What's new

Taliban Pledge to Amend Their Hard-Line Stance on Women’s Rights

This is precisely the kind of disingenous, faulty, slippery slope argument that I mentioned earlier. What has public fornication got to do with the topic at hand?

@Jungibaaz : Maybe you already know this, since he is your countryman. But I have to point out that this is a common tactic used by people who want to oppose something, but knowing they have no foundation or reason to oppose it, instead pretend that "it" will lead to something else that is bad.

The topic is about women's rights to learn and earn a living. Maybe even about choosing their own clothing, and not being forced to cover their faces. Since they can't openly attack that and say that women should not be allowed to go to school or show their oh-so-sinful faces in public or have the same rights as men, instead they make the discourse about fornication in public or nude beaches. As if in every country where women have equal rights go about fornicating in public.

These are sleights of hands to deviate from the real issue.


Absolutely. But that is not the issue at hand here. The topic is not about whether Afghanistan should allow public nudity - it is about whether women can study and work. As I explained in my previous post, stop trying to be disingenous and taking the discussion to ludicrously different topics. It is clear that what you really want to say is that women should not have equal rights. BTW, men are allowed to show their faces in public - how many of them walk naked, as a consequence? None? Then stop pretending that it is in any way related.

(BTW there are some valid reasons for not allowing public nudity - hygene and public health included. But if you want to discuss the merits or demerits of nudism, do so in a related thread, not on one about women's rights to study and work.)

No I am honestly interested in an answer -- like I'm sure there is a decency code in Afghanistan and Pakistan for men -- for example men probably cannot walk nude in Public -- so the question is how do you set that code?

I'm suspicious of slippery slope defenses because it generally means that the issue is not either well understood or the slippery slope is used by either side as subterfuge to deflect against what is the real issue.
 
No I am honestly interested in an answer -- like I'm sure there is a decency code in Afghanistan and Pakistan for men -- for example men probably cannot walk nude in Public -- so the question is how do you set that code?

I'm suspicious of slippery slope defenses because it generally means that the issue is not either well understood or the slippery slope is used by either side as subterfuge to deflect against what is the real issue.

Sorry, I will not take the bait. This thread is not about public nudity - it is about women's rights to go to school and to work. The taliiban is (so magnanimously) saying that they will in future "allow" women to do that, unlike their previous stint. And instead of discussing this issue, you want to talk of public nudity, implying that the former would lead to the latter.

As I said - if you want to discuss nudity, do so in a related thread, or open one and tag me there - I will expresss my views on the topic there.

I'm suspicious of slippery slope defenses because it generally means that the issue is not either well understood or the slippery slope is used by either side as subterfuge to deflect against what is the real issue.

Exactly. Only one side is using the slippery slope defence, and that is not me. I am simply identifying and making it clear that what they are doing is the fallacious slippery slope defence. All references to public nudity, public fornication etc are slippery slope arguments; others are making those arguments, I am only calling it by its proper name.

So stop deflecting the real issue, to put it in your own words. Talk about women's rights to study, work, not cover their face unless they want to and s on, instead of nudity or fornication.
 
Sorry, I will not take the bait. This thread is not about public nudity - it is about women's rights to go to school and to work. The taliiban is (so magnanimously) saying that they will in future "allow" women to do that, unlike their previous stint. And instead of discussing this issue, you want to talk of public nudity, implying that the former would lead to the latter.

As I said - if you want to discuss nudity, do so in a related thread, or open one and tag me there - I will expresss my views on the topic there.

I am left feeling that you parrying the point by using the "bait metaphor" is proxy for something else.

The thread is about individual right of women and by extension men and by extension eccentrics.

Sorry, I will not take the bait. This thread is not about public nudity - it is about women's rights to go to school and to work. The taliiban is (so magnanimously) saying that they will in future "allow" women to do that, unlike their previous stint. And instead of discussing this issue, you want to talk of public nudity, implying that the former would lead to the latter.

As I said - if you want to discuss nudity, do so in a related thread, or open one and tag me there - I will expresss my views on the topic there.



Exactly. Only one side is using the slippery slope defence, and that is not me. I am simply identifying and making it clear that what they are doing is the fallacious slippery slope defence. All references to public nudity, public fornication etc are slippery slope arguments; others are making those arguments, I am only calling it by its proper name.

So stop deflecting the real issue, to put it in your own words. Talk about women's rights to study, work, not cover their face unless they want to and s on, instead of nudity or fornication.

Full disclosure I'm an atheist and a liberal -- but I really want to know want to know when is a woman's choice (or say a transgender's choice -- and yes they are members of Muslim societies) ok and when is it not ok?

I am left feeling that you parrying the point by using the "bait metaphor" is proxy for something else.

The thread is about individual right of women and by extension men and by extension eccentrics.



Full disclosure I'm an atheist and a liberal -- but I really want to know want to know when is a woman's choice (or say a transgender's choice -- and yes they are members of Muslim societies) ok and when is it not ok?

And please I'm more than willing to have an intellectual knife fight -- it if you who seem to be panicking
 
I am left feeling that you parrying the point by using the "bait metaphor" is proxy for something else.

The thread is about individual right of women and by extension men and by extension eccentrics.
Read the second part of my post above, which you may not have seen. I am making it clear who is using the slippery slope argument.

Repeat - this thread is NOT about the right to be naked in public. Neither side in the negotiations have even brought that up. This thread is about right to study, right to work etc.

You are making the implicit claim that giving women some individual rights will be tantamount to giving them the right to be naked in public. ie, the stupid slippery slope non-defence.

Full disclosure I'm an atheist and a liberal -- but I really want to know want to know when is a woman's choice (or say a transgender's choice -- and yes they are members of Muslim societies) ok and when is it not ok?

It is not OK if it impacts other people negatively. That is the basis of having laws in the first place. "Your right to swing your first ends where my nose begins." And yes, as I mentioned before, there are valid reasons to wear clothes in public. That is why in the USA, only in designated places is nudity allowed.

Again - if you want to discuss nudism, tag me in an appropriate thread.
 
Read the second part of my post above, which you may not have seen. I am making it clear who is using the slippery slope argument.

Repeat - this thread is NOT about the right to be naked in public. Neither side in the negotiations have even brought that up. This thread is about right to study, right to work etc.

You are making the implicit claim that giving women some individual rights will be tantamount to giving them the right to be naked in public. ie, the stupid slippery slope non-defence.

1. Bibi jee -- please do not put words in my mouth -- I am not saying:
"giving women some individual rights will be tantamount to giving them the right to be naked in public."

2. I have read your argument -- but perhaps you have not read mine -- I was saying either side may employ the slippery slope argument

3. Further refusing to answer the slippery slope challenge with a succinct argument may mean that you don't have a good response.

4. This is a false response -- this thread is about individual rights -- I want to go naked in the public square -- are you saying I should be criminally charged ? is so why?

Read the second part of my post above, which you may not have seen. I am making it clear who is using the slippery slope argument.

Repeat - this thread is NOT about the right to be naked in public. Neither side in the negotiations have even brought that up. This thread is about right to study, right to work etc.

You are making the implicit claim that giving women some individual rights will be tantamount to giving them the right to be naked in public. ie, the stupid slippery slope non-defence.



It is not OK if it impacts other people negatively. That is the basis of having laws in the first place. "Your right to swing your first ends where my nose begins." And yes, as I mentioned before, there are valid reasons to wear clothes in public. That is why in the USA, only in designated places is nudity allowed.

Again - if you want to discuss nudism, tag me in an appropriate thread.

No this is not about nudism.

Plus you response "Your right to swing your first ends where my nose begins." is a false response -- (trust me I'm not as uneducated as you may assume) -- what is my right -- as man if I done a mico skirt -- is that swinging my fist too close or say if you decide to done a thong -- should I cry foul?

I've presented a specific problem and you are beating around the bush.

If you don't have an answer at least be honest?
 
1. Bibi jee -- please do not put words in my mouth -- I am not saying:
"giving women some individual rights will be tantamount to giving them the right to be naked in public."
Then why are we discussing it here on this thread? Just by bringing it up, are you not implying that having the right to do something has to mean having the right to be naked in public?

2. I have read your argument -- but perhaps you have not read mine -- I was saying either side may employ the slippery slope argument

If either side does, then the other side can point it out. But let's not ourselves resort to slippery slope arguments.

3. Further refusing to answer the slippery slope challenge with a succinct argument may mean that you don't have a good response

As I mentioned - there are valid, non-religious reasons for not allowing public nudity. One is public health - the spread of microbes is faster if certain parts of the body are always exposed. Another is hygene - ordinary men and women do not, after a day of activity, look like supermodels. They sweat, they produce many other body fluids. The groin especially is one such region for both males and females. All these are the reasons why people started wearing clothes in the first place.

Another reason is that in most cultures, nudity is associated with sexuality, and due to that, nudity can be an act of sexual harassment. Exposing your genitals to an unwitting stranger will land you in jail for that reason. Nudity will be disconcerting to many people due to the cultural associations - you wouldn't want to take your children to the park if there is a chance that a naked person might be present. Of course, if nudity was socially acceptable, then that part wouldn't matter.

I do not have any objection to nudity in principle.

No this is not about nudism.

Plus you response "Your right to swing your first ends where my nose begins." is a false response -- (trust me I'm not as uneducated as you may assume) -- what is my right -- as man if I done a mico skirt -- is that swinging my fist too close or say if you decide to done a thong -- should I cry foul?

I've presented a specific problem and you are beating around the bush.

If you don't have an answer at least be honest?

You have every right to wear a skirt. In Scotland, they call it kilts.

The specific issues you are asking are irrelevant to the topic - neither the Taliban nor the other side are asking for these rights.
 
Then why are we discussing it here on this thread? Just by bringing it up, are you not implying that having the right to do something has to mean having the right to be naked in public?

No I'm not -- I want to know what is ok. Thongs ok? Pasties ok? G-String ok? Burkas ok? Who gets to decide? I really want to know. So no please don't put words in my mouth

If either side does, then the other side can point it out. But let's not ourselves resort to slippery slope arguments.

I'm sorry but I think a dishonest intellectual retreat implies subterfuge which, if you'll forgive me for accusing you, you did.

A slippery slope challenge should be counterable with a succinct response -- the lack of a response implies that the other side is possibly as intellectually bankrupt on the issue as is the poser of the slippery slope argument.

As I mentioned - there are valid, non-religious reasons for not allowing public nudity. One is public health - the spread of microbes is faster if certain parts of the body are always exposed. Another is hygene - ordinary men and women do not, after a day of activity, look like supermodels. They sweat, they produce many other body fluids. The groin especially is one such region for both males and females. All these are the reasons why people started wearing clothes in the first place.

Hey I get that -- but we're discussing Individual rights here.

So what would be the limit ? a Thong good for women -- or do we need tops ? G-String for men? hmm
Hey if you don't look like a supermodel -- so it's an offense if I see all your cellulite -- ghustakhi maaf but you your arguments seem to be all over the place

Another reason is that in most cultures, nudity is associated with sexuality, and due to that, nudity can be an act of sexual harassment. Exposing your genitals to an unwitting stranger will land you in jail for that reason. Nudity will be disconcerting to many people due to the cultural associations - you wouldn't want to take your children to the park if there is a chance that a naked person might be present. Of course, if nudity was socially acceptable, then that part wouldn't matter.

I do not have any objection to nudity in principle.

Again the question bibi is ok not nudity -- thong ok? -- I hate to tell you but what you're pointing out I already know but it does not address the fundamental question -- when is enough enough?


You have every right to wear a skirt. In Scotland, they call it kilts.

The specific issues you are asking are irrelevant to the topic - neither the Taliban nor the other side are asking for these rights.

No I'm sorry they are very relevant -- I didn't say kilt I said G-String -- men on the streets in G-String ok? on ir you definition of right they would have to wear baggy pants?
 
Last edited:
No I'm not -- I want to know what is ok. Thongs ok? Pasties ok? G-String ok? Burkas ok? Who gets to decide? I really want to know. So no please don't put word in my mouth
People who make laws get to decide - that's how it is everywhere. What should the laws be? That's up for discussion.

Again the question bibi is ok not nudity -- thong ok? -- I hate to tell you but what you're pointing out I already know but it does not address the fundamental question -- when is enough enough?
And therein lies the fallacy. You are thinking it in terms of "degrees of freedom". "How far", "How much" etc. By that there is an implicit assertion that anything is a first step, and taking too many steps in that direction would be bad. You are saying that people should have rights, but only to some "extent".

Instead, think of it as different rights. The right to do something, the right to do something else. Should a particular right exist, or should it not? It's not like at some point we should say "enough". When you paint it like that, you are already poisoning the well.

Should women have to wear a burkha, and can women be naked in public, are two different rights - not differing degrees of the same right.

Covering the face has no beneficial public impact for other people, unlike covering the genitals. And conversely, covering the genitals does no harm, unlike covering the face which does actually limit women's ability to communicate and connect with people.
 
People who make laws get to decide - that's how it is everywhere. What should the laws be? That's up for discussion.

Ok this is progress -- so if people in the government say Women have to wear Burkas -- then that is OK by your definition.

And therein lies the fallacy. You are thinking it in terms of "degrees of freedom". "How far", "How much" etc. By that there is an implicit assertion that anything is a first step, and taking too many steps in that direction would be bad. You are saying that people should have rights, but only to some "extent".

No I'm not saying anything implicitly -- I'm asking you -- what is your moral/legal framework -- which now we know the government has that simple tyranny of privilege -- if they say women cannot drive then by your framework that is OK?

Instead, think of it as different rights. The right to do something, the right to do something else. Should a particular right exist, or should it not? It's not like at some point we should say "enough". When you paint it like that, you are already poisoning the well.

Should women have to wear a burkha, and can women be naked in public, are two different rights - not differing degrees of the same right.

Fascinating -- so the right to be naked and the requirement to wear a burqa are orthogonal issues -- this is really interesting tell me more -- lol -- we may be onto something here.

Covering the face has no beneficial public impact for other people, unlike covering the genitals. And conversely, covering the genitals does no harm, unlike covering the face which does actually limit women's ability to communicate and connect with people.

Who are you decide -- I want to show my crotch -- why is the crotch different from the face -- I wish to aerate my crotch -- who gets to set what is a benefit and what is not?
 
No I'm sorry they are very relevant -- I didn't kilt I said G-String -- men on the streets in G-String ok? on ir you definition of right they would have to wear baggy pants?

My personal opinion? Completely OK. I don't mind.

Do note that being forced to wear pants is not the same thing as being forced to wear a burkha - the latter has severe consequences for human contact.

Ok this is progress -- so if people in the government say Women have to wear Burkas -- then that is OK by your definition.
Read it again. What should the laws be needs to be discussed, as I said. I did not say that if the govt makes any law, then it is moral. I said it is the people in power that makes laws, but that doesnt mean any law they make is OK.
 
My personal opinion? Completely OK. I don't mind.

Do note that being forced to wear pants is not the same thing as being forced to wear a burkha - the latter has severe consequences for human contact.

No sorry -- this is totally bogus -- who are you to say that wearing pants don't limit human contact -- bogus

Read it again. What should the laws be needs to be discussed, as I said. I did not say that if the govt makes any law, then it is moral. I said it is the people in power that makes laws, but that doesnt mean any law they make is OK.

I totally agree -- but who gets to decide what is ok and what is not.

For now I've heard some circuitous mumbo jumbo on cellulite - contact - etc.

Very simple -- when would it be OK?

People argue that requiring women to cover their breasts is wicked and have arguments that is instills inequality in a woman's mind -- so maybe tops for women also limit human contact?
 
No sorry -- this is totally bogus -- who are you to say that wearing pants don't limit human contact -- bogus



I totally agree -- but who gets to decide what is ok and what is not.

For now I've heard some circuitous mumbo jumbo on cellulite - contact - etc.

Very simple -- when would it be OK?

People argue that requiring women to cover their breasts is wicked and have arguments that is instills inequality in a woman's mind -- so maybe tops for women also limit human contact?
Neither tops nor pants limit human contact like a veil does. By "human contact" I did not mean physical contact, I meant non verbal communications. I thought that was obvious in the context. There is a reason why "veil" has a metaphorical meaning, of keeping something secret. Facial expressions, smiles, frowns, glances, a raised eyebrow etc are all important in communication. "Face to face" is also an expression that has a metaphorical meaning, because it really does have significance.

When a woman has to cover her face, it limits her interaction with people. Wearing pants or blouses don't. That is the difference.

People argue that requiring women to cover their breasts is wicked and have arguments that is instills inequality in a woman's mind -- so maybe tops for women also limit human contact?
Wrong analogy. Men and women have different upper body anatomy, and therefore it is not comparable. Should toplessness be permitted can be argued, but not on the question of equality of sexes - men and women are not equal in their upper bodies, by nature.

But women having to cover their faces while men don't is actually a question of unequal rights. Other than facial hair, there is no significant difference for men and women on their face. Forcing a woman to cover her face is tantamount to forcing her to limit her connection with society.
 
Neither tops nor pants limit human contact like a veil does.

But who gave you the authority on what does and what does not?

If you have some special licensure then please let us know?

By "human contact" I did not mean physical contact, I meant non verbal communications. I thought that was obvious in the context.

Bibiji -- do me a fovor and don't insult my intelligence -- I know what you were saying


There is a reason why "veil" has a metaphorical meaning, of keeping something secret. Facial expressions, smiles, frowns, glances, a raised eyebrow etc are all important in communication. "Face to face" is also an expression that has a metaphorical meaning, because it really does have significance.

When a woman has to cover her face, it limits her interaction with people. Wearing pants or blouses don't. That is the difference.

Methaphone or no methaphoe we are talking about fundamental rights -- how do we develop them and how do we test them for moral sufficiency.

So by using your definition a man's penis' erection also limits non verbal communication -- so by your definition pants, under garments on a man -- also limit non verbal communication? no?
 
But who gave you the authority on what does and what does not?

If you have some special licensure then please let us know?
Nobody gave me the authority, and I did not say that as a decree. I gave my reasons for what I said. That is how people substantiate their points - with reasons. Not by authority or decree.

In this vein I can ask who gave you "special licensure" for any remark you make. "Who gave you the "licensure" to say that?"

Anyway I can see that this is going nowhere. You are more interested in winning a debate than discussing an issue.

So by using your definition a man's penis' erection also limits non verbal communication -- so by your definition pants, under garments on a man -- also limit non verbal communication? no?
Does it limit his ability in the same way that hiding the face does? Other than sexual excitement, is there anything else an erection can convey?

But smiles, laughter, frowns and all thesefacial expressions are an intrinsic part of communicating and connecting with others. If you are more interested in discussing the point than trying to win a debate contest, you would know that.
 
Wrong analogy. Men and women have different upper body anatomy, and therefore it is not comparable. Should toplessness be permitted can be argued, but not on the question of equality of sexes - men and women are not equal in their upper bodies, by nature.

Actually no -- sorry -- my human anatomy is dated

But both men and women have mammary glands and the breasts -- they are just more developed in a women.

So say a women who has had mastectomy should be treated as as men?

Or say obese men who have man boobs should be treated as women?

A lot of holes your arguments have -- no ?

Further is it a man's fault that he does not have breasts?

Or is it a woman's fault if she does not have breasts?

The arguments I presented are not mine but some feminists use that argument -- but again you seem to have some special license by which you've invalidated them -- if you do have such a license I'd like to see it.

Also men generally have beards -- women do not -- so should we treat men and women differently because they have different amounts of facial hair -- or again does this special license you seem to claim to possess allow you to act as the sole arbitrar of what is moral and what is not?

But women having to cover their faces while men don't is actually a question of unequal rights. Other than facial hair, there is no significant difference for men and women on their face. Forcing a woman to cover her face is tantamount to forcing her to limit her connection with society.

well as I said -- men should be allowed to display their penises -- there is a lot of information contained in the state of a man's erection.
 
Back
Top Bottom