Belgium kicks Mohammedans in their putrid faces; burqas banned

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

So it's okay to strong-arm Ching-Ping China-man because he's a Johnny Foreigner, but using force against your own citizens (or resident immigrants, at any rate) is a no-no? That's a funny opinion from a Yank given your penal system etc

---

We also have very strong views about not using the law against what people feel is their religious obligation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

As a side-note I only live in one country.

I still don't see where those masses should come from. There are masses of Muslims, true, but only a tiny number of female Muslims within Europe wear burqas.

---

I was referring to Hazir's reference of the pan-European situation. While only a small number were veils, you risk increasing that number by rounding-up the few who wear them. That's what I'm saying about radicalizing people.

EG, I'm not religious, but my religion does mandate some things we find weird these days, such as circumcision. If my state were to ban religious circumcision, it could piss me (and many non-religious Muslims) off for interfering in stuff I barely think about.

Actually the law in the US already prohibits female circumcision. Any problems with that ?

No because we all know most people find a difference between male and female circumcision. And there are well-founded arguments that female circumcision is cultural, not religious. Female circumcision isn't even referenced in the Koran, but male circumcision referenced in the Torah.

Oh really, so now all of a sudden you have no problem interpreting other people's religion? It's only wrong when other people say that these burqa's are cultural not religious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

No because we all know most people find a difference between male and female circumcision.

---

And most people find a difference between black people and white people, so we should ban black people.

"It's only genital mutilation when you slice up a clitoris" is one of the stupider beliefs in Western culture, and that's saying a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I was referring to Hazir's reference of the pan-European situation. While only a small number were veils, you risk increasing that number by rounding-up the few who wear them. That's what I'm saying about radicalizing people.

EG, I'm not religious, but my religion does mandate some things we find weird these days, such as circumcision. If my state were to ban religious circumcision, it could piss me (and many non-religious Muslims) off for interfering in stuff I barely think about.

---

There aren't a large number even if you get all the burqa wearing women of whole Europe. And the Islamic society seems to be to split up to have the solidarity effect you speak about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

No because we all know most people find a difference between male and female circumcision. And there are well-founded arguments that female circumcision is cultural, not religious. Female circumcision isn't even referenced in the Koran, but male circumcision referenced in the Torah.

---

The burqa is also cultural and not religious. The quote from the Quran I have seen so far don't mention any full cover of their face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

We also have very strong views about not using the law against what people feel is their religious obligation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Oh really, so now all of a sudden you have no problem interpreting other people's religion? It's only wrong when other people say that these burqa's are cultural not religious?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

And most people find a difference between black people and white people, so we should ban black people.

"It's only genital mutilation when you slice up a clitoris" is one of the stupider beliefs in Western culture, and that's saying a lot.

---

Hook, line, sinker, battleship went kaput

:noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Oh really, so now all of a sudden you have no problem interpreting other people's religion? It's only wrong when other people say that these burqa's are cultural not religious?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

And most people find a difference between black people and white people, so we should ban black people.

"It's only genital mutilation when you slice up a clitoris" is one of the stupider beliefs in Western culture, and that's saying a lot.

---

Wow, you two completely misunderstood. :confused: I oppose the state banning veils and male circumcision —*without getting into another willy fight, there's no evidence that circumcision is harmful and makes someone lead a sexually unfulfilling life (unlike female circumcision).

My point is that regulating religious practices is pretty much guaranteed to piss people off. If you're going to do it, you better have a damn good reason to do so, especially when that religion is part of a rapidly growing minority. Female circumcision fits that category. Male circumcision we could argue about all day. But women putting some cloth on their face is best left to cultural pressure, not legal pressure.

***

Earthjoker- If I'm not mistaken, most of the Muslims in Switzerland don't really have the cultural history of veiling like many Muslims in Switzerland because of different origins.

Quote:

---

there's no evidence that circumcision is harmful

---

This is simply scientifically wrong

I'm sorry your whing-wham is not as satisfying, but that's just how it goes

Right. Can we please not get into this ultimately tangential and useless debate?

Only if you are willing to get into which religions are really religious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

there's no evidence that circumcision is harmful and makes someone lead a sexually unfulfilling life (unlike female circumcision).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

This is simply scientifically wrong

I'm sorry your whing-wham is not as satisfying, but that's just how it goes

---

Really, when Nessie and Cain are in agreement, there's a nearly 100% chance that you're wrong.

If you (Dread), really believe that circumcision isn't harmful, let me just cut the skin off of the top third of your index finger as a nifty analogous situation. I can even use circumcision gear to do it, if that puts you any more at ease.

Sorry your folks fucked up your wang, and it's now an inferior specimen, but that's no reason to allow that kind of abuse to continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Really, when Nessie and Cain are in agreement, there's a nearly 100% chance that you're wrong.

If you (Dread), really believe that circumcision isn't harmful, let me just cut the skin off of the top third of your index finger as a nifty analogous situation. I can even use circumcision gear to do it, if that puts you any more at ease.

Sorry your folks fucked up your wang, and it's now an inferior specimen, but that's no reason to allow that kind of abuse to continue.

---

Those two awfully suggestive studies on HIV transmission rates strike me as a reason to go slowly with the "ban it" line.

Because faggots are allergic to condoms

Poor faggots :(

'Cause you know, the foreskin is really analogous to the "top third of your index finger". Anti male circumcision militants always amuse me with their fervent insistence on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Because faggots are allergic to condoms

Poor faggots :(

---

True. We shouldn't be concerned with the plague God sent down to strike only the homosexual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Those two awfully suggestive studies on HIV transmission rates strike me as a reason to go slowly with the "ban it" line.

---

Because rather than slapping a 50 cent piece of latex over your dick, we should allow people to permanently scar their childrens' penii in order to achieve a much smaller effect? :bored:

OK, maybe in Africa where they can't afford condoms, there's a place for that argument. Maybe - what's the difference? 3%? On a 1 in 500 chance anyway? Practically the definition of unimpressive/insignificant. And given the cheap, readily available, and much more effective method of preventing HIV transmission, there's just no excuse for allowing this kind of barbarism in the so called "civilized" Western World.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

'Cause you know, the foreskin is really analogous to the "top third of your index finger". Anti male circumcision militants always amuse me with their fervent insistence on this.

---

Right, it's actually not - because foreskin is more important - protecting the penis, as well as providing sensation. I'd like to see your finger provide both functions. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

'Cause you know, the foreskin is really analogous to the "top third of your index finger". Anti male circumcision militants always amuse me with their fervent insistence on this.

---

Again, we're all really sorry you had some nerves lopped off your man-cunt, but there's no reason to be faux-condescending about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

True. We shouldn't be concerned with the plague God sent down to strike only the homosexual.

---

Well if it's good enough for the Red Cross, it ought be good enough for the World Forgotten!

Eh, I mean bad enough

Gay enough

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Right, it's actually not - because foreskin is more important - protecting the penis, as well as providing sensation. I'd like to see your finger provide both functions. :o

---

If sticking my pinky in things provided even half the sensation of sex, I would be going to department stores every weekend to molest some gloves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Again, we're all really sorry you had some nerves lopped off your man-cunt, but there's no reason to be faux-condescending about it.

---

Ironic, as you're the one being actually condescending about the thing that's never bothered me, never limited me and and most women here prefer. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Ironic, as you're the one being actually condescending about the thing that's never bothered me, never limited me and and most women here prefer. :confused:

---

It's like listening to an African Imam talk about female circumcision!

Seriously, almost word for word. You just need to add in the "God/Allah also says so" bit.

It's funny, the promoters of the Minaret ban just use the same arguments as Dread (they are against the Burqa ban). Oh BTW I am not in a favor of the ban, I just don't agree with the religious argument.

Well I actually don't think there is any reason that such a ban should not be possible if a country decides to have one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Ironic, as you're the one being actually condescending about the thing that's never bothered me, never limited me and and most women here prefer. :confused:

---

I'm glad your handicap works for you! A cut of some ten or twenty percent in sensation doesn't remove the orgasm, so that's completely religious (only not really since there are atheist kikes), we're all in awe of your prowess with the women and the gays who have died desiring you are legendary, and well the preferences of the American females are just so geared at insane wannabe-politicians like you that there's just no tomorrow. Certainly your ding-a-ling makes you an authority on what is religion and what is bush-whacking! That's what we're discussing, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

the preferences of the American females

---

Yeah, about that - I wonder how many even know the fucking difference (or could tell, without being told). None of the chicks I've been with seem to have noticed my lack of genital mutilation... at least without being told, which kind of weakens the "what women want" argument.

Assuming anyone would want an American woman to begin with. Though given Dread's recent "values and weapons" hawking, it seems he's gunning for that Murikan dream which unfortunately includes a Yank broad. Poor Dread :(

I'm just picturing Cain in bed with a woman..."but...but...haven't you noticed my lack of genital mutilation? Doesn't that mean something to you?" :haha:

Seriously, this is inane.

Which is just a sign of how good you are at making smoke-screens to avoid uncomfortable topics! I smell a Pubby senator

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

and most women here prefer. :confused:

---

Only North American jewish girl I've been with did not prefer that :o If we're talking anecdotes anyway..

But honestly, even if it would be better, it's still a form of mutilation so to speak. and irreversible. Could at least make it a choice for an adult, rather than force it on a child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Assuming anyone would want an American woman to begin with.

---

Really. Gimmie a slutty piece of Euro-trash tail or a hot Irish redhead over an American chick any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I'm just picturing Cain in bed with a woman..."but...but...haven't you noticed my lack of genital mutilation? Doesn't that mean something to you?" :haha:

---

Yes, that's kinda the point, isn't it? You can't really [honestly] say they want one or the other better when they can't even tell the difference. As usual, "what women think" turns out to be an oxymoronic phrase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Those two awfully suggestive studies on HIV transmission rates strike me as a reason to go slowly with the "ban it" line.

---

Agreed, although really that shouldn't matter in principle, since an ethical call on genital mutilation has to be made in the absence of any "benefits."

But I should say there is a profound difference between female and male circumcision as practiced. Both the results and the intent are very different. IIRC the female circumcision is cutting OFF the clitoris, and usually abolishes any chance of orgasm for life. Also, isn't the intention to prevent females from sexual interest, thereby ensuring fidelity ot their husband? Am I wrong in this? It is therefore intrinsically a practice of gender oppression. It is used not for some abstract religious reason, but to keep women in their places.

For the male, it can decrease sexual enjoyment, but doesn't eliminate it. Not even close. I can't say what the religious justification is for Jews, but it certainly not an instrument of control or oppression.

So I don't think one can automatically compare the two. There are too many differences.

So let's compare it with the parents lopping off the earlobes. Or the left pinky toe. PRO-TIP: Both would net the loving parents an assault charge

Heheh, tip