 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
So the state can choose to impliment it or not, but it is stil there? What, prey tell, is an unimplimented right? Freedom of expression is something granted by the government, whatever that government is.
|
Forgive the misunderstanding. A free will is an existential state. A "right" is a property of that state relative to other humans. A state recognised "right" is that right being enshrined in statute. You have the right, you just don't have the legal right (the two are distinct).
Drogue, as we have previously discussed, we all act in our own best interests. If I live in a repressive state where there is no freedom of speech, and I say something illegal, I have done so because it is in my best interests. The law is not existential... essense but (something like) no existence like all sociological constructs. You do so because of certain motivations, weighing them up against the risks... it, like many things is a question of potential difference.
The legal consequences have not changed that result, you still have the right, just there are now different consequences, since the law is merely consequential.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dry
|
 |
Brussels
Sep 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
The scarf does not hurt anybody (unless it's the family that forces to wearing it), and if a girl thinks God will her to wear it, it is dumb and cruel to force her to take it off, especially if she wears it everywhere else and is not used to being seen half-naked, as she may understand it.
Additionally, a stress caused by such situation my be harmful to her school performance |
If only it was as simple as that.
But it's not.
Some point of the debate - even in the muslim community (*) - is to know if the headscarf does mean submission or not. Submission of women to men, which means inequality.
If - I insist: IF - the headscarf means inequality between men and women, then it hurts hard the second principle of the french trinity Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite.
As I know the Frenches and their ideas about what the Public School should teach, I am almost sure that those who support that scarf ban are convinced that Public School MUST teach equality.
And for them, certainly, muslim girls are FORBIDDEN by republican law to show or proselyte that they are inferior to men.
(*) may I just remind you the "Ni putes, ni soumises" association (Neither whore, nor submissive) that fight against the common idea amongst some muslims that scarf means submission, no scarf means whore.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
If wearing a scarf is required by Islamic doctrines, it is not freedom of expression.
Besides, freedom of expression is not absolute. For example, Nazi symbols and hate speeches.
|
You choose to follow a faith though, you are ultimately responsible for the decision. Expression of what? It needn't be expression of autonomy or individuality because they are loaded terms, might be collectivity or tradition instead, to which terms expression is objective.
Would you say that if I decided to wear a Kippur, it would not be freedom of expression, instead religious "indoctrination" or a command of Judaism? Would you say that even if I was responsible for the choice to be Jewish and follow that faith?
Of course freedom of expression isn't absolute, but nowhere did I claim it was. I believe it is most consistent in a society however and gives the most respect by statute to religious customs, but primarily the individual, if we assume that the individual has free will at the given moment (think more along the lines of Sartre's subjectivism, determinism still holds in the more objective context).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Equally, the government forcing them not to wear the headscarf is freedom of expression, as they have chosen to live in that nation.
|
True (considering that their actions have consequences, and such a contract would be consequential accordingly). However, if the society seeks to not diminish the freedom of its citizens, as the French are claiming to be doing, then in the context of that society, that is precisely what they are doing. I also question the reasoning behind what they are doing too, never mind the violation of freedom, are the consequences wise or considered? What are their motives? Those aren't rhetorical questions.
However, one other flaw.... In a state, the laws pertain consequences, in a religion, there are no such consequences (one assumes the religion acts within the bounds of the law, which in this case it does). It's an association of individuals effectively, with rules that they choose to abide by or not. Once you are within the society, as far as society (note the individual always acts for their own egoisms) is concerned there is no such choice, and they have the means to make it so. There is a necessary contextual difference between the two therefore, that, for the point of view of that society, means that it cannot use that logic to justify such rules in the same manner.
I must ask however, what reason is there to ban headscarfs in schools?
(Drogue can you get online?)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
So we can't lose soem freedom of expression, but we can lose freedom of movement through pain?
|
As children, our ability to express ourselves in such a manner develops largely independent of linguistics, at about the age of three along with the theory of mind, with the exception of autistics/aspergics whose development is impaired and delayed. Our ability to associate, and develop responsibility for our actions and associations (its easier to recognise consequences of communication after all, elements of that are hard-wired from birth) develops later, in my opinion earlier in those who are spanked. Note how I am defining spankable behaviour.
quote:
Waiting for years so that education teaches tolerance and stops this problem somewhat won't help the people being bullied now.
|
Making the many suffer for the benefit of the few? That makes somewhat less sense than making a few suffer for the benefit of the many!  . If people are being bullied, laws cannot help... its a psychological and sociological phenomenon that in my experience needs to be tackled on a case-by-case basis. Simply creating a blanket law to spare the effort won't work.
quote:
So reduce the freedom
|
The benefits of freedom (never mind the Mill Limit  ) warrent the increase of responsibility, thus corporal punishment to bring about that responsibility sooner and more fully. Reducing freedom to solve such a problem is a) inconsistent, b) overkill, c) unwise conseqeuntially and d) introduces numerous harmful slippery slopes. An example of my favourite logical empass... reductio ad absurdium! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
As children, our ability to express ourselves in such a manner develops largely independent of linguistics, at about the age of three along with the theory of mind, with the exception of autistics/aspergics whose development is impaired and delayed. Our ability to associate, and develop responsibility for our actions and associations (its easier to recognise consequences of communication after all, elements of that are hard-wired from birth) develops later, in my opinion earlier in those who are spanked. Note how I am defining spankable behaviour. |
So children aren't subject to the same freedoms? Surely that applies for this too? Spanking isn't the only punishment.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Making the many suffer for the benefit of the few? That makes somewhat less sense than making a few suffer for the benefit of the many! . If people are being bullied, laws cannot help... its a psychological and sociological phenomenon that in my experience needs to be tackled on a case-by-case basis. Simply creating a blanket law to spare the effort won't work. |
If people are being bullied, and laws reuce that bullying, laws *have* helped. Whether it helps the many or the few is irrelevant, you asked for a reason for the French governments actions. Stopping bullying is one. Whether you think it's worth it or not, they do.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
The benefits of freedom (never mind the Mill Limit ) warrent the increase of responsibility, thus corporal punishment to bring about that responsibility sooner and more fully. |
Surely responsibility would come about through the natural consequences of a childs actions, not some consequence imposed by someone with a stick. What should you teach? Should I be able to hit you when I think you do something stupid? Should your mother? or should you lean yourself when you do soemthing stupid that it has consequences.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
So children aren't subject to the same freedoms? Surely that applies for this too? Spanking isn't the only punishment.
|
Yes and no. Children have the same freedom of expression but not the same freedom of association. For example, I would treat the views of my youngest brother as his own and he is perfectly free to express them in my view. However, he is not free disobey myself or his parents if, for example, we ask that he go upstairs to bed, whereas I do have that freedom.
Children are not subject to the same freedoms as an adult, because though they have the same free will as any sentient being, they cannot assume responsibility for it, so parents, carers, teachers etc, take that responsibility upon themselves.
quote:
If people are being bullied, and laws reuce that bullying, laws *have* helped. Whether it helps the many or the few is irrelevant, you asked for a reason for the French governments actions. Stopping bullying is one. Whether you think it's worth it or not, they do.
|
True. Again reality and the human race sucks  . Still thats no reason to stop questioning it.
quote:
Surely responsibility would come about through the natural consequences of a childs actions, not some consequence imposed by someone with a stick. What should you teach? Should I be able to hit you when I think you do something stupid? Should your mother? or should you lean yourself when you do soemthing stupid that it has consequences.
|
If the consequences aren't easily foreseen by a child, how are they to know they exist? In stark terms, that needs to be demonstrated, but not so that spanking becomes negative reinforcement or worse, hence it should remain illegal in the home, only permissible in school where teachers should be trained in its use.
If I am a child and I do something wrong, I think that if you are my teacher then if the incident fulfills certain criteria, then the cane should be used. However, let's not threadjack, if you want a thread on corporal punishment, feel free to start one.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-09-2004 17:25
.
I agree with fighting the causes, but that takes time. You must do that while using temporary measures to stop the crime quicker. Waiting for years so that education teaches tolerance and stops this problem somewhat won't help the people being bullied now.
|