|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted September 16, 2010 05:50 PM |
|
|
lol Fauch, the Hitler comparison is soo frenchy manner.
Always the others are guilty for our ignorance or laziness. If president can be blamed, let's slaughter him wholeheartedly. France is a lost country because so arrogant people, sorry. The whole world collapse in all ways right now, and the only guilty is...Sarkozy.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 06:14 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 18:18, 16 Sep 2010.
|
Quote:
Right. That's what I mean. So if you reject an applicant because you think that a veiled woman isn't helping your business, and the applicant sues you for discrimination of religious reasons, you'll have to prove that you did it for practical reasons, which would mean, a court would officially judge that a face veil hurts business (if you want to win).
No, all an employer has to do is set a dress code. He can refuse to hire anyone who will not abide by the dress code or fire them if they violate the dress code after they are hired.
It is quite obvious that if you are hiring someone to model female swimsuits the person can't wear a burka over the swimsuit and still do their job.
Quote:
So some Muslims are being required by France to go against their religious beliefs or stay out of public places.
It is sad that France does not allow people to practice their religion freely even when such practice harms no one.
It's not so much of a difference, whether you have to either go against your belief or stay out of a ton of jobs (see above) or whether you have to either go against your beliefs or stay out of public places.
Errrr Muslims can work jobs that allow veils to be worn and only a bigot would refuse to hire a woman simply becasue she wears a veil unless the wearing of a veil interfered with her job performance. The government should not be run by bigots or have bigotted policies in place. There is absolutely no reason not to allow a woman to wear a veil in public except bigotry on behalf of the legislature. Of course I have noted excetptions earlier like security sensitive areas and removal of a veil for identification purposes.
Quote:
we had a similar discussion for certain Christian fundamentalist views on blood transfers and treatments of ailments, where authorities react on fundamental attitudes.
Jehovah's Witnesses say Jesus is not God and so don't qualify as fundamentalist Christians according to the words of Jesus recorded in the New Testament.
But yes, France has shown its bigotry towards JWs. JWs don't believe in blood transfustions but France says "**** you. You will bow to the State-god, not to your God" and forces blood transfusions on them anyways.
Quote:
Let's not forget that as long Western societies have been dominated by religion there has been a lot of inequality and discrimination as well.
You must be talking about officially atheist governmnents as they have been the most oppresive an inequitable governments in the recorded history of humanity. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, ect.
The way France is going it is setting itself up for a French version of Hitler in my opinion.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 06:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
lol Fauch, the Hitler comparison is soo frenchy manner.
Always the others are guilty for our ignorance or laziness. If president can be blamed, let's slaughter him wholeheartedly. France is a lost country because so arrogant people, sorry. The whole world collapse in all ways right now, and the only guilty is...Sarkozy.
I think you guys need a second revolution to weed out the bad seeds amongst your population.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 06:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Always the others are guilty for our ignorance or laziness. If president can be blamed, let's slaughter him wholeheartedly. France is a lost country because so arrogant people, sorry. The whole world collapse in all ways right now, and the only guilty is...Sarkozy.
I don't think it's only french people, I'd guess most people are like that, blaming other but never looking at their own flaws. anyway, I don't have much power compared to Sarkozy. I think most people wouldn't do much better, but fortunately, they don't have the power to take such decisions.
Quote:
Yep. The French people are not willing to tolerate cultural differences it seems.
I've looked at some reactions on internet, there's a bit of anything, some people are obviously racists / intolerants.
Quote:
Actually, if you read the earlier articles I posted you will see that some Muslim women do believe the Qu'ran requires them to wear a burka. Some Islamic scholars do say that the burqa is required.
it's not even sure they read the coran. they have most likely been conditioned.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 06:29 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 18:30, 16 Sep 2010.
|
Quote:
But yes, France has shown its bigotry towards JWs. JWs don't believe in blood transfustions but France says "**** you. You will bow to the State-god, not to your God" and forces blood transfusions on them anyways.
How can you not believe in blood transfusions for crying out loud.
Of course the French government said **** you. I'm glad someone said **** you to the creeps.
It has nothing to do with the state god. It's about saving the life of a kid when his parents are willfully risking his life and preventing medicine to help him.
If their reason was anything else but their cult religion, they'd get thrown in jail.
...
Christ, did I just get successfully trolled by Elodin? 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 06:53 PM |
|
|
I don't believe in blood transfusions. I also don't believe in organ transplants. And it's none of the government's damn business to force me or anyone else into a medical procedure that they don't believe in. When it comes to children it might be another matter, but even that is questionable.
I guess it's my general view that government's shouldn't exist. And since that's not reality, the next best thing is to exist at the absolute minimum level.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 06:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The way France is going it is setting itself up for a French version of Hitler in my opinion.
Sorry but this opinion is out of place and childish. Do you know how roms are threatened in France? Do you really know?
Let me explain you, so you don't die ignorant: we pay them 300 euros/person, we feed and give them a place where to sleep, and in the end we put them in a modern plane, direction their country. Because they are illegal immigrants. 1 week later, they are back, we give them again 300 euros etc etc.
As for burka, no, we don't want it, and the government is hearing the people demands. Not because it is a symbol of religion, but because it is a a voluntary provocation. Out!
Comparing this to the Nazis is just elodinesheness, as expected. Get real infos before you talk.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 07:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When it comes to children it might be another matter, but even that is questionable.
It is another matter when children are involved. Opting out of some surgeries/transfusion could result in parents having their rights terminated by child protective services and losing their children. Furthermore, if you opt out of something and those kids die, a parent could risk being charged with child neglect, child endangerment, and worse.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 07:36 PM |
|
|
Saying France is going to turn Vichy is very premature and exaggerated, but I think it's fair to say that this is a small step in that direction.
The fact that JW's can't deny their children blood transfusions is a separate issue. That's a matter of a person's personal beliefs directly harming someone else; in this case causing their outright death.
You could say that since Muslim parents are teaching their children stupid things that they can have certain rights taken away, but that acts under the presumption that the State is an infallible entity to determine what perfect parenting is, which it is not, and you do not have to think too hard to realize what kind of civil unrest and suffering that would cause.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 07:42 PM |
|
|
And the authorities who try to enforce it risk being shot. They are messing with people's core beliefs. It's an intrusion that's none of their damn business.
Why is it considered so important when the medical technology for some of those things didn't even exist throughout most of history. And now that the technology exists people act as if it's some sort of "right" to use that technology.
Let people freaking die. For a government to tell people when they can or can not die is the worst possible intrusion on a person's liberty. It's worse than violating things such as freedom of speech or freedom of religion. A person can not make a more personal decision than choosing the time and place and conditions of their own death. And yet governments somehow think it's it's their business.
When it comes to children, in some ways I view that as an extension of all of the above. I absolutely do NOT see it as abusive for a parent to withhold medical treatment for a child. People die. That's the way of nature. The parents did not harm the child, they merely allowed nature to take it's course and allow the child to die naturally. I see nothing wrong with that.
I'm not talking about the law as it exists, I'm talking about what SHOULD exist. I find it very highly questionable when the government oversteps it's bounds and gets involved in stuff like that.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 07:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When it comes to children, in some ways I view that as an extension of all of the above. I absolutely do NOT see it as abusive for a parent to withhold medical treatment for a child. People die. That's the way of nature. The parents did not harm the child, they merely allowed nature to take it's course and allow the child to die naturally. I see nothing wrong with that.
I think we've surpassed the time where the pater familias has the right to decide over life and death of his progeny.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 07:55 PM |
|
|
The parents aren't deciding, they are taking a neutral stance. Nature is deciding.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 07:58 PM |
|
|
|
Well, technically, starving a child is also letting nature decide. Why not interfere when we can? We are man, are we not? Weren't we created to lift the middle finger to anything that wants us dead?
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 08:05 PM |
|
|
Starving a child is going against nature, not letting nature decide.
But the major point is, WHO decides those issues. They are extremely personal decisions. We aren't talking about intentional abuse here. We are talking about morale decisions of the parents.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 08:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Starving a child is going against nature, not letting nature decide.
I don't see the point. This is both death caused by inaction.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 08:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't believe in blood transfusions.
What, you don't believe they exist? I don't really quite understand this language of not believing in blood transfusions. Saying you don't believe in blood transfusions makes about as much sense, to my mind, as saying you don't believe in aspirin.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 08:40 PM |
|
|
You should know full well that I mean by that. It means that it's MY decision to decide to get or not get a transfusion, and not the government's. You can decide for yourself, but not for me, and not for my children.
@Dargath, you don't see the difference between nurturing of a child that's prevalent throughout nature, and advanced medical treatments? But you are nitpicking details. The big question is who decides? My stance is that unless there is overt abuse, then it's not the role of the government to decide such things.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 08:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But the major point is, WHO decides those issues. They are extremely personal decisions. We aren't talking about intentional abuse here. We are talking about morale decisions of the parents.
I believe it could very easily be argued that it is intentional abuse, if not absolute neglect. Hypothetically, your child comes down with some disease/syndrome/condition/fancy medical term and the most viable way to save their life is an organ transplant. Without it, the child WILL die. Now if you as a parent knows this and chooses not to go through with it, you have signed your child's death warrant. Seems like intentionally harming someone to me.
Let nature take its course. OK. Then let the law take its course.
You can believe you have that right all you want, Binabik. A judge is not going to really care about your beliefs when there is a dead child that could have easily been saved. You would most likely be slammed for child neglect, child endangerment, possibly lose any other children you have to the state, and face prison time. Not a smart move.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 08:46 PM |
|
|
Lets put it this way:
In alot of countries here in Europe, the government basically invests a whole lot of money on people, especially children. Be it via education, health care or whatever. You're not going to throw all that money, time and effort spent down the well by being a bad parent.
So yah, we're a part of governmental property. 
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 08:48 PM |
|
|
People should be free to harm themselves in any way they choose, as long as it doesn't affect others. However, this doesn't extend to parents' rights over children. Children aren't property.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
