If its normal to them then fine. I'm not passing judgement on their choice and have no desire to do anything to make them change their behavior.
Racist Texas GOP votes to keep muslim in position
- Thread starter UCFWayne
- Start date
This is the real problem with progressivism
I can make an objective statement with absolutely no judgment or make an attempt to change a persons belief or behavior and it is met with the same level of disdain as if I was trying to buy 4 year old girls for the purpose of owning sex slaves. Correctly stating that a burka is to maintain modesty and that very few measures would be more extreme means that i am standing in judgment over someone and I am somehow a bigot.
A liberal who is operating in good faith can discuss things without turning it into judgment and character attacks. A progressive is incapable of that. Something as simple as saying that a garment that covers 99 percent of a persons body is just about as extreme as you can get is somehow a source of contention.
I can make an objective statement with absolutely no judgment or make an attempt to change a persons belief or behavior and it is met with the same level of disdain as if I was trying to buy 4 year old girls for the purpose of owning sex slaves. Correctly stating that a burka is to maintain modesty and that very few measures would be more extreme means that i am standing in judgment over someone and I am somehow a bigot.
A liberal who is operating in good faith can discuss things without turning it into judgment and character attacks. A progressive is incapable of that. Something as simple as saying that a garment that covers 99 percent of a persons body is just about as extreme as you can get is somehow a source of contention.
Sheesh, don't be such a snowflake. I was merely pointing out your statement was incorrect and ethnocentric. Never called you a bigot.
If you don't want to be called out for making incorrect statements...don't make incorrect statements.
Ok, then explain what is incorrect. Is covering 99 percent of your body an extreme level of keeping people from seeing your body? If not, then what would be extreme?
Damnit, I really thought you caught up.
Do I really have to explain this all over again?
You havent explained anything, and the fact that you believe you have is bizarre. You incorrectly asserted that i was standing in judgment over a practice by simply stating the facts. Not opinions, but facts. If a person covers their body with the intent of not allowing others to see their body they are being modest. If they go naked they are being immodest. Covering 99 percent of your body is being extremely modest. Somehow saying that makes me ethnocentric. Hmmmmm..........
What are you basing this statement off what? What guide tells you covering your body XX% is considered modest?
Let me save you the trouble: it is your upbringing/culture that has ingrained this into you. Now imagine other people who were raised with a different standard.
There is no universal standard of modesty/immodesty. It's not a physical law like the speed of light or gravitational constant. It varies from culture to culture. So yes, it appears to you these people are being modest, and to them you are being immodest.
I’m not sure that not doing anything to change their behavior is a viable course of action. When western society and Islamic society come together, there needs to be some compromise on both sides. Otherwise, we’re going to end up balkanizing and eventually dividing.
Case in point, western society has developed cultural norms that people enter certain places with their faces uncovered. This is considered politeness but it also serves a very real security purpose and I’d suspect that this is behind the norm that we’ve had since ancient times. We don’t wear masks in banks, in legal proceedings, or in IDs. For centuries, people flaunting this societal rule were treated with suspicion.
Now comes a group of people with a different societal norm. The two norms directly conflict. When this happens, there needs to be give and take. This way the cultures merge and you create a stronger whole. Is that happening right now? I’m not sure that it is. I think the current philosophy of western society to accommodate everyone at the expense of western tradition is not actually solving the issues of conflicting norms.
Are you arguing the definition of the word modest?
I am not saying that any level of covering a persons body is acceptable or unacceptable. Cultures dictate that and i have stated over and over that i dont care. You are insinuating that I am a bigot or ethnocentric because i used a term in an objective manner, which tells me more about you that it tells anyone about me.
A small amount of something is a modest amount. In this case, its the amount of skin that is exposed. How can you make this into an issue?
If this is the case I have nothing against what you were saying. It came across as you were judging people based on their upbringing and culture.
I don't disagree with this in general but i don't think these 2 cultural norms are in conflict.
It isn't unacceptable for a woman to wear a burka culturally any more than bikinis are. That being said, drivers license photos and the like are important for a reason, and if a Muslim woman refuses to expose her face because of a religious belief then its pretty hard to reconcile the 2 .
It didnt come across that way. You jumped to an assumption that supported your confirmation bias.
The bottom line is that terms like 'modesty' and 'extreme' are defined by one's culture.
The cultural norms for body coverage are in conflict. You’ve got feminists pushing western culture in the direction of women being able to walk around shirtless like men and men have to deal with it. Islamic culture is polar opposite.
Except when people want an 'absolute,' and don't care, just here it 'politically fits.'
This is why most of us Libertarians call out both parties for 'hypocrisy' with regularity.
Its actually one of the more mundane threads on this board. People arguing about the definition of a word isnt entertaining to most
Are you kidding? Drunk Uncle Wayne tried to make it seem like since only 40% of elected republicans favored removing a Muslim from office just because he's Muslim that somehow the GOP is not anti-muslim.
Ill fix this for you.
"Board legend Wayne presents factual article stating that majority of elected Republicans are not religious bigots". "Fringe leftists refuse to let go of pre conceived notions about political adversaries in the face of objective proof".
Dawg, if 1/3 of you party tries to remove someone from office because of their religion I wouldn't be bragging about that like DUW tried to do.
The GOP new slogan "Two-thirds of us aren't racist!"
I love how "only" 40% of the Texas GOP being literal open bigots is somehow acceptable.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Like I said, hilarious thread.
Not gonna lie, the thread title is actually non sarcastically accurate. Well done "board legend for being an idiot" wayne.
Props to Knightbeer for bumping this thread, although I don't know why. Good example of how progressives like to change the definition of words so they can claim some bizarro moral high ground. I'll never forget how the lefties on this board tried to convince me that covering 99% of your body isn't an extreme amount of covering your body. Lol, eye of the beholder.
Similar threads
