whats the difference?

A

Asguard

Kiss my dark side
Valued Senior Member
what is the difference between saying that women must cover there heads and hands in the presence of the pope (thats all thats left of women must cover up in church i belive), men must wear head covering in a cinagog and women CHOSE to wear a head covering?

i mean i cant CHOSE to go naked in the streets of melb CAN I? but thats NOT opressive but the muslem head dress which in MOST places is a simple scarf is????
 
what are you askiing the difference between women having the choice to cover up and you not.. or have i missed the point?
 
ive had it with people here saying that women CHOSING to wear a head scarf is opression where me CHOSING to walk naked out of my house is a crime
 
i guess it is oppressive because of the motive for demanding a scarf.

that women should not tempt men and hide their faces. It blames women for the actions of men.

Why not just say: men don't be tempted by that deceiving creature they call woman and her unfair weapons, such as ears, nose, chin and cheeks.
 
Originally posted by Asguard
ive had it with people here saying that women CHOSING to wear a head scarf is opression where me CHOSING to walk naked out of my house is a crime
Click to expand...

Ahh, but you are mistaken. Remember the 4 girls who had their throat cut by a militant islamic group because they ignored posters put up in the neighborhood by the group that said no woman was to go about uncovered? Teenage girls. That is how this thing starts. Sure, some do it voluntarily, but a lot of times there is no choice. Are you aware that a woman in the middle east, if uncovered and unprotected by escort can be raped, and no one will say a thing? Worse yet, it is her fault, so her husband can then kill her for engaging in extra-marital sex. Of course it is defended as the "actions of people" and "the koran doesn't support it"....but it happens nevertheless. It is de facto.
 
did you know in OUR sociaty if a man sees a women naked hes a peeping tom but if a women sees a man naked then hes being obsean (i cant rember the right law)
 
i should specify

this is aimed mainly at xevs posts that she feels sorry for women in HER naborhood (ie in the US not in afgainistan) who wear the head scarf
 
Originally posted by Asguard
did you know in OUR sociaty if a man sees a women naked hes a peeping tom but if a women sees a man naked then hes being obsean (i cant rember the right law)
Click to expand...

But you don't get stoned to death. And there is a difference between spying on someone in their home undressing(peeping tom) and you walking your bare ass outside in the public. If a woman does the same, then she is charged with public indecency. The laws are equitable in all but the most backwards districts.
 
Originally posted by Asguard
i should specify

this is aimed mainly at xevs posts that she feels sorry for women in HER naborhood (ie in the US not in afgainistan) who wear the head scarf
Click to expand...

Ah, I understand. But you have to be aware, there are few slippery slope arguments that are valid. One of them is religion, where there truly is a VERY slippery slope that can go from slight intolerance to outright witch hunts QUICKLY. The other is national extremism.
 
actully your right its beside the point (thanks for giving me the right law tho) i should have the right to walk NAKED down to the shops because its only an opressive sociaty that makes me ware clothing
 
indecent exposier, i am sure if a woman is spying on a naked man then she is a peeping tom, if a man is walking around naked well yeah i find it pretty much weird, and the same goes for a women. i am aslo sure alot of people are quite accepting to nudity but as you say in OUR sociaty that is not the way.
And in repeating what you are saying about SOCIATY answers your question because that is the clear difference in which you are seeking!!
 
williamwbishop:

can you explaine what you mean because i dont understand

i have always been tought to tolerate other cultures wether or not i agree because the other alternitive is teriony on MY part

now our culture says unless your on the beach you cant walk around naked and girls must cover there breasts (guys can get away without a shirt which has always struck me as strange except on coumfert thing for girls)

why is that any different to indoneasia (the largest muslem culture) having women who chose to cover there heads, or muslems in australia, US , brittan or anywhere else
 
Originally posted by Asguard
williamwbishop:

can you explaine what you mean because i dont understand

i have always been tought to tolerate other cultures wether or not i agree because the other alternitive is teriony on MY part

now our culture says unless your on the beach you cant walk around naked and girls must cover there breasts (guys can get away without a shirt which has always struck me as strange except on coumfert thing for girls)

why is that any different to indoneasia (the largest muslem culture) having women who chose to cover there heads, or muslems in australia, US , brittan or anywhere else
Click to expand...

Because it's not about the voluntary women at all. You remember the remark about the 4 girls who were killed for failing to obey? Do you think anyone else did after? That is how sharia gets inroads. An example is made, others follow out of fear, and before you know it you have given away all of your freedoms to tyrants. This is old psychological warfare at it's best. The problem is that people don't realize that when any tyrant uses force and death to meet his initial ends, he must thereafter do that as a minimum and thus begins an ever increasing pattern of brutality.
 
As to our current illogical laws on clothing. Do you agree that no one should walk about without pants or coverings of some type? Yes, I thought as much. Then it becomes an issue of tops. There are very few places on earth where that is allowed, outside of the jungles. On beaches in monte carlo(as well as many beaches worldwide) it is allowed, but you cannot walk into the city that way. You must separate academia from reality. Philosophically, yes, we should all be allowed to go about in any manner we wish. But in reality, people are irresponsible twits(green is a prime example of this btw). The laws are in place for the good of the community. True, some of the laws are ridiculous, I find a womans breasts to be no different than males...but then again I like a womans ass. But there are a profound number of males who like the breasts, and would see bare breasts as an advertisement for something untoward. Maybe in 300 years or so, we will be intellectual enough to stop being puerile children, but I'm not sure. The truth is that people for the most part fall into this giant category called "the lowest common denominator".
 
Originally posted by williamwbishop
As to our current illogical laws on clothing. Do you agree that no one should walk about without pants or coverings of some type? Yes, I thought as much. Then it becomes an issue of tops. There are very few places on earth where that is allowed, outside of the jungles. On beaches in monte carlo(as well as many beaches worldwide) it is allowed, but you cannot walk into the city that way. You must separate academia from reality. Philosophically, yes, we should all be allowed to go about in any manner we wish. But in reality, people are irresponsible twits(green is a prime example of this btw). The laws are in place for the good of the community. True, some of the laws are ridiculous, I find a womans breasts to be no different than males...but then again I like a womans ass. But there are a profound number of males who like the breasts, and would see bare breasts as an advertisement for something untoward. Maybe in 300 years or so, we will be intellectual enough to stop being puerile children, but I'm not sure. The truth is that people for the most part fall into this giant category called "the lowest common denominator".
Click to expand...

how smart you are!
what if i was to tell you i'm in the highest common denominator! aren't you now wondering what for? i'm afraid lowest common denominator is NOT a category that would mean anything. In fact it's the same as putting all those people in a category called "dumb" or "bad" if you get my drift.
You seem to be riding some kind of "intellectual high horse" as you champion your "enlightened views" on clothing to the people of sciforums.
In truth it looks a lot more like an "ignorant donkey(no offense to donkeys)" which you are riding.
e.g. The laws are not illogical they are a reflection of social moral codes and unfortunately where you live majority most likely rules. You can probably drink water from a tap too.

clothing obviously came as a result of the NEED for it. We didn't just become repressed idiots overnight because people were too horny.

it's not that i completely disagree with what you are saying i see where your coming from.

BUT my final point is this. In whichever state you are living in there are things you have to do, Laws you have to obey, that you won't agree with. However those laws will only be their if the majority of the people(and those in power) don't have a problem with it.

So leave your State and run naked in the forest, otherwise, don't worry about it.


:p
 
Why aren't men required to cover their hair and faces in Muslim nations? It's to oppress women by telling them that they are not good enough to be seen by the world.
 
Originally posted by notPresidentAndrew
Why aren't men required to cover their hair and faces in Muslim nations? It's to oppress women by telling them that they are not good enough to be seen by the world.
Click to expand...

that's so true, i agree with everything you just said. would you like to come over to my place later and we can take ride in my flying car.
 
Anothony you can't go naked down the street because it would infringe on other people's rights. Now I don't believe this. Personally I'm okey-dokey with you walking down the street naked. But our society is full of prudes.


And your question is worded ridiculously and idiotically. You say that Jews are forced to cover their head and moslem women choose to wear a veil?

1) Jews are not forced any more than moslems.
2) Moslem women in some backward countries are forced to wear the clothing. Well, not forced, I guess. They have the option of getting raped and beaten.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Nebuchadnezzaar
that's so true, i agree with everything you just said. would you like to come over to my place later and we can take ride in my flying car.
Click to expand...

Are you attempting to mock me. It is difficult to tell sometimes at message boards.
 
actully tyler your wrong

women are NOT forced to wear a viel in australia, indoneasia or NZ, im pritty sure the same goes for the US and canada

where as i have BEEN in a cinagog and they wouldnt let us in if we refused to cover our heads

who ever said that its bad because the head scarf is only for women so are bra's, guy can go around without shirts but girls cant

and as for the rest the point is simply its not a lack of freedom its a CULTURAL thing

each culture is different, they wear more clothing (gess why, to protect themseves from the sun i would say it was origionally, u know DESERTS)

here i cant walk down the street naked or i end up in JAIL, thats not what some indervidual does thats the LAW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top