logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2023-03-27 21:33:13 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Donations now taken through PayPal

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Society & Culture

  Death to the burqa
previous next
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: Death to the burqa  (Read 8461 times)
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4274
Reputation: 8.96
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Ban the burqa
« Reply #15 on: 2009-07-04 08:22:52 »
Reply with quote

[MoEnzyme] Obviously you are only responding to Hermit now, because I have only made one argument although I have restated it in several different ways now . . . your right to wear a burqa is reasonably no greater than your right to wear any other kind of mask. That's the clearest I think I can make it. Perhaps you and Hermit might start a new thread for your de-facto private conversation.

[Hermit] What "arguments" do you imagine Mermaid considers invalid? I couldn't figure it out myself.

[Hermit] What do you think the "private conversation" you claim to have noticed is about, and why do you imagine, if you do, that others don't know how to use the BBS' IM facility and wouldn't use it if they wanted to have a private conversation?

[Hermit] What, if other than baggy clothing, do you imagine the topic to encompass? Would it be on topic for me to ask you if it is acceptable for people to wear armour? After all, the practice of heraldry, which was developed to identify people and their followers when their faces were obscured by armour and masks, is recognized by many societies in the form of both custom and law (including in the English system and thus arguably in the US), and given this legal recognition of heraldry, is the right to bear armour as well as heraldic arms not also legally recognized? If it has ceased to be recognised, can you identify the mechanism whereby this right was rescinded? How about people who wear HEPA particulate filters to reduce risk of becoming infected or of passing on an infection? For example XDR TB? If not, do you think that is sensible that health authorities (including those in the US) have mandated the wearing of such masks as a condition of release from legal isolation to people suffering from the mentioned disease (and others)? Given that doctors strongly recommend people with suppressed immune systems wear full skin coverage including masks and gloves to  protect them from potentially fatal diseases, do you think such people should be confined to home or have to risk death to satisfy the "public interest in identification" you have purported to have discovered? Did you know that medical and health authorities often recommend particulate masks to people as a general practice at times when they are ill, as well as when airborne pathogens or particulate pollutants are prevalent? If these uses of armour and masks - which indubitably do hide the identity of male and female bearers - are acceptable is not the "right to wear other masks" not a strong right indeed? If so, what does this do to the validity of your "argument to a public interest in identification" when deployed against the burqu'?

[Hermit] A further approach suggested by Blunderov's musings to the effect that the burqu' exists to transport a person from point A to point B without exposing them to the gaze of Mermaid's "lechers and losers. and bigots" is that a burqu' is a vehicle rather than an item of clothing, and societies have long reserved the right to regulate the use of vehicles and the locations where they may be used, including whether they may be used on public roads, sidewalks or only off road and in private. As such, regulating burqu' as a vehicle which may only be used on private property (with the permission of the owner) might be completely unexceptional. Particularly if a strobe hazard warning light were mandated for the head, and reflectors on the periphery.

[Hermit] Given the above, do you think that the "argument to a public interest in identification" is stronger or weaker in relation to the burqu' than the "argument to fashion" or "argument to regulation"? Do you think that any of these thoughts belong on this thread? If not, which ones do and how do you tell the difference?

[Hermit] Speaking of telling the difference, had you ever thought that "obviously" is a flag often if not invariably signalling the arrival of a weak or even invalid proposition, premise, assertion, inference, argument and, or conclusion? It isn't just me that thinks so. Refer e.g. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html where it is said
Quote:
The word "obviously" is also often viewed with suspicion. It occasionally gets used to persuade people to accept false statements, rather than admit that they don't understand why something is "obvious." So don't be afraid to question statements which people tell you are "obvious"--when you've heard the explanation you can always say something like "You're right, now that I think about it that way, it is obvious."

[Hermit] Of course, the above could perhaps be said to be a "private conversation" about semantics in discussion, unrelated to the topic except for your use of "obviously" in what also might be said to have been a "private conversation" perhaps unrelated to the topic and actually introduced by yourself. If that is indeed the case, how do you determine which "private conversations" are acceptable and which are not?

[Hermit] And even if, for the sake of the discussion, there is a "private conversation" occurring, why do you think it cannot occur in a thread so long as it eventually returns to the topic at hand?  How do you decide which topics fit and which do not? Who appointed you as arbitrator? And why, if it is a sin, new or not, are you arguably "topic spamming" this thread in order to introduce this idea rather than introducing your own thread or beginning a "private conversation" which is, after all, supported by the BBS?

[Hermit] In any case, "obvious" might have been a reach this time, as I didn't think it at all "obvious" that the Mermaid was attempting to respond only to me, even if I had, in some as yet unexplained fashion, apparently injected an irritant under her scales. Should I bother to add, "as usual"? The course of true love ran never smooth. Would you like to explain why this appeared "obvious to you"?

[MoEnzyme] Stick a fork in me, 'cause I'm obviously done.

[Hermit] I don't know about you, although it seems to me that your argument might be, but even so, some answers to the questions you inspired might be appropriate.

Regards
Hermit
 japan-face-masks.jpg
« Last Edit: 2009-07-04 13:23:31 by Hermit »
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
MoEnzyme
Anarch
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.25
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Ban the burqa
« Reply #16 on: 2009-07-04 14:40:57 »
Reply with quote

Don't take my "private conversation" suggestion seriously. I was just feeling neglected. 

Carry on.
Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.65
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:Ban the burqa
« Reply #17 on: 2009-07-04 19:08:39 »
Reply with quote

clearly, you didnt read the whole thing. (as i mentioned)earlier in 2004, france tried to ban headscarves. which isnt a 'disguise' or a 'mask'. this burqa ban is another poke at france's muslims because sarkozy is catering to racist scum to garner their votes.

you can spin anything you want...but you are not french. you are not muslim. you are not a woman. i suppose freedom of french muslim women is not the foremost concern in your logic and argument.

eta: every kind of 'logic' has been applied to poke and prod islamic religious beliefs and the actions of islam's faithful(of course, xianity and judaism has been spared..oh gee..). terrorism, women's liberation and now 'fashion'. whatever.

it is not worth continuing this discussion for me. you can wake a man who is sleeping. you cant wake someone who is pretending to be asleep. you want to call it a terrorism concern? go for it. it speaks more about you(and your logic/knowledge of french current affairs) than about the issue at hand.

yes..you are done. clearly.

Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2009-07-04 03:06:44   

Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-07-03 20:44:44   
none of your arguments holds water.


Obviously you are only responding to Hermit now, because I have only made one argument although I have restated it in several different ways now . . . your right to wear a burqa is reasonably no greater than your right to wear any other kind of mask. That's the clearest I think I can make it. Perhaps you and Hermit might start a new thread for your de-facto private conversation.

Stick a fork in me, 'cause I'm obviously done.
« Last Edit: 2009-07-04 19:16:59 by Mermaid » Report to moderator   Logged
MoEnzyme
Anarch
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.25
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Death to the Burqa!
« Reply #18 on: 2009-07-04 21:05:47 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-07-04 19:08:39   
clearly, you didnt read the whole thing. (as i mentioned)earlier in 2004, france tried to ban headscarves. which isnt a 'disguise' or a 'mask'. this burqa ban is another poke at france's muslims because sarkozy is catering to racist scum to garner their votes.

you can spin anything you want...but you are not french. you are not muslim. you are not a woman. i suppose freedom of french muslim women is not the foremost concern in your logic and argument.

eta: every kind of 'logic' has been applied to poke and prod islamic religious beliefs and the actions of islam's faithful(of course, xianity and judaism has been spared..oh gee..). terrorism, women's liberation and now 'fashion'. whatever.

it is not worth continuing this discussion for me. you can wake a man who is sleeping. you cant wake someone who is pretending to be asleep. you want to call it a terrorism concern? go for it. it speaks more about you(and your logic/knowledge of french current affairs) than about the issue at hand.

yes..you are done. clearly.

Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2009-07-04 03:06:44   

Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-07-03 20:44:44   
none of your arguments holds water.


Obviously you are only responding to Hermit now, because I have only made one argument although I have restated it in several different ways now . . . your right to wear a burqa is reasonably no greater than your right to wear any other kind of mask. That's the clearest I think I can make it. Perhaps you and Hermit might start a new thread for your de-facto private conversation.

Stick a fork in me, 'cause I'm obviously done.



True, I don't have a dog in this fight. Since we've established that this isn't a private fight, we can all join in! In fact while I mention some of these concerns I do so only to point out they are specifically irrellevant to my argument. Certainly law enforcement has a right to be able to identify people, both in order to catch actual criminals - be they common armed robbers, or "holy warrirors" of whatever religious team affiliation - and to dissuade people from illegal behavior whether fraudulent or simply violent. Basically I just enjoy being an asshole, especially when I can do so in the interest of reason. That's my dog in this fight.

Anyway as you see, this about burqas and not scarves,

:::me points at the subject line:::

thanks for extending my lawyer bill, so scarves are irrelevant. There's some other asshole in charge of briefing that argument.

And if Sarkozy is just doing this to be an asshole, unrelated to any reasonable concerns, well then he's not just any asshole, he's MY asshole, and therefore a good man within the cofines of this argument, regardless of his otherwise honed political cycicism. Sooooo . . . . GO SARKOZY. BAN THOSE BURQAS!!!!!!!!!! YEEEEEEE HAAAAW!!!!! Teach those mask wearing evil doers a lesson or two. We're not gonna take it anymore, so damn them! . . . AND DEATH TO THE BURQA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just when I thought I was done, you've pulled me back into the fire.



next?
« Last Edit: 2009-07-04 21:51:57 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
MoEnzyme
Anarch
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.25
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Death to the Burqa!
« Reply #19 on: 2009-07-05 03:41:52 »
Reply with quote

Yay! Pat Condell! Death to the Burqa!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48

video originally posted by Pat Condell June 28, 2009 on YouTube

A short transcribed excerpt (courtesy of Mo's phaithful transcription services):

Pat Condell [1:09 - 2:09]: The burqa will never be welcome here in Europe or in the western world generally. It will always cause trouble and that I suspect is why it is being worn. And there are plenty of good reasons to ban this horrible garment, but for me the best reason is fact that it will offend Islamists which I think is always a good idea. If a small group of hysterical bearded fanatics are squealing about Islamophobia, well then you know that somebody is doing something right.

Personally I would ban it on public transport and in public buildings, and anywhere else where other people are expected to show their face as a matter of course. I also think that shops and banks should be allowed to refuse entry to anybody in disguise, and I think that any woman who think its a good idea to walk around in one of these outfits should seriously consider seeing a doctor not only for themselves but for their babies some of whom have been born with rickets because their mothers suffer from chronic vitamin D deficiency through lack of sunlight.

MoEnzyme: Certainly Pat expands very resonably on my Death to the burqa position. His argument is a bit more rhetorically robust than my more lazy lawyerly position. I agree with him. This is only a fraction of his great wisdom on this subject. There is much more at the video and its still reasonably short at six minutes and twenty-five seconds. I hope you find the time to view it, especially if you have bothered to read this much of our BBS thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48

One of the more reasonable rants I've heard in a long time.
« Last Edit: 2009-07-05 05:04:10 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4274
Reputation: 8.96
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Death to the burqa
« Reply #20 on: 2009-07-05 07:03:20 »
Reply with quote

[MoEnzyme] <snip>Personally I would ban it on public transport and in public buildings, and anywhere else where other people are expected to show their face as a matter of course. I also think that shops and banks should be allowed to refuse entry to anybody in disguise, and I think that any woman who think its a good idea to walk around in one of these outfits should seriously consider seeing a doctor not only for themselves but for their babies some of whom have been born with rickets because their mothers suffer from chronic vitamin D deficiency through lack of sunlight.<snap>

[Hermit] Personally I wouldn't bother with any of this, but, to balance offence properly, and deal equanimously with other visible displays of religious hysteria, the public display of torture devices, particularly crosses, might also be banned. I also think that shops and banks should be allowed to refuse entry to anybody wearing religious insignia, and I think that any person who thinks that it is a good idea to walk around wearing such obscenities, particularly in the form of a torture device, should seriously consider seeing a doctor not only for themselves but for their babies most of which will never learn to use their brains because their parents suffer from chronic inability to exercise that organ.

[Hermit]  After all, if hysterical religious fanatics are squealing about persecution, well then you know that somebody is doing something right.


PS The use of "clearly" often serves, like "obvious", as a flag for the wary, in this case generally denoting muddy thinking. Further, suggestions that people who are not something cannot speak to something, e.g. "you are not a Muslim" implying "so you cannot speak for Muslims" are usually invalid (but not always, as a true conclusion may be reached from an invalid premise, while a raving non-Muslim Islamophobe may well be incapable of speaking rationally about anything, never mind Islam). This logical failure may be identified by considering the implications of "you are not a murderer, so you cannot judge a murderer".
« Last Edit: 2009-07-05 07:35:32 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
MoEnzyme
Anarch
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.25
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Death to the burqa
« Reply #21 on: 2009-07-05 08:25:09 »
Reply with quote

Yes. Obviously Pat Condell is a clearer thinker than me. Clearly if you watch his whole video he never uses the words "clearly", or "obviously". I obviously do, taking the time to even clearly point it out when I do. Pat's thinking is apparently better than my thinking. Therefore I should listen to him more.

So in a round about way you have convinced me to adopt at least one of Pat's arguments to add to my one argument. So now I have two. It is reasonable to ban masks. (security, ID, fraud, terrorism concerns all apply) The burqa is a mask, therefor it is reasonable to ban. (my original), and offending Islamists - Pat's argument I'm adopting. Perhaps our argument could apply to other kinds of religious nuts, but unless you successfully show me that my first argument applies as well, I can't get serious about it. I may still have a good laugh over it. Society DOES need sources of free entertainment, and pissed-off religious fruitcakes of all persuasions can fill the ticket as well.

I'm not sure how these symbolic torture devices you describe will fit the bill. Perhaps if the miserable christer nuts are hiding their faces behind the cross, that could pose potential security threats. Perhaps if they have a functional cross . . . like a cross and three nails for example, it could be banned as an actual implement of death and torture. We could call it the "1 cross + 3nails = 4bidden" law just to piss 'em off a bit more. I can certainly see some potential there Hermit.

On the other hand my first love here is still my "Death to the burqa" law. Or perhaps I should say "our Death to the burqa" law", since I, Pat, and everyone with reasonably functioning brains clearly and obviously sees its wisdom.

Death to the burqa!!!
« Last Edit: 2009-07-05 08:34:35 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4274
Reputation: 8.96
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Death to the burqa
« Reply #22 on: 2009-07-05 12:11:39 »
Reply with quote

Mo,you previously stated
Quote:
Your right to wear a burqa is reasonably no greater than your right to wear a mask . . . or rather any other kind of mask, because that's exactly what a burqa is. To not recognize that is simply absurd.

I agreed.

Then, and I quote, I showed that:
    [1] How about people who wear HEPA particulate filters to reduce risk of becoming infected or of passing on an infection? For example XDR TB? If not, do you think that is sensible that health authorities (including those in the US) have mandated the wearing of such masks as a condition of release from legal isolation to people suffering from the mentioned disease (and others)? Given that doctors strongly recommend people with suppressed immune systems wear full skin coverage including masks and gloves to  protect them from potentially fatal diseases, do you think such people should be confined to home or have to risk death to satisfy the "public interest in identification" you have purported to have discovered? Did you know that medical and health authorities often recommend particulate masks to people as a general practice at times when they are ill, as well as when airborne pathogens or particulate pollutants are prevalent?

    [2] Is it acceptable for people to wear armour? After all, the practice of heraldry, which was developed to identify people and their followers when their faces were obscured by armour and masks, is recognized by many societies in the form of both custom and law (including in the English system and thus arguably in the US), and given this legal recognition of heraldry, is the right to bear armour as well as heraldic arms not also legally recognized? If it has ceased to be recognised, can you identify the mechanism whereby this right was rescinded?
Both 1 and 2 appear to provide strong historical, legal, medical, social and life preserving (argumentum ad necessitam) "right to wear a mask . . . or rather any other kind of mask".

As you didn't attempt to rebut either 1 or 2 above, these seem to support an existing strong right to wear a mask; and therefore, if your founding assertion as variously phrased was correct, you appear to have successfully proved that people have a strong right to wear a burqu'. This appears to me to devastate your previous preferred argument. "To not recognize that is simply absurd." It leaves me wondering why you continue to cite it?

Of course, my reasons for banning the burqu' and other baggy tent like people-covers based on my "argument to fashion", "argument to aesthetics", "argument to cultural norms" and "argument to vehicle control regulations" are not affected by this failure of your "argument to identifiability" and have, so far as I have seen, not been addressed here (beyond the Mermaid suggesting that nuns should be prevented from wearing bags too) which does not really seem to me to provide a compelling reason why my "argument to fashion" does not succeed and thus is largely irrelevant to the discussion. Particularly, as most people who have watched Koo Stark in Justine (1975) might well conclude that, unlike the burqu', a nuns' habit can possess a certain not unattractive je ne sai quois with the right circumstances under it.

Granted your "argument to the desirability of offending the religious" would also survive the above, but, as I showed, opens the door to the need to offend all religions (and perhaps non-religions too) and I suspect that finding the necessary support for such might prove challenging.
« Last Edit: 2009-07-05 12:37:06 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
MoEnzyme
Anarch
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.25
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Death to the burqa
« Reply #23 on: 2009-07-14 16:03:34 »
Reply with quote

Uh, HEPA mask? The function has nothing to do with hiding the face. Which is why it still permits some facial recognition and expression if somewhat less than perfectly. Different animal. I'm sure different rules can balance need to identify vs. health needs. I'm not talking about HEPA masks.

When I'm talking about a mask, I'm talking about something designed to hide ones face and hence identity. Like a masquerade mask, like a robber's stocking, or dressing up like Darth Vader - all of to which a burqua is functionally equivalent. They are all inappropriate ways to dress for normal business and social interaction, so unless its a masquerade party you have no real rights to dress that way.

As Pat Condell pointed out, we don't really bother to outlaw people dressing like Darth Vader because its so silly that no one sane would seriously attempt to live one's life that way. However, few would think it unreasonable for any business owner, teacher, police officer, doctor, lawyer, etc. require you to remove your Darth Vader mask before proceeding with normal interaction. I also expect that any US court will uphold any temporary police investigative detention based on the sole fact that you are wearing a  mask in a crowded public place - like an airport. No it may not actually be against the law, but its strange enough behavior that minimal security interests could legally warrant a question or two . . . plus whatever that may lead to.

So instead of putting everyone in uncomfortable situation, when it comes to kooky behavior as widespread as the Burqa, I think a ban is the only appropriate way to deal with the problem.
« Last Edit: 2009-07-14 21:41:36 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4274
Reputation: 8.96
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Death to the burqa
« Reply #24 on: 2009-07-14 18:50:32 »
Reply with quote

[MoEnzyme] Uh, HEPA mask? The function has nothing to do with hiding the face. Which is why it still permits some facial recognition and expression if somewhat less than perfectly. Different animal. I'm sure different rules can balance need to identify vs. health needs. I'm not talking about HEPA masks.

[MoEnzyme]  I also expect that any US court will uphold any temporary police investigative detention based on the sole fact that you are wearing a  mask in a crowded public place - like an airport. No it may not actually be against the law, but its strange enough behavior that minimal security interests could legally warrant a question or two . . . plus whatever that may lead to.

[Hermit] I strongly disagree that a medical mask offers less "identity hiding" than a burqu' etc. Refer the image of the full HEPA mask on the right below, used by people with compromised immune systems to protect themselves and by those infected with air-borne viruses and bacteria to protect others from infection. Even the standard medical mask, as shown on the left below, does not provide viewers the ability to identify a person given that the mouth and nose play a significant role in establishing identity (or why highwaymen often wore a handkerchief or scarf across the lower face).

[Hermit] Unless the 4th and 5th amendments have been withdrawn, American police have no right to demand answers to anything (beyond a name during a Terry stop in some states) or to search people without good cause (and wearing a mask does not compromise a good cause) and particularly not to access confidential medical information. Therefore I totally disagree with your conclusion that a police officer has any right to demand a person wearing such a mask explain why, or to detain, hinder or otherwise threaten a person who refuses to remove one. Indeed, forcing a person to remove a mask (or gloves) or touching their skin after being told not to, could well constitute aggravated assault with intent (if the subject's health were threatened) or bioterrorism (if the public's health were threatened).

[Hermit] I suggest that were you not attempting to defend your indefensible assertions in this matter, you would acknowledge that the police have no constitutional right to threaten the health of an individual, let alone to override somebody attempting to protect the public health - which may even have been mandated by public health authorities as a condition of not placing people into preventive isolation (which regulations do not mandate that people wear a sign, carry a clapper, ring a lepers bell or announce their medical status to the police).
 masknursingandhepa.jpg
« Last Edit: 2009-07-14 20:09:26 by Hermit »
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
MoEnzyme
Anarch
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.25
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Death to the burqa
« Reply #25 on: 2009-07-14 20:23:22 »
Reply with quote

Hermit,

Burqas have nothing to do with protecting people from chemical or biological hazards. Your point seems irellevant. I've probably addressed it more than it would normally deserve out of some deference to you personally.

Not that I'm complaining of course . . . I'm happy to use it as an excuse to advocate my "Death to the Burqa" meme yet one more time. Repetition is important to spreading memes.

Death to the burqa!!! 

« Last Edit: 2009-07-14 21:35:13 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Walter Watts
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Walter Watts



Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Death to the burqa
« Reply #26 on: 2009-07-14 21:30:47 »
Reply with quote

State Codes Related To Wearing Masks (and other mask-related links)


http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html

http://publicdefenderdude.blogspot.com/2005/05/man-arrested-for-wearing-mask-in.html

http://www.chimpsternation.com/forum?c=showthread&ThreadID=2447

http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/blogs/living-loco/2009/apr/17/va-wearing-mask-public-can-be-felony/

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/oct/31/can-wearing-a-mask-in-public-land-you-in-jail/



I'm tired (and lazy). Check out the other 3,200,000 links yourself here:

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1ACAW_ENUS326&=&q=wearing+mask+in+public&aq=2&oq=wearing+mask&aqi=g4



Walter

Death to the burqa!!! 
« Last Edit: 2009-07-14 21:35:24 by Walter Watts » Report to moderator   Logged

Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.


No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4274
Reputation: 8.96
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Death to the burqa
« Reply #27 on: 2009-07-15 01:31:03 »
Reply with quote

Walter, in most if not all jurisdictions some people can legally wear a mask, most of the codes you mentioned permit at least medical reasons, and I'm sure that wearing a mask as a political statement would also be defensible under grounds of expression, so the assertion that these laws are intended to protect by preventing identity camouflage is not just a typical police state slippery slope issue, not just a totally false claim (disguise is far more effective than a mask), but also means that such laws effectively force people wearing a mask for medical reasons to disclose medical conditions to police officers when challenged. Which seems as if they, at least in an ideal world which I grant the USA is not, might make for a very merry constitutional argument that the implicit search and unavoidable speech involved in such laws are far from legitimate. Even if we ignore the historical common law right to wear armour (See the discussion of the ninth Amendment for why this is important - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) which such laws have clearly trampled.
« Last Edit: 2009-07-15 15:22:20 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Death to the burqa
« Reply #28 on: 2009-07-15 06:01:57 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] A fascinating subject; the human face. And a hugely important one. Down the ages artists have probably portrayed the human face more than any other subject, even the female form.* The face is a valuable source of much non-verbal information.

'Meetings' are one of the most important social phenomena in the business world. As anyone who has attended these will know, the actual information content is frequently negligible. But the social content is always very rich indeed and sometimes it has to be suspected that this is the main, even the only, reason for having the meeting. Even video conferencing is not usually considered a sufficient replacement. Often businessmen will, in preference to the many other possible forms of efficient communication, undertake great expense and trouble in order to have a 'face to face' meeting.

Facial perception is processed differently by men and women. In men the processing takes place largely on the right side of the brain, in women the reverse is true. Women remember more female faces than men do. (Sheep, oddly enough are extremely good at face recognition and are even able to divine the mood of the farmer from his expression!)

Faces are usually quite asymmetrical. If one sets up a subject with key lighting from the extreme right, so as to leave the left side of the face unilluminated, the resulting photograph will usually be noticeably different from a picture resulting from the opposite procedure; sometimes so much so that one would be hard pressed to declare them to be from the same person. (Actors are usually acutely aware of the aspect that is their "good" side.) In modeling, the holy grail is facial symmetry. The more symmetrical a model's face is, the more likely she is, for obvious reasons, to be considered photogenic.

It seems clear that to withhold one's face is to withhold information. When one may legitimately do so or not is a frequent source of controversy. The word incognito is very old. Here is a definition from

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incognito

<snip>Origin: 163040; < It < L incognitus unknown, equiv. to in- in- 3 + cognitus, ptp. of cogni;scere to get to know; see cognition, know. 

Synonyms:
1. disguised, undisclosed, unidentified.
</snip>

The synonyms are interesting. Note that 'disguised' has the positive connotation of actively seeking to conceal one's identity and  'undisclosed' is negative in the sense that that information is simply not made available. A crucial distinction of intent which, sometimes, law seeks to preserve. Not always though.

Quite often law seeks to make its own convenience the object of legislation rather than the ideal of justice. Consequently law is riddled with assumptions which may or may not be true but which are nevertheless enforced, often irrespective of the consequences for 'justice'. In this thread we have seen that often a person who elects to be incognito is assumed, for the convenience of law enforcement, to be disguising themselves whether or not it is their intention to do so. TMM this is manifestly unjust. I reject arguments from pragmatism on this score. Whensoever the authorities declare "we had no choice" you may be reasonably certain that, really, they just didn't like the other one. Too much trouble. Insufficient funds/manpower/creative ability. Sad necessity for the greater good. Unfortunate reality of the situation. Etc. I have a big problem with law that sets out to make its own convenience the subject of its own authority. So, I believe, should everybody; justice springs from exposing the truth to the light not from improved conviction rates. The law should not invent facts.

Back to cases. I say again it is a matter of intent. A women wearing the burqua could be exercising a legitimate, IMV, right to go 'undisclosed'. She is not 'disguised'. Similarly, one has the right (usually) to speak one's mind - or to remain silent. Why should this principle not  be applicable to raiment? It is, after all, a method of expression. Of course I also object to the reverse. Nobody should be forced to remain silent if they wish to speak. On these grounds the burqua could be regarded as an objectionable institution. I don't think any discretionary non-disclosure of information can be considered good grounds for this though.

PS Isn't the multi-billion dollar cosmetics and perfume industry interesting in this context? This kind of personal misrepresentation is considered not only acceptable but de rigeur! The masking of faces and pheremones. All's fair in love and war I suppose.

* PPS The thought belatedly strikes me (as, sadly, they so often do) that the gigantic example of the prominence of the portrait in western art is, of course, the Mona Lisa. And even after all this time nobody knows yet just what she was really thinking. Ironic is it not?
« Last Edit: 2009-07-15 07:31:50 by Blunderov » Report to moderator   Logged
Walter Watts
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Walter Watts



Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Death to the burqa
« Reply #29 on: 2009-07-15 18:57:39 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Blunderov on 2009-07-15 06:01:57   

[Blunderov] A fascinating subject; the human face. And a hugely important one. Down the ages artists have probably portrayed the human face more than any other subject, even the female form.* The face is a valuable source of much non-verbal information.

<snip>

Nice addition to the thread Blunderov.

There is a lot to consider on the subject we are all finding.


Walter
Report to moderator   Logged

Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.


No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed