Muslims want the Sharia law and all the other Islamic stuffs including hijab, prayers and what not
No normal, rational human being would want to cover their face. If they do, then it means they’re raised that way and brainwashed. Or they’re straight up lying, for fear of prosecution.
Saudi Arabia has the climate that one could survive without clothes. In many other places you would be very cold.
In the coldest places it is even necessary for someone to cover their face to avoid frostbite.
Let's not pretend enforced face covering anything except the subjection of the female sex. "Enforced" includes the peer pressure to conform even if it's not breaking a law.
I'd love to see you to try and survive naked in the desert for an extended period of time. Temperature isn't everything. Also at night it might get pretty cold.
If you can't tell the differ between paying income tax and executing women who try to resist being raped (or imprisoning those who don't), there isn't much point in having a good faith discussion with you, is it?
Well a) lots of people do have a problem with income tax but at least b) it is spent on public goods, not just burned. What is the great public good of forcing women to cover their faces? This argument is so broad as to be meaningless. Oh I'm sorry, we have income tax so what's wrong with <travesty>?
> Why a religion that enforced its law to its follower become a problem?
Does Sharia law not apply to unbelievers? Do followers choose the faith only in adulthood? Or are people involuntarily indoctrinated from birth? Are apostates and unbelievers granted the same rights and privileges as everyone else?
Umm taxes are a by-product of laws which in most cases come about by representative democracy. Not some 1500 year old book written by some randos, which happens to be set in stone.
Probably because taking down hijab is symbol and first thing to do when there are protests against muslim religious dictatorships.
It is also a thing ex Muslim women complains about a lot. It is a thing that systematically and repeatedly ceases to be worn the moment you remove violence and threats from the equation.
Muslim states including Saudi Arabia exert considerable violence against women disagreeing with these laws. They would not needed the violence if it was all voluntary.
I felt the same about people wearing those non-N95 masks over the last couple of years, but a huge chunk of the population made it part of their personalities.
I'm agnostic so I don't really have a horse in the race, but it turns out a lot of people (maybe due to anxiety) actually loved an excuse to keep their faces covered in public.
Such an ethnocentric view. If you believe the one Creator commanded you to wear modest clothing, then indeed it is most rational to follow. And covering your face also gives a kind of privacy in society that many western women would not have the luxury of.
Anyways, many commenters here could benefit from a broader cultural perspective rather than a narrow minded, tunnel visioned view of the world.
I don't have an opinion, but I'll say that the argument form of "no normal person wants to do X; if you want to do X, there's something wrong with you" should be beneath us.
I hope we know better than casual No True Scotsman arguments.
I'd just like to thank you, as a (cannibal) resident of Nukuhiva, for respecting my culture. Everything is just a matter of perspective after all, it is good to keep an open mind.
Moral realism is not the way. There is absolutely no reason to believe in universal right and wrong. Might make you feel good but that doesn’t make it true
I try to stay epistemically humble. As far as meta-ethics go I tend to lean toward proving a positive as opposed to a negative which is why I am a relativist in the face of no proof.
No, both of you are strawmanning my argument. I said "No True Scotsman isn't a valid argument" and you got "moral relativism is OK" from that.
There's a vast difference between "saying 'no sane person wants to do X, therefore if you want to do X, you're insane' is wrong" and "everything is morally OK".
So, presumably there is a line after all. I'm not sure what we are disagreeing with other than palatable phrasing.
I submit that cannibalism is somewhere over the line and I also agree that 'no sane person would want to be eaten alive' could be considered unfortunate phrasing. But how would you phrase it better?
It's not about whether there's a line or not, it's about the phrasing setting the goalposts in such a way that it's a circular argument that can't be argued against. Nobody can say anything because your argument is "if you want to do this, you're bad, because you want to do this".
A better argument would be "this is bad because it doesn't respect the autonomy of women", instead of "this is bad because bad people do it, and the people who do it are bad because they do it".
> No normal, rational human being would want to cover their face.
You could say that some women do it willingly out of piety by buying into the cultural mores they grew up in. That from their perspective women who don't do so are crazy and debase themselves. Or throw the no true scotsman fallacy at them as you did. Technically, you've won the argument...
..unfortunately I can't be sure you're not accidentally straw-manning (why can't it be straw personing! As a scarecrow I am offended :P) the person you were replying to.
I say accidentally because I know you to always argue in good faith. And to be fair it is ambiguously and poorly phrased as you say. But lets extend this same good faith to the rest of their sentence:
> If they do, then it means they’re raised that way and brainwashed.
> Or they’re straight up lying, for fear of prosecution.
I think that is the very heart of the matter.
Can't speak for the op and whether they meant to make that point but my reading of their full argument is:
"this is not only bad because bad people do it, but mostly because the bad people gas-light everybody about their culture and piety and the majority of women have to pretend to go along with it willingly".
No true scotsman obviously doesn't apply to, say, a situation like North Korea.
Anyway, I don't like the woke-y phrasings either but lets not be so open minded as to have our brains fall out. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;)
But if you follow this reasoning farther, what about the women who, for whatever reason (brainwashing etc) do actually want their faces covered? Is it for us to say "no, you actually don't, you've been brainwashed and I know better than you what you want".
I'd rather say "forcing people to do things they want to do is bad", and let individuals decide whether they want to cover their face or not.
> let individuals decide whether they want to cover their face or not.
Sure. Of course, not possible in an absolutist monarchy such as SA and pretending otherwise in an effort to be none-judgmental is (unwittingly, accidentally, what have you) carrying water for them. Which, I don't think is your intention.
It is worth contemplating that playing on this very ambiguity and passive tendencies - in other circumstance perhaps to be commended as sage like reservation - is what keeps places like Russia, SA, NK, Iran coasting.
Why don’t you have an opinion? They’re treating women so bad, their policies are stuck in 1200s, and we are in 2022. Does that not bother you at least a bit?
Honest question about the argument - how would you phrase it (I wrote that comment)?
I wouldn't make that argument that way, I'd say I don't like what they're doing. It's not useful to say "no normal being would do that", given that millions of "normal" human beings do it.
It makes it sound like they're inhuman monsters and that we'd never do that. The truth is, if you and I were raised there, we probably would, just like we eat meat.
It's not so much about the wording, it's about this line of argumentation separating us from them. I especially dislike this line of thinking when thinking about Nazi Germany and the atrocities there, because people tend to think "no sane person would do that, and we're sane, so we won't do it".
Instead, a much better line of thinking is "normal people can do this, under specific circumstances, so we should be very careful not to fall into the same trap ourselves".
No normal, rational human being would want to cover their face. If they do, then it means they’re raised that way and brainwashed. Or they’re straight up lying, for fear of prosecution.