ever seen.


(Original post by tazarooni89)
Objectively speaking, both are face coverings, with the same effect.
No they are not, one is a head garment regulated by religion written by men centuries old to control women, covering the forehead, hair etc, to hide the males property from the world!

Vs

Front line PPE to aid the fight against a deadly disease

(Original post by tazarooni89)
This means there is no reason to ban one but not the other
Strawman and a poor one at that, Yes there is - one saves lives baked by science the other does literally nothing for health or science!

However again I'm not advocating banning the niqab nor is this conversation about why the niqab has been banned it's the differences between the two garments.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
I don’t claim an entire country is xenophobic. The decision to ban the niqab in France was not made by the entire country. Perhaps it was made for some reason other than xenophobia; but it is rather doubtful given that they are unable to be consistent/honest with the reasoning behind it.
You called an entire countries leadership xenophobes and indirectly the country because they voted and allowed it!

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Perhaps it was made for some reason other than xenophobia; but it is rather doubtful given that they are unable to be consistent/honest with the reasoning behind it.
Well when they give you reasons you seem to dismiss those reasons because you have reprogrammed "xenophobe" in your head
Last edited by Burton Bridge; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
x
“Objectively speaking” they are the same; they both cover the wearer’s nose and mouth. The physical effect is no different.

Obviously there are many differences, but these are all subjective (e.g. their meaning, symbolism, reason for wearing etc.) but none of these are a good reason to ban something. (I know you’re not advocating banning it, but the French government is). To ban something, it should be of detriment to other people, which a niqab has no more than a mask.

Yes, I dismiss the reasons given for banning the niqab (e.g. “security risk”) because they are not the real reasons. If they were, then the same could equally be said about a mask. If security is fine with an entire country wearing masks, it should also be fine with a few people wearing niqabs too.
1
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by tazarooni89)
“Objectively speaking” they are the same; they both cover the wearer’s nose and mouth. The physical effect is no different.

Obviously there are many differences, but these are all subjective (e.g. their meaning, symbolism, reason for wearing etc.) but none of these are a good reason to ban something. (I know you’re not advocating banning it, but the French government is). To ban something, it should be of detriment to other people, which a niqab has no more than a mask.

Yes, I dismiss the reasons given for banning the niqab (e.g. “security risk”) because they are not the real reasons. If they were, then the same could equally be said about a mask. If security is fine with an entire country wearing masks, it should also be fine with a few people wearing niqabs too.
I stopped reading at the second paragraph, you are sounding like broken record.

You - “Objectively speaking” they are the same"

Me -they are different because of A B CDEF.....

You - but “Objectively speaking” they are the same

You - none of these are a good reason to ban something.

Me - the discussion is about the differences, nobody arguing banning it

You- none of these are a good reason to ban something

I'm sorry this has ran it course
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Are you travelling in the Uni student travel window (3-9 Dec) to go home for Christmas?

Yes (91)
27.91%
No - I have already returned home (43)
13.19%
No - I plan on travelling outside these dates (62)
19.02%
No - I'm staying at my term time address over Christmas (32)
9.82%
No - I live at home during term anyway (98)
30.06%

Watched Threads

View All