4 ms·

Ok, still the folks were religiouslly harassed then and maybe getting some money back years later doesn't change that. And the point still stands for swimming p

by jakear 3y ago

Ok, still the folks were religiouslly harassed then and maybe getting some money back years later doesn't change that. And the point still stands for swimming pools, which is basically the same. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/europe/grenoble-france-burkini-ban-pools-upheld-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/europe/grenoble-france-burkin...

hk__2 3y ago
The decree has been overthrown after two days. That it took years to get the €11 back is another issue. > And the point still stands for swimming pools, which is basically the same. There’s no point here; for hygiene reasons you are required to wear clothes close to the body in public swimming pools. As I wrote in another comment, this is a law from 1981, while the burkini was only invented in 2004. You are free to wear religious clothing (some do), but it has to respect the basic hygiene measures.
- jakear 3y ago
  A precinct where reason prevailed over tradition would recognize that new legislation is required to adapt to changing demographics and find a way to enforce cleanliness without infringing on religious freedom. (Off the top of my head: offer certified-clean burkinis for rent.) A precinct where tradition prevails over reason would find "ah-ha!" gotchas from over 40 years ago as justification for their inherit sexism/racism and refuse to budge on them (so long as only the "inferior" race/gender/religion is affected).
  - hk__2 3y ago
    > A precinct where reason prevailed over tradition would recognize that new legislation is required to adapt to changing demographics and find a way to enforce cleanliness without infringing on religious freedom. Various spokepersons from the French muslim community have repeatedly said that it’s ridiculous to make a controversy out of the burkini because virtually nobody wears it. When the numbers are so anecdotical that estimates are impossible to make it’s hard to speak about "changing demographics".
    - jakear 3y ago
      Have you considered that, perhaps, virtually nobody wears it because the police will stop you on the beach and fine you for wearing it?? (As has actually happened, indicating that people do in fact wear it. And have been dramatically disincentivized form doing so.) Also, "the people who might disagree with me probably don't actually exist" is the lowest form of argument, combining it with an unlawful activity is rhetorically ridiculous. You are saying, quite literally: "People haven't been free do this, and they (mostly) haven't done it, therefore they (all) don't want to do it, so we shouldn't let them be free to do it".
      - hk__2 3y ago
        > Have you considered that, perhaps, virtually nobody wears it because the police will stop you on the beach and fine you for wearing it It would be illegal for the police to do so, so no that’s not a valid argument. > Also, "the people who might disagree with me probably don't actually exist" is the lowest form of argument, combining it with an unlawful activity is rhetorically ridiculous. You are saying, quite literally: "People haven't been free do this, and they (mostly) haven't done it, therefore they (all) don't want to do it, so we shouldn't let them be free to do it". All I’m saying is that people who know the matter say this is an anecdotical thing.
        jakear 3y ago
        The police already have done it, so it is certainly a valid argument. "People who support my side say they support my side, so my side is right". K.
        hk__2 3y ago
        If you don’t have anything more to bring to the discussion than pure rhetoric and straw man fallacies I don’t think it’s worse pursuing. You haven’t provided any evidence of what you say, only personal suppositions-- it’s fine, but you should review them when the reality doesn’t match. Have a good day.

by jakear 3y ago

hk__2 3y ago

The decree has been overthrown after two days. That it took years to get the €11 back is another issue. > And the point still stands for swimming pools, which is basically the same. There’s no point here; for hygiene reasons you are required to wear clothes close to the body in public swimming pools. As I wrote in another comment, this is a law from 1981, while the burkini was only invented in 2004. You are free to wear religious clothing (some do), but it has to respect the basic hygiene measures.

jakear 3y ago
A precinct where reason prevailed over tradition would recognize that new legislation is required to adapt to changing demographics and find a way to enforce cleanliness without infringing on religious freedom. (Off the top of my head: offer certified-clean burkinis for rent.) A precinct where tradition prevails over reason would find "ah-ha!" gotchas from over 40 years ago as justification for their inherit sexism/racism and refuse to budge on them (so long as only the "inferior" race/gender/religion is affected).
- hk__2 3y ago
  > A precinct where reason prevailed over tradition would recognize that new legislation is required to adapt to changing demographics and find a way to enforce cleanliness without infringing on religious freedom. Various spokepersons from the French muslim community have repeatedly said that it’s ridiculous to make a controversy out of the burkini because virtually nobody wears it. When the numbers are so anecdotical that estimates are impossible to make it’s hard to speak about "changing demographics".
  - jakear 3y ago
    Have you considered that, perhaps, virtually nobody wears it because the police will stop you on the beach and fine you for wearing it?? (As has actually happened, indicating that people do in fact wear it. And have been dramatically disincentivized form doing so.) Also, "the people who might disagree with me probably don't actually exist" is the lowest form of argument, combining it with an unlawful activity is rhetorically ridiculous. You are saying, quite literally: "People haven't been free do this, and they (mostly) haven't done it, therefore they (all) don't want to do it, so we shouldn't let them be free to do it".
    - hk__2 3y ago
      > Have you considered that, perhaps, virtually nobody wears it because the police will stop you on the beach and fine you for wearing it It would be illegal for the police to do so, so no that’s not a valid argument. > Also, "the people who might disagree with me probably don't actually exist" is the lowest form of argument, combining it with an unlawful activity is rhetorically ridiculous. You are saying, quite literally: "People haven't been free do this, and they (mostly) haven't done it, therefore they (all) don't want to do it, so we shouldn't let them be free to do it". All I’m saying is that people who know the matter say this is an anecdotical thing.
      - jakear 3y ago
        The police already have done it, so it is certainly a valid argument. "People who support my side say they support my side, so my side is right". K.
        hk__2 3y ago
        If you don’t have anything more to bring to the discussion than pure rhetoric and straw man fallacies I don’t think it’s worse pursuing. You haven’t provided any evidence of what you say, only personal suppositions-- it’s fine, but you should review them when the reality doesn’t match. Have a good day.