DonFerrari on 15 August 2018
Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:
I'm sure there are plenty hypocrisy within right wing movements, I just disagree on the Burqa case because of the reason they are against, but that in the end is very pointless disagreement.
Much more relevant, are right wing or antifa doing many violent protests or at least both are generally peacefull?
|
If they didn't want to be hypocrites, then they shouldn't wear the masks while protesting against other forms of facial coverings.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypocrite
They are pretty the very definition of it.
Aeolus451 said:
Burgas aren't meant to hide their identity during crimes or to keep from being fired. It's not comparable to antifa masks or masks in general. It covers the whole body most of the the time and it could be seen as oppressive to women considering it's origins and function. It's meant to cover women's femininity. It could also be seen as hypocritical to support something like burqas and feminism. If the alt-right of Australia oppose antifa wearing masks yet they wear them just as much then that's good enough proof of them being hypocritical.
|
I don't agree with the Burqa for other fundamental reasons.
But I do not believe it to be repressive as everyone in Australia is free to wear they want, what a religious book says is ultimately irrelevant to that point.
If tomorrow a Muslim lady wakes up and says "I ain't wearing that" then all the power to them, no one can stop her. Literally. No one.
In the same vein, from interviews and documentary's and Muslim women I have conversed with, some actually do choose to wear it... And good for them, they are free to do so.
I am literally arguing for the constitution and freedoms, but I also strongly condemn all religions equally for other reasons. (I.E. No religion has met the burden of proof for their claims of their God/God's existing and other historical cues and thus I will actively criticize them.)
Is the Burqa comparable to Antifa masks? Shit yes, so to say otherwise is disingenuous.
Both cover the face. Both hide the individuals identity. Both can use that anonymity to inflict harm or chaos upon others.
But Antifa aren't protesting against the Burqa, the far right are, meaning Antifa aren't being hypocrites, doesn't mean they are right in their approach though.
Aeolus451 said:
It's not women's right to kill their babies. The right sees the unborn child as a person while the left doesn't. Because the right sees the unborn child as a person, it's life deserves protection even if It's against what the ill-intentioned mother wants. It's ultimately about human rights and when exactly unborn children are protected by those rights. That's the point of contention for both sides. When a pregnant woman is killed, it's counted as two homicides or two accidental deaths. When a pregnant woman uses drugs then the baby dies from it or the unborn baby dies as the result of a diet, there's a bunch of criminal charges held against the woman. Why? Because a unborn baby is considered a person except when a woman wants to abort it.
|
It's an issue of ownership of the body.
The person born into said body ultimately should have the last say of what happens to said body.
The baby in question is more than welcomed to live with it's own power on it's own, but should not be afforded the ability to live at someone else's expense.
Otherwise, where do we draw the line? Let's say I had two failing kidneys... And you were a compatible donor, should I then be obligated to force you to give up a kidney? Do I not deserve protection? Do I not deserve life? No. You are more than able to say no.
|
The live on it's own is pretty silly point.
Unless you want to abort kids under 5 years old. None of them can life without being at someone else expense.
The baby without any interference will become a child, and it's its own body.
