Banning the Burqa

[Symmetry]

a real quick google search provided the following:

Four burka bombers - 4/2/2011
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/ ... an-capital

2 burqa bombers - 4/17/2010
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/2010 ... or-attack/

Burqa bombers - 7/22/2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 55887.html

Lovely- but still not really addressing any of the points I brought up.

It's happened more than once. It's both men and women.

I don't' care what people wear UNDER the burqa...the burqa is used to conceal the explosives. You can't put explosives UNDER skinny jeans and have them properly concealed. Yes, backpacks are also used for bombs. Yes, there are many ways of concealing your identity. Some are hard, some are easy. Plastic Surgery is hard. Putting on a burqa is easy. Something that covers 100% of a persons skin, leaves them completely concealed and unrecognizable, isn't something people should be wearing in public.

FYI...i've seen lots of women covered in seattle. Everything is covered except the face, so you can see recognize them and identify them. I think this is fine. I'm against burqa's, just like ski masks.

Let's just get the first point out of the way- you were criticising people for not reading the article you posted, which did not say the things you claimed it was saying. That's why I called you up on it.

I think I'm actually being a bit unfair on you with some of this stuff- your posts aren't particularly clear on a lot of points, which brings out my inner pedant. So I'll try to be a bit less of an ass with your arguments.

I consider the threat of suicide bombing to be entirely separate to the issue of the burqa. There are too many other ways to conceal a bomb to credibly argue that the burqa should be singled out. Also- the problem that people have with the burqa is that it covers the face. A moo-moo would cover a suicide vest. Nobody is arguing for banning moo-moos. Backpacks can conceal bombs, and have done. Nobody is arguing that they should be banned. It's just not a relevant argument.

Issues of identification are a bit better, and here I think you have some better points. As I've said earlier, any activity which requires positive identification should require the removal of the burqa. I can see why you would argue that people should be readily identifiable in all public places, but that's not something that we require of anyone else. Balaclavas, ski masks, and (in the UK at least) motorcycle helmets are not illegal in public places, although they are banned (I'm not sure if it's a blank legal ban, or a choice by the proprietors) from certain types of businesses- banks, petrol stations, post offices, etc. They are not banned in public. I have no objection to someone wearing a motorcycle helmet in public. Walking in to a bank with one on would be a different matter, but wouldn't warrant a blanket ban.

So- wearing a burqa in stores, or banks etc. is pretty much what's left to deal with. You have a very decent point arguing about covering your face when it might be used to help commit a crime, but I think we agree that there are many ways to conceal your identity, and none of those are being singled out for banning other than wearing the burqa. Motorcycle helmets, ski masks etc. are of course still not allowed in many places of business, but they aren't banned by law either. Also, I don't think that the burqa has the kind of history of use in robberies that caused those businesses to put those rules in place.

[bedub1]

Sorry, I thought it was common knowledge that burqas were used by suicide combers.

Concerning security in general:
Hijackers used box cutters, they are now banned. Somebody tried to use a shoe bomb, now we have to take off our shoes. Somebody tried to use liquid bombs, so no more liquids over 4oz's. People have used burqa's many times, so no more Burqa's. Sorry...blame it on bin laden and the terrorist that use these things.

It sounds like we already agree on the identification purposes of it....it's not "legal" to completely conceal your identity in a bank etc.

I would say then, that it's not proper to go after Burqa's by name. Instead, the law should be written to outlaw items which completely conceal the identity of an individual etc. Keep the ski masks on the ski mountain, the motorcycle helmets on the rider while he's riding, and the burqa's in church.

[sheepofdumb]

@Woodruff: That is a solution that very few burqa wearer's would agree to.

Do you believe so? I absolutely do not. Compromise is necessary in this situation and any reasonable Muslim would recognize the need to expose their face to a camera for a very limited amount of time before re-covering themselves.

That's like asking an american to strip down naked for a picture. They are wearing total cover for a reason. This isn't some high fashion statement. It's a religious belief that has been ingrained into their culture. Exposing their face in public (I.E. not the complete privacy of their house and to only their husbands) is like an American female flashing her boobs. The women who wear burqas are going to be the ones who feel this way. Other muslims might not see it this way but we are not dealing with them. We are dealing with conservatives. You are going to be moving a mountain with your fingernails.

They are wearing the burqa so they won't expose themselves. If they expose themselves at all then they have compromised themselves.

So what you're saying is that the Muslims should not have any part of compromise and that the only compromise MUST come from the rest of us? And you see that as reasonable...why?

Is english your first language? If it is you really fail at reading comprehension. This is the second time in 48 hours that you have misread and misinterpreted what I said. It seems like most people just can't comprehend what I've written. Is it something I'm doing?

They would compromise themselves morally. Yes, this is a morality issue for them. They are wearing the burqas to cover up as much skin as the senses will allow. If they could their eyes would be covered as well but that makes life a little too hard.

Many words in the english language have more than one meaning to them Woody. Compromise (in this case I am using this definition of the word: • the acceptance of standards that are lower than is desirable) is one of them It would be in your best interest to learn them before you discuss politics.

If you had been paying attention my suggestion (which, again, was a first attempt for a compromise for both parties that wouldn't compromise their beliefs or concerns. It has its flaws but is one possible solution where neither party would have to give up their core values.) was that the muslims find a way to identify themselves in a way that did not expose skin. At the end I encouraged others to think and discuss ideas that would make both sides happy.

[Symmetry]

Sorry, I thought it was common knowledge that burqas were used by suicide combers.

I thought it was common knowledge that backpacks were used too. This is still a massively irrelevant argument.

Concerning security in general:
Hijackers used box cutters, they are now banned. Somebody tried to use a shoe bomb, now we have to take off our shoes. Somebody tried to use liquid bombs, so no more liquids over 4oz's. People have used burqa's many times, so no more Burqa's. Sorry...blame it on bin laden and the terrorist that use these things.

After promising to be nice, this honestly seems like trolling or stupidity. Nothing here is even close to being an argument for banning Muslims from wearing a burqa.

It sounds like we already agree on the identification purposes of it....it's not "legal" to completely conceal your identity in a bank etc.

I would say then, that it's not proper to go after Burqa's by name. Instead, the law should be written to outlaw items which completely conceal the identity of an individual etc. Keep the ski masks on the ski mountain, the motorcycle helmets on the rider while he's riding, and the burqa's in church.

We agree that identification is a problem, but not on the practical application of it. I think we're pretty much ok- existing laws and processes deal with the burqa pretty well.

[Woodruff]

Sorry, I thought it was common knowledge that burqas were used by suicide bombers.

So are backpacks. Why aren't you suggesting that backpacks should be banned? Is it because they're not Muslim enough?

[Snorri1234]

' - The reason why the 'West' has such a problem with a full-veiled burqa is the fact that the woman's body is covered, and in a western, capitalist society, women are only valued by the body that they display - Apparently 'freedom' is the ability to wear as little as possible -

Yeah....obviously I'm against the burqa because it prevents me from oggling chicks....

[Woodruff]

If you had been paying attention my suggestion (which, again, was a first attempt for a compromise for both parties that wouldn't compromise their beliefs or concerns. It has its flaws but is one possible solution where neither party would have to give up their core values.) was that the muslims find a way to identify themselves in a way that did not expose skin. At the end I encouraged others to think and discuss ideas that would make both sides happy.

How would it be possible to identify someone without exposing their skin? If you're talking about some sort of identification on the burqa itself, that simply won't work as it would be far too easy to simply "use one that isn't yours". If you're not talking about that, then I'd be interested in hearing it.

[Woodruff]

' - The reason why the 'West' has such a problem with a full-veiled burqa is the fact that the woman's body is covered, and in a western, capitalist society, women are only valued by the body that they display - Apparently 'freedom' is the ability to wear as little as possible -

Yeah....obviously I'm against the burqa because it prevents me from oggling chicks....

Gotta agree with snorri here...that hadn't even occurred to me as a possible reason why those in the west dislike burqas, nor do I think it has any legitimacy in the discussion.

[Snorri1234]

If Burqas are banned, then we better ban those nun habits as well.

Yes.

[Woodruff]

If Burqas are banned, then we better ban those nun habits as well.

Yes.

Why? Nuns faces aren't covered in the habits I have seen.

[Snorri1234]

If Burqas are banned, then we better ban those nun habits as well.

Yes.

Why? Nuns faces aren't covered in the habits I have seen.

The coverage of faces isn't an important aspect for me. That is: The essential part of my againstness to burqas is that they are a means of religious oppression. I don't support the wearing of a nijab or "modest, good christian girl" clothes either.

Of course, I wouldn't actually argue for a burqa-ban because I am not a moron. The idea that such a thing would work is laughable.

[Timminz]

I'm all for banning clothing. It's just another step closer to living in a nudetopia.

[saxitoxin]

' - The reason why the 'West' has such a problem with a full-veiled burqa is the fact that the woman's body is covered, and in a western, capitalist society, women are only valued by the body that they display - Apparently 'freedom' is the ability to wear as little as possible -

This is true.

In the capitalist west the oligarchy seeks to maximize the sexualization of the proletariat. This accomplishes several goals.

Most principally among them, increased opportunities for recreational procreation serve as a distraction device - in addition to the usual tactics such as television, video games, etc. - which cause the working class to lose focus and concentration on the reality of their predicament. It is the introduction of cake and games to dazzle and placate and it is mostly effective because workers in the technologically advanced countries now have their needs fulfilled by the power elite from sufficiency to superfluidity. However, what they receive is in satisfaction of false needs while their true need - liberation - goes undiscovered even by themselves.

However - ultimately - simply rejecting sexualization is not enough as the ruling elite have endless resources to expend. The only way for the workers to win is to free themselves from the dominant sexual practice. As Andreas Baader said, "fucking and shooting are the same thing." This is why the homosexuals are important to internationalist revolutionary action in the west as they act in opposition to the dominant sexual practice. (Doubly confusing, however, is that gays do not figure as an important element - and, in fact, are actually lumpenproletariat - in nations that have been liberated under the red banner of a vanguard party.)

[rdsrds2120]

Reason for banning the Burqa: They are used by dangerous people.

My question is, do you think that making them not wear this will make them any less dangerous? On the subject of Suicide Bombing, would it prevent one from doing that?

-rd

[saxitoxin]

I note that - with a few exceptions (RadioJake being among them) - many of those defending the crypto-fascist Frenglish, Dutcher and Canadian governments (not in this thread specifically, but across the vastness of many other threads) in engaging in this form of popular mind control and suppression of free speech were the same ones decrying (unsuccessful) American efforts to stop a mosque from being built in Manhattan, though that nation has put forth no effort to ban the burqa.

The hypocrisy of this is explained by the additional distraction device of anti-Americanism. In the filthy capitalistic west, what passes for socialism is in fact a perverted hybridization of nationalism, the same type of nightmarish brutality that sits at the heart of the cultural mindset of Europeans and those of white ancestry. The use of anti-Americanism in speech is acceptable - in fact, it should be encouraged - when done to call-out the puppetization of western Europe, however, the ruling elite actively move its use in puerile endeavors such as these minaret-vs-burqa brawls which water its effectiveness as a rhetorical approach.

[sheepofdumb]

If you had been paying attention my suggestion (which, again, was a first attempt for a compromise for both parties that wouldn't compromise their beliefs or concerns. It has its flaws but is one possible solution where neither party would have to give up their core values.) was that the muslims find a way to identify themselves in a way that did not expose skin. At the end I encouraged others to think and discuss ideas that would make both sides happy.

How would it be possible to identify someone without exposing their skin? If you're talking about some sort of identification on the burqa itself, that simply won't work as it would be far too easy to simply "use one that isn't yours". If you're not talking about that, then I'd be interested in hearing it.

I can't think of any other solutions that can allow the women to remain veiled and allow for easy ID. If you have a system that requires some form of easily recognizable exposed ID, like how a license plate on a car works, then you drastically reduce the search for the person to a small geographical area. If someone took/borrowed a neighbors then at least you have a solid lead. If there's no ID to be found then, like an unmarked car, people would become suspicious. You can identify someone without exposing their skin you know. Why do think dog tags were invented?

Just to clarify my viewpoint. Burqas are a security risk to the public because they hide the person under them. Banning them suppresses religious freedom. How can you identify the person under them so, for example, a court case people can identify the wearer.

I am not concerned about suicide bombers and the like because they are an extremely small fraction of people in a very large culture. If they just want to kill people in public they could conceal their weapon any number of ways so there's no point in banning them all. If they want to blow up an airplane or something then the security team can stop them.

[Woodruff]

If they want to blow up an airplane or something then the security team can stop them.

You've apparently never seen our security teams in action. They're too busy with their porn careers.

[BigBallinStalin]

' - The reason why the 'West' has such a problem with a full-veiled burqa is the fact that the woman's body is covered, and in a western, capitalist society, women are only valued by the body that they display - Apparently 'freedom' is the ability to wear as little as possible -

This is true.

In the capitalist west the oligarchy seeks to maximize the sexualization of the proletariat. This accomplishes several goals.

Most principally among them, increased opportunities for recreational procreation serve as a distraction device - in addition to the usual tactics such as television, video games, etc. - which cause the working class to lose focus and concentration on the reality of their predicament. It is the introduction of cake and games to dazzle and placate and it is mostly effective because workers in the technologically advanced countries now have their needs fulfilled by the power elite from sufficiency to superfluidity. However, what they receive is in satisfaction of false needs while their true need - liberation - goes undiscovered even by themselves.

However - ultimately - simply rejecting sexualization is not enough as the ruling elite have endless resources to expend. The only way for the workers to win is to free themselves from the dominant sexual practice. As Andreas Baader said, "fucking and shooting are the same thing." This is why the homosexuals are important to internationalist revolutionary action in the west as they act in opposition to the dominant sexual practice. (Doubly confusing, however, is that gays do not figure as an important element - and, in fact, are actually lumpenproletariat - in nations that have been liberated under the red banner of a vanguard party.)

This is what many Buddhists preach. Are you suggesting we shake off our desires, and then help each other for the greater social good by become quasi- or 100%-Buddhist?

[radiojake]

' - The reason why the 'West' has such a problem with a full-veiled burqa is the fact that the woman's body is covered, and in a western, capitalist society, women are only valued by the body that they display - Apparently 'freedom' is the ability to wear as little as possible -

This is true.

In the capitalist west the oligarchy seeks to maximize the sexualization of the proletariat. This accomplishes several goals.

Most principally among them, increased opportunities for recreational procreation serve as a distraction device - in addition to the usual tactics such as television, video games, etc. - which cause the working class to lose focus and concentration on the reality of their predicament. It is the introduction of cake and games to dazzle and placate and it is mostly effective because workers in the technologically advanced countries now have their needs fulfilled by the power elite from sufficiency to superfluidity. However, what they receive is in satisfaction of false needs while their true need - liberation - goes undiscovered even by themselves.

However - ultimately - simply rejecting sexualization is not enough as the ruling elite have endless resources to expend. The only way for the workers to win is to free themselves from the dominant sexual practice. As Andreas Baader said, "fucking and shooting are the same thing." This is why the homosexuals are important to internationalist revolutionary action in the west as they act in opposition to the dominant sexual practice. (Doubly confusing, however, is that gays do not figure as an important element - and, in fact, are actually lumpenproletariat - in nations that have been liberated under the red banner of a vanguard party.)

Interestingly enough, I read that Islam considered seduction a threat to the polity and social order, hence the existance of the burqa -

The west, on the contrary, has turned seduction into a commodity - We are seduced daily by advertising to help fuel the economy; we are also seduced by politicians to help keep the polity stable.

The burqa doesn't fit into this system, that's why the west has such a problem with it. Anyone who says 'women's liberation' while ignoring the inherent patriarchy still present in the west is a mindless moron seduced by the hegemony of the West. Ofcourse the burqa is a symbol of Islamic patriarchy, I've never denied that: but you can't call it out on being 'oppressive to women' while you ignore the oppressive nature of our own system to women.

I

[saxitoxin]

This is what many Buddhists preach. Are you suggesting we shake off our desires, and then help each other for the greater social good by become quasi- or 100%-Buddhist?

false

' - The reason why the 'West' has such a problem with a full-veiled burqa is the fact that the woman's body is covered, and in a western, capitalist society, women are only valued by the body that they display - Apparently 'freedom' is the ability to wear as little as possible -

This is true.

In the capitalist west the oligarchy seeks to maximize the sexualization of the proletariat. This accomplishes several goals.

Most principally among them, increased opportunities for recreational procreation serve as a distraction device - in addition to the usual tactics such as television, video games, etc. - which cause the working class to lose focus and concentration on the reality of their predicament. It is the introduction of cake and games to dazzle and placate and it is mostly effective because workers in the technologically advanced countries now have their needs fulfilled by the power elite from sufficiency to superfluidity. However, what they receive is in satisfaction of false needs while their true need - liberation - goes undiscovered even by themselves.

However - ultimately - simply rejecting sexualization is not enough as the ruling elite have endless resources to expend. The only way for the workers to win is to free themselves from the dominant sexual practice. As Andreas Baader said, "fucking and shooting are the same thing." This is why the homosexuals are important to internationalist revolutionary action in the west as they act in opposition to the dominant sexual practice. (Doubly confusing, however, is that gays do not figure as an important element - and, in fact, are actually lumpenproletariat - in nations that have been liberated under the red banner of a vanguard party.)

Interestingly enough, I read that Islam considered seduction a threat to the polity and social order, hence the existance of the burqa -

The west, on the contrary, has turned seduction into a commodity - We are seduced daily by advertising to help fuel the economy; we are also seduced by politicians to help keep the polity stable.

The burqa doesn't fit into this system, that's why the west has such a problem with it. Anyone who says 'women's liberation' while ignoring the inherent patriarchy still present in the west is a mindless moron seduced by the hegemony of the West. Ofcourse the burqa is a symbol of Islamic patriarchy, I've never denied that: but you can't call it out on being 'oppressive to women' while you ignore the oppressive nature of our own system to women.

I

true

[BigBallinStalin]

This is what many Buddhists preach. Are you suggesting we shake off our desires, and then help each other for the greater social good by become quasi- or 100%-Buddhist?

false

' - The reason why the 'West' has such a problem with a full-veiled burqa is the fact that the woman's body is covered, and in a western, capitalist society, women are only valued by the body that they display - Apparently 'freedom' is the ability to wear as little as possible -

This is true.

In the capitalist west the oligarchy seeks to maximize the sexualization of the proletariat. This accomplishes several goals.

Most principally among them, increased opportunities for recreational procreation serve as a distraction device - in addition to the usual tactics such as television, video games, etc. - which cause the working class to lose focus and concentration on the reality of their predicament. It is the introduction of cake and games to dazzle and placate and it is mostly effective because workers in the technologically advanced countries now have their needs fulfilled by the power elite from sufficiency to superfluidity. However, what they receive is in satisfaction of false needs while their true need - liberation - goes undiscovered even by themselves.

However - ultimately - simply rejecting sexualization is not enough as the ruling elite have endless resources to expend. The only way for the workers to win is to free themselves from the dominant sexual practice. As Andreas Baader said, "fucking and shooting are the same thing." This is why the homosexuals are important to internationalist revolutionary action in the west as they act in opposition to the dominant sexual practice. (Doubly confusing, however, is that gays do not figure as an important element - and, in fact, are actually lumpenproletariat - in nations that have been liberated under the red banner of a vanguard party.)

Interestingly enough, I read that Islam considered seduction a threat to the polity and social order, hence the existance of the burqa -

The west, on the contrary, has turned seduction into a commodity - We are seduced daily by advertising to help fuel the economy; we are also seduced by politicians to help keep the polity stable.

The burqa doesn't fit into this system, that's why the west has such a problem with it. Anyone who says 'women's liberation' while ignoring the inherent patriarchy still present in the west is a mindless moron seduced by the hegemony of the West. Ofcourse the burqa is a symbol of Islamic patriarchy, I've never denied that: but you can't call it out on being 'oppressive to women' while you ignore the oppressive nature of our own system to women.

I

true

How do you guys know that people are truly being seduced?

Both of you are assuming that people have no free will in such matters like deciding what clothes to buy, or which school to go to, or any activity that involves exchanging money for some good or service.

[Symmetry]

If Burqas are banned, then we better ban those nun habits as well.

Yes.

Why? Nuns faces aren't covered in the habits I have seen.

The coverage of faces isn't an important aspect for me. That is: The essential part of my againstness to burqas is that they are a means of religious oppression. I don't support the wearing of a nijab or "modest, good christian girl" clothes either.

Of course, I wouldn't actually argue for a burqa-ban because I am not a moron. The idea that such a thing would work is laughable.

Yeah- this is the reason why I haven't voted yet in my own thread. I really hate all the "it should be banned because of terrorism" arguments, and the idenitity ones only bear a bit of weight.

Religious oppression is a much more interesting argument. I know people (however much that counts for) who have been ostracised for failing to cover up in public. I also have a friend who feels ostracised because she does.

It's pretty clear to me that some women are forced, or pressured to wear the burqa. It's also pretty clear that others do so out of choice.

I pretty much fall on the non-ban side, but women forced or pressured to wear it is pretty much the strongest argument for the other side.

[saxitoxin]

This is what many Buddhists preach. Are you suggesting we shake off our desires, and then help each other for the greater social good by become quasi- or 100%-Buddhist?

false

' - The reason why the 'West' has such a problem with a full-veiled burqa is the fact that the woman's body is covered, and in a western, capitalist society, women are only valued by the body that they display - Apparently 'freedom' is the ability to wear as little as possible -

This is true.

In the capitalist west the oligarchy seeks to maximize the sexualization of the proletariat. This accomplishes several goals.

Most principally among them, increased opportunities for recreational procreation serve as a distraction device - in addition to the usual tactics such as television, video games, etc. - which cause the working class to lose focus and concentration on the reality of their predicament. It is the introduction of cake and games to dazzle and placate and it is mostly effective because workers in the technologically advanced countries now have their needs fulfilled by the power elite from sufficiency to superfluidity. However, what they receive is in satisfaction of false needs while their true need - liberation - goes undiscovered even by themselves.

However - ultimately - simply rejecting sexualization is not enough as the ruling elite have endless resources to expend. The only way for the workers to win is to free themselves from the dominant sexual practice. As Andreas Baader said, "fucking and shooting are the same thing." This is why the homosexuals are important to internationalist revolutionary action in the west as they act in opposition to the dominant sexual practice. (Doubly confusing, however, is that gays do not figure as an important element - and, in fact, are actually lumpenproletariat - in nations that have been liberated under the red banner of a vanguard party.)

Interestingly enough, I read that Islam considered seduction a threat to the polity and social order, hence the existance of the burqa -

The west, on the contrary, has turned seduction into a commodity - We are seduced daily by advertising to help fuel the economy; we are also seduced by politicians to help keep the polity stable.

The burqa doesn't fit into this system, that's why the west has such a problem with it. Anyone who says 'women's liberation' while ignoring the inherent patriarchy still present in the west is a mindless moron seduced by the hegemony of the West. Ofcourse the burqa is a symbol of Islamic patriarchy, I've never denied that: but you can't call it out on being 'oppressive to women' while you ignore the oppressive nature of our own system to women.

I

true

How do you guys know that people are truly being seduced?

Well, frankly, because I'm usually the one seducing them.

I pretty much fall on the non-ban side, but women forced or pressured to wear it is pretty much the strongest argument for the other side.

Some women are compelled to wear religious clothing. We should ban all burqas.

Some women feel pressured into giving it up on the third date. We should ban penises.

I have a tourniquet and a #36 scalpel next to my keyboard. Symmetry - you ready to go first or should Snorri? It won't take me more than 10-15 minutes.

[BigBallinStalin]

false

This is true.

In the capitalist west the oligarchy seeks to maximize the sexualization of the proletariat. This accomplishes several goals.

Most principally among them, increased opportunities for recreational procreation serve as a distraction device - in addition to the usual tactics such as television, video games, etc. - which cause the working class to lose focus and concentration on the reality of their predicament. It is the introduction of cake and games to dazzle and placate and it is mostly effective because workers in the technologically advanced countries now have their needs fulfilled by the power elite from sufficiency to superfluidity. However, what they receive is in satisfaction of false needs while their true need - liberation - goes undiscovered even by themselves.

However - ultimately - simply rejecting sexualization is not enough as the ruling elite have endless resources to expend. The only way for the workers to win is to free themselves from the dominant sexual practice. As Andreas Baader said, "fucking and shooting are the same thing." This is why the homosexuals are important to internationalist revolutionary action in the west as they act in opposition to the dominant sexual practice. (Doubly confusing, however, is that gays do not figure as an important element - and, in fact, are actually lumpenproletariat - in nations that have been liberated under the red banner of a vanguard party.)

Interestingly enough, I read that Islam considered seduction a threat to the polity and social order, hence the existance of the burqa -

The west, on the contrary, has turned seduction into a commodity - We are seduced daily by advertising to help fuel the economy; we are also seduced by politicians to help keep the polity stable.

The burqa doesn't fit into this system, that's why the west has such a problem with it. Anyone who says 'women's liberation' while ignoring the inherent patriarchy still present in the west is a mindless moron seduced by the hegemony of the West. Ofcourse the burqa is a symbol of Islamic patriarchy, I've never denied that: but you can't call it out on being 'oppressive to women' while you ignore the oppressive nature of our own system to women.

I

true

How do you guys know that people are truly being seduced?

Well, frankly, because I'm usually the one seducing them.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Symmetry]

Some women are compelled to wear religious clothing. We should ban all burqas.

Some women feel pressured into giving it up on the third date. We should ban penises.

I have a tourniquet and a #36 scalpel next to my keyboard. Symmetry - you ready to go first or should Snorri? It won't take me more than 10-15 minutes.

I'll book myself in for an appointment, I can live with only one.