Majority of Danes want to ban burqa: survey

[Pengekaer]

I have no desire to force my culture onto others, and I will not let others force theirs upon me. Luckily, actual multiculturalism requires zero force, and is voluntary.

Depends on the amount of friction between said cultures.

Edit: Ahh, a libertarian meets a national conservative. I am national (not nationalist) in the way that I believe my nation should continue to exist as sovereign. That is no longer implicit in Europe, so I feel the need to add "national" to state that I think the nation should survive and that it should be, particularly (but not exclusively), for danes. Of course immigration that follows our rules and respect our culture should be allowed.
To give an example, I think modern day Japan is quite reasonable with its immigration policies, at least.

[NihilSustinet]

I have no desire to force my culture onto others, and I will not let others force theirs upon me. Luckily, actual multiculturalism requires zero force, and is voluntary. I find nationalism to be far too oppressive and authoritarian for my tastes. I have seen far too many cases of genocide and ethnic cleansing due to nationalism.

No one is forcing them to come to your country. If they choose to do so, i dont think its unreasonable to expect them to join your culture.

[Machismo]

Depends on the amount of friction between said cultures.

That would be cultures that are based on authoritarianism, which is always a problem. I see no reason to choose one form of authoritarianism over another. It's simple, people should be free to do what they want, so long as they do not harm others. The fear of another culture taking over is a valid one, but forcing your culture onto others is the exact same thing. SO, the best way to stop it is not to try and dominate, it's to prevent actual harm from taking place. Unfortunately, the standard mentality is reactive thinking, which means to try and ban a people, because some of them believe in an authoritarian culture. At that point, people become the thing they fear.

- - - Updated - - -

No one is forcing them to come to your country. If they choose to do so, i dont think its unreasonable to expect them to join your culture.

Which culture would that be? My culture is not the same as my neighbor's culture... or for that matter, my other neighbor's culture. Whose culture should they be forced to follow? Any given country can have hundreds, if not thousands of different cultures.

[NihilSustinet]

That would be cultures that are based on authoritarianism, which is always a problem. I see no reason to choose one form of authoritarianism over another. It's simple, people should be free to do what they want, so long as they do not harm others. The fear of another culture taking over is a valid one, but forcing your culture onto others is the exact same thing. SO, the best way to stop it is not to try and dominate, it's to prevent actual harm from taking place. Unfortunately, the standard mentality is reactive thinking, which means to try and ban a people, because some of them believe in an authoritarian culture. At that point, people become the thing they fear.

- - - Updated - - -



Which culture would that be? My culture is not the same as my neighbor's culture... or for that matter, my other neighbor's culture. Whose culture should they be forced to follow? Any given country can have hundreds, if not thousands of different cultures.

well, in this case, the culture does not require women to dress in bed sheets is a low enough bar to set.

[Pengekaer]

That would be cultures that are based on authoritarianism, which is always a problem.

That I can agree with. However, most cultures are very authoritarion and allow no freedom for their subjects. That is a shit fact of life. As a conservative, I deal with the world as I percieve it as, not how I think it should be.

[Machismo]

well, in this case, the culture does not require women to dress in bed sheets is a low enough bar to set.

Then do not require them to be worn. The culture you really want them to follow, is one where it is banned. Do you see the difference?

[NihilSustinet]

Then do not require them to be worn. The culture you really want them to follow, is one where it is banned. Do you see the difference?

im not going over this again. read my previous comments.

[Machismo]

That I can agree with. However, most cultures are very authoritarion and allow no freedom for their subjects. That is a shit fact of life. As a conservative, I deal with the world as I percieve it as, not how I think it should be.

But if you want to force your beliefs onto others, you are one of those cultures who is very authoritarian and does not allow freedom for their subjects. That's the problem with laws such as this, people become the thing they claim they are trying to stop.

- - - Updated - - -

im not going over this again. read my previous comments.

Your previous comments were just wrong.

You said the culture does not require women to wear bed sheets...

Great, then let the woman choose to wear them, or not. If that's what you truly want, then no law is needed.

Of course, that's not what you actually want. You want a culture that says she's not allowed to wear "bed sheets."

[pateuvasiliu]

And "generally bad" is not equal to "murder".

Murder is just a cherrypicked definition to make abortion seem less dire. It's still killing human life.

Are you trying to seduce the concepts of obtuseness and arrogance, or something?

I like how you're so upset by my words that you continually try to insult me even though I made it clear I couldn't care less about your opinion.

Basically the fact that you're willing to accept abortion as just removing a clump of cells makes you so low on my scale of human decency that I really couldn't care less.

- - - Updated - - -

If you NEED religion to be a good person, then you're not a good person.

A person that doesn't do bad because of fear of god is still better than a person that does bad.

In your example being a good person means fuck all, because some people are legitimately sociopatic and feel no remorse. At least religion and laws keep them at bay.

[NihilSustinet]

But if you want to force your beliefs onto others, you are one of those cultures who is very authoritarian and does not allow freedom for their subjects. That's the problem with laws such as this, people become the thing they claim they are trying to stop.

- - - Updated - - -



Your previous comments were just wrong.

You said the culture does not require women to wear bed sheets...

Great, then let the woman choose to wear them, or not. If that's what you truly want, then no law is needed.

Of course, that's not what you actually want. You want a culture that says she's not allowed to wear "bed sheets."

my previous comments addressed this "choice".

[Machismo]

my previous comments addressed this "choice".

And yet, you also want to take that "choice" away. You want to become the same thing you oppose.

[pateuvasiliu]

LOL! so i do the exact same thing you did, and yours is valid, but mine isnt. i was trying to show how ridiculous you sound, and you just double down. love it.

Also, what does Atheism have to do with WW2? What, you arent one of those people who actually believes Hitler was an Atheist do you? He had issues with organized Christianity, mostly because the church would not support his political ideals, but he was very much a christian (little c) man. This is well documented.

As far as stalin... While his regime did not believe in god, it was still very theocratic, with Stalin as the Godhead. Stalinism would have never taken power without religious principles and religious control of the people.

edit: missed what you said about the crusades.

What exactly did the crusades have to do with Greed? Sacking Jerusalem over and over again wasnt exactly making anyone rich. You may have some knowledge here that i dont, so please enlighten me. Also, i appreciate you agreeing with me that religion was used to manipulate people into doing evil. Thank you for agreeing with my point.

So has democracy or a thousand other things. Bashing religion alone for it is the favorite pastime of Internet Atheists that probably also like Rick and Morty.

Also, what does Atheism have to do with WW2? What, you arent one of those people who actually believes Hitler was an Atheist do you?

No man who actually believes in God will slaughter 6 million people, then kill himself.

You cannot ''document'' that someone was or wasn't faithful, for all you know it was a ruse. But I am aware of quotes from Hitler where his anti-religion stance is shown.

[NihilSustinet]

And yet, you also want to take that "choice" away. You want to become the same thing you oppose.

like i said previously, im ok with taking away the choice to self-oppress. to use the example i used earlier, its not controversial that we dont have the "choice" to sell ourselves into slavery. willing, self oppression is still oppression, and i dont see it as oppression to outlaw it. are you happy now? you made me repeat myself.

[pateuvasiliu]

Weirdly enough the definition of personhood relying on birth also predates legalized abortion by quite some time.




Except the gulags weren't made in the name of atheism. Nuance, how does it work? And you talk about hand-waving... pathetic is what this is.

Riiight and all those priests thrown into it was just coincidence, right?

Talk about obtuse

inb4: " The priests were political enemies REEEE PICKLE RICK "

[NihilSustinet]

No man who actually believes in God will slaughter 6 million people, then kill himself.

thats quite a statement. on the contrary, i think that ONLY a man who believes in god would kill 6 million people. as far as killing himself. what makes you say that? christians commit suicide every day.

- - - Updated - - -

Riiight and all those priests thrown into it was just coincidence, right?

Talk about obtuse

inb4: " The priests were political enemies REEEE PICKLE RICK "

i talked about this earlier, but stalinism was a secular religion. christians were targetted not for not being atheists, but for not worshipping the official God of the state: Stalin. North Korea is a good modern example of this.

[Machismo]

like i said previously, im ok with taking away the choice to self-oppress. to use the example i used earlier, its not controversial that we dont have the "choice" to sell ourselves into slavery. willing, self oppression is still oppression, and i dont see it as oppression to outlaw it. are you happy now? you made me repeat myself.

Then the real issue is that you want to be the oppressor. You are no different than the culture you oppose.

You don't see it as oppression to outlaw it. They do not see it as oppression to make women wear it.

That's the thing about oppressors, they rarely believe they are doing it.

[NihilSustinet]

Then the real issue is that you want to be the oppressor. You are no different than the culture you oppose.

You don't see it as oppression to outlaw it. They do not see it as oppression to make women wear it.

That's the thing about oppressors, they rarely believe they are doing it.

you ignore what i said then directly contradict that i said it. thats one way to argue, i guess. but your argument fails to be compelling when it doesnt actual address any point i made. all laws and regulations are not oppression because they keep people from doing literally whatever they want. that makes you an anarchist. and if thats the case, there is nothing more to discuss

[pateuvasiliu]

thats quite a statement. on the contrary, i think that ONLY a man who believes in god would kill 6 million people. as far as killing himself. what makes you say that? christians commit suicide every day.

- - - Updated - - -



i talked about this earlier, but stalinism was a secular religion. christians were targetted not for not being atheists, but for not worshipping the official God of the state: Stalin. North Korea is a good modern example of this.

Stalin killed more and he was atheist so your belief is interesting.

christians were targetted not for not being atheists, but for not worshipping the official God of the state: Stalin.

You and I both know having a cult of personality is not the same as actual religion.

North Korea is a good modern example of this.

Pretty sure most North Koreans realise Kim is just a man. Considering he's fat and ugly it's pretty clear he's no god.

[Quibble]

And it happens to be a culture that pushes against the basic principles of freedom.

It happens to be a culture that does not allow you to hide your face..
We already have a law that says you can not cover your face in public meetings, demonstrations, or parades.
Now, probably because of a lot of terror; they want to make this law not only about the three examples, but for all public space.

Why should you be exempt from our laws, just because it is done in the name of religion?
While you should be free to practice any religion you want, it does not give you a free pass to ignore our laws.

[Machismo]

you ignore what i said then directly contradict that i said it. thats one way to argue, i guess. but your argument fails to be compelling when it doesnt actual address any point i made. all laws and regulations are not oppression because they keep people from doing literally whatever they want. that makes you an anarchist. and if thats the case, there is nothing more to discuss

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in it.

I'm not an anarchist, I believe in laws. I think people should be free to do what they want, so long as it does not harm others. What I do not believe, is that the existence of a law is a justification for it.

Now, the only way your argument works, is if you can show that all women who wear burqas are being harmed. If not, then you are choosing to restrict an action that does not necessarily cause harm. That means you are the one restricting freedom, making you the oppressor. In the end, you are no different than the culture you wish to forcefully subdue. So, how are you any different than that other culture? How are you any different than the guy who wants to force women to wear a burqa?

You're not.

- - - Updated - - -

It happens to be a culture that does not allow you to hide your face..
We already have a law that says you can not cover your face in public meetings, demonstrations, or parades.
Now, probably because of a lot of terror; they want to make this law not only about the three examples, but for all public space.

Why should you be exempt from our laws, just because it is done in the name of religion?
While you should be free to practice any religion you want, it does not give you a free pass to ignore our laws.

Like I said, it's a culture that wishes to restrict freedom of expression. I have been saying that all along.