German school bans mini skirts

[Chessmistress]

That sounds to me like:
"I have no problem with schools banning mini-skirts, but just only as long as they don't tell why they're banning mini-skirts".
It sounds a little hypocritical.
Women should have the right to dress as they like. End of discussion.

Didn't you want to ban the hijab?

I'm not against hijabs nor against chadors.
I'm against niqabs and burqas.
Difference is: burqas and niqabs erase the identity of a woman, completely hiding our faces. Faces are the main thing that differentiate human beings.
Hijabs and chadors doesn't hide faces, so the identity of the woman wearing it is not erased.
Dresses are meant to express yourself, but you cannot express yourself without identity.

[Risottia]

School dress codes are fine, and I see nothing wrong with stopping miniskirts - if they had just said "no skirts shorter than" no one would have batted an eyelid.

In the country that invented modern nudism? Hah.

Starting on nekst Oktoberfest, der Nakedness in der Englischer Garten and der Drunkenness in Theresienwiese ist VERBOTEN bekause of die Muslim Invaders and of der Linksparteien!

I read it on Infokrieg, zenn it must be true!

[Musices]

That sounds to me like:
"I have no problem with schools banning mini-skirts, but just only as long as they don't tell why they're banning mini-skirts".
It sounds a little hypocritical.
Women should have the right to dress as they like. End of discussion.

It sounds to me like "I have no problem with schools banning miniskirts, but this wouldn't be a particularly good reason for doing that." It sounds in no way hypocritical, and it shouldn't because it isn't. Doing something may or may not be a good idea, but doing it for poor reasons is legitimate fodder for criticism regardless. If someone decides to grow some garlic that's fine. If they do it because they're afraid vampires are out to suck their blood that's not so good. See the difference?

But garlic has so many health benefits! Can you imagine what the world would look like if garlic was scarce?

So what if some uneducated farmers need a nonsensical incentive to grow vast amounts of this natural culinary wonder? If that incentive wasn't there, then people wouldn't be as inclined to grow it, and thus society would suffer.

If we could convince every farmer in the world that garlic can deter vampires (and convince them that vampires exist), the world would have so much garlic that the price of it would drastically plummet to never before seen low prices, making the world a happier and healthier place.

[Braberland]

In the country that invented modern nudism? Hah.

Starting on nekst Oktoberfest, der Nakedness in der Englischer Garten and der Drunkenness in Theresienwiese ist VERBOTEN bekause of the Muslim Invaders and of der Linksparteien!

I read it on Infokrieg, zenn it must be true!

11/10 :-)

[Celseon]

But garlic has so many health benefits! Can you imagine what the world would look like if garlic was scarce?

So what if some uneducated farmers need a nonsensical incentive to grow vast amounts of this natural culinary wonder? If that incentive wasn't there, then people wouldn't be as inclined to grow it, and thus society would suffer.

If we could convince every farmer in the world that garlic can deter vampires (and convince them that vampires exist), the world would have so much garlic that the price of it would drastically plummet to never before seen low prices, making the world a happier and healthier place.

We'll need an Info Wars article or broadcast asserting vampires exist, then.

[Wallenburg]

In the country that invented modern nudism? Hah.

Not to mention that a more broad suggestion to avoid skirts to reduce cases of sexual assault* in Hamburg some years back - no mention of immigrants or anything of that sort - resulted in an overwhelmingly negative response.

* Complete nonsense, of course, since there is fuckall worth of correlation, yet alone causation between attire and sexual assault, but hey. Evidence is for deviants or something.

Evidence is degeneracy.

Evidence is degeneracy.
Truth is fiction.
Bias is strength.

FOX News is watching you.

[Messeren]

Whilst I'm unsure about the source, if this is true.

Ridiculous.

Like you say, they need to accept our culture.

Muslim immigrants come AWAY from all the culture that causes war and terror, yet try to implement that culture here. Bunch of idiots...

[USS Monitor]

That's some pants on head retarded reasoning if it's true.

At least you are still allowed to wear pants.

[Braberland]

That's some pants on head retarded reasoning if it's true.

At least you are still allowed to wear pants.

You never know, maybe we'll get a shady second-rate imam in Egypt with a video gone viral saying "pants are haram!".

[Chessmistress]

That sounds to me like:
"I have no problem with schools banning mini-skirts, but just only as long as they don't tell why they're banning mini-skirts".
It sounds a little hypocritical.
Women should have the right to dress as they like. End of discussion.

It sounds to me like "I have no problem with schools banning miniskirts, but this wouldn't be a particularly good reason for doing that." It sounds in no way hypocritical, and it shouldn't because it isn't. Doing something may or may not be a good idea, but doing it for poor reasons is legitimate fodder for criticism regardless. If someone decides to grow some garlic that's fine. If they do it because they're afraid vampires are out to suck their blood that's not so good. See the difference?

It changes nothing, grow some garlic is still grow some garlic.
The consequences of an action are important, the reasoning before the idea is nothing compared to consequences.
Indeed good (or bad) intentions are relevant just only when the practical application of an idea result to be harmful. But, even when intentions are good, it's still an harmful idea.
On the opposite, no one care about the intentions when the practical application of that idea is useful.
Banning mini-skirts is restricting the freedom of women: that's the practical effect.
Also, banning mini-skirts is always due moral reasons: outdated moral reasons meant to limit the exposure of women's bodies. Banning mini-skirts cannot be related to health or something.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

Attacks aren't caused by clothing, they're caused by people who are intolerant of clothing. Bad policy is bad. Liberty is a thing.
That said, this entire thing is obviously just being used by fascists to promote their racist narratives. Shame, fascists. *sprays with water bottle.*

[USS Monitor]

At least you are still allowed to wear pants.

You never know, maybe we'll get a shady second-rate imam in Egypt with a video gone viral saying "pants are haram!".

You could pose as a shady second-rate imam and make a video to see how people react.

[Celseon]

It changes nothing, grow some garlic is still grow some garlic.
The consequences of an action are important, the reasoning before the idea is nothing compared to consequences.
Indeed good (or bad) intentions are relevant just only when the practical application of an idea result to be harmful. But, even when intentions are good, it's still an harmful idea.
On the opposite, no one care about the intentions when the practical application of that idea is useful.
Banning mini-skirts is restricting the freedom of women: that's the practical effect.
Also, banning mini-skirts is always due moral reasons: outdated moral reasons meant to limit the exposure of women's bodies. Banning mini-skirts cannot be related to health or something.

You're proposing to ban burqas for moral reasons of your own, are you not? If so, are you just automatically assuming that doing so will be a net positive? You'd be restricting Muslim women's freedom to exercise religion and express themselves by doing so, and that means you can't just jump to that conclusion. It's a proposal which is entirely different from making wearing a burqua optional, and in truth is no different from a proposal to ban miniskirts.

E: To completely clarify what I'm getting at, Ifreann at no point said anything hypocritical. At no point did Ifreann say that restriction of women's freedom to wear some article of clothing was wrong. That's your stance. Disagreeing with you doesn't translate into hypocrisy. If Ifreann thinks it's alright to ban miniskirts in schools provided there's a good reason for doing so that's not hypocrisy simply because you wander in and say that any restriction on women's freedom of expression is immoral.

You, meanwhile, appear to have a contradiction in your own stance if you actually propose to ban burqas. That would be hypocrisy.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the Western world's demographic catastrophe and the ongoing nigh unrestricted immigration, but. . .

>infowars
>ever

Top kek

[Chessmistress]

It changes nothing, grow some garlic is still grow some garlic.
The consequences of an action are important, the reasoning before the idea is nothing compared to consequences.
Indeed good (or bad) intentions are relevant just only when the practical application of an idea result to be harmful. But, even when intentions are good, it's still an harmful idea.
On the opposite, no one care about the intentions when the practical application of that idea is useful.
Banning mini-skirts is restricting the freedom of women: that's the practical effect.
Also, banning mini-skirts is always due moral reasons: outdated moral reasons meant to limit the exposure of women's bodies. Banning mini-skirts cannot be related to health or something.

You're proposing to ban burqas for moral reasons of your own, are you not? If so, are you just automatically assuming that doing so will be a net positive? You'd be restricting Muslim women's freedom to exercise religion and express themselves by doing so, and that means you can't just jump to that conclusion. It's a proposal which is entirely different from making wearing a burqua optional, and in truth is no different from a proposal to ban miniskirts.

No.
I'm proposing to ban burqas and niqabs because no one choose to hide her face from other people.
Hiding your face is not expressing yourself, it's the exact opposite, it's deleting your identity, it's dehumanising yourself.
One can be a muslim even wearing an hijab or a chador.
Also, it's a problem about public security: in example we wouldn't be able anymore to identify a criminal using the records of public cameras, and even a male criminal could wear a burqa while commiting a crime, for the very purpose to not being catched, without need to avoid public cameras.
So we have even a very practical reason that cannot be framed within "morality" (even if I don't really think that the lack of identity can be morally relativised).

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Why is it that it's always the native Europeans who have to adjust their ways to the sensibilities of Muslim immigrants, in order to avoid being brutalized by the said immigrants IN THEIR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY?

Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this picture?

---

On a personal note, I have no problem whatsoever with decent dress codes being enforced in a school. It's the reason why it's being done in this case that is the problem.

[Wallenburg]

You're proposing to ban burqas for moral reasons of your own, are you not? If so, are you just automatically assuming that doing so will be a net positive? You'd be restricting Muslim women's freedom to exercise religion and express themselves by doing so, and that means you can't just jump to that conclusion. It's a proposal which is entirely different from making wearing a burqua optional, and in truth is no different from a proposal to ban miniskirts.

No.
I'm proposing to ban burqas and niqabs because no one choose to hide her face from other people.

So...she's lying?

Hiding your face is not expressing yourself, it's the exact opposite, it's deleting your identity, it's dehumanising yourself.

So you are demanding that people express themselves?

One can be a muslim even wearing an hijab or a chador.

So?

Also, it's a problem about public security: in example we wouldn't be able anymore to identify a criminal using the records of public cameras, and even a male criminal could wear a burqa while commiting a crime, for the very purpose to not being catched, without need to avoid public cameras.
So we have even a very practical reason that cannot be framed within "morality" (even if I don't really think that the lack of identity can be morally relativised).

Finally, something that even begins to make sense. I agree that it presents a particularly serious security risk and that we must consider asking women wearing burqas or niqabs to show their faces when security protocol necessitates it.

[Italios]

You're proposing to ban burqas for moral reasons of your own, are you not? If so, are you just automatically assuming that doing so will be a net positive? You'd be restricting Muslim women's freedom to exercise religion and express themselves by doing so, and that means you can't just jump to that conclusion. It's a proposal which is entirely different from making wearing a burqua optional, and in truth is no different from a proposal to ban miniskirts.

No.
I'm proposing to ban burqas and niqabs because no one choose to hide her face from other people.
Hiding your face is not expressing yourself, it's the exact opposite, it's deleting your identity, it's dehumanising yourself.
One can be a muslim even wearing an hijab or a chador.
Also, it's a problem about public security: in example we wouldn't be able anymore to identify a criminal using the records of public cameras, and even a male criminal could wear a burqa while commiting a crime, for the very purpose to not being catched, without need to avoid public cameras.
So we have even a very practical reason that cannot be framed within "morality" (even if I don't really think that the lack of identity can be morally relativised).

I disagree. It seems to be that you're saying that women are forced to wear burqas, niqabs and the like - "No one choose to hide her face" and "it's dehumanizing". But ask many Muslin women who wear it and they'll answer that they wear it as a sign of respect for their religion, and would never take it off in public. You think they'd like it if they were told they could no longer wear it? We need to think about the people this ban would affect, not why it's dehumanising.

[Geilinor]

Infowars is not a source. Somehow I doubt it has anything to do with Muslims.

[Celseon]

No.
I'm proposing to ban burqas and niqabs because no one choose to hide her face from other people.

Wow. So no Muslim woman ever, at any point in history or in any part of the world, ever voluntarily wore a burqua. Incredible claims require incredible evidence. Dazzle me.

Hiding your face is not expressing yourself, it's the exact opposite, it's deleting your identity, it's dehumanising yourself.

It is not your place to make this determination. You would have something if you'd said being forced to hide your face was dehumanising, but you didn't say that.

One can be a muslim even wearing an hijab or a chador.

Of course they can. And one can also express their faith by wearing a burqa. It's not your right to tell them they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

Also, it's a problem about public security: in example we wouldn't be able anymore to identify a criminal using the records of public cameras, and even a male criminal could wear a burqa while commiting a crime, for the very purpose to not being catched, without need to avoid public cameras. So we have even a very practical reason that cannot be framed within "morality" (even if I don't really think that the lack of identity can be morally relativised).

Do you really think having a photograph or video footage of someone's face is so vital to an investigation that it's impossible to successfully determine a culprit and demonstrate guilt without them? Or that more moderate measures than banning an article of clothing throughout society might be taken to attempt resolve the problem you're pointing to first, such as a store policy requiring that all sunglasses and face-obstructing clothing be removed while on the premises? Why jump to banning burqas? It makes no sense.

E: Phrased things a bit differently, and put an addendum to indicate that being forced to hide one's face is dehumanising while choosing to do so isn't necessarily.

[Gauthier]

You never know, maybe we'll get a shady second-rate imam in Egypt with a video gone viral saying "pants are haram!".

You could pose as a shady second-rate imam and make a video to see how people react.

If reactions to this "story" is anything to go by, thousands if not millions will swallow it like a thousand dollar blowjob.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Why is it that it's always the native Europeans who have to adjust their ways to the sensibilities of Muslim immigrants, in order to avoid being brutalized by the said immigrants IN THEIR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY?

Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this picture?

---

On a personal note, I have no problem whatsoever with decent dress codes being enforced in a school. It's the reason why it's being done in this case that is the problem.

Why is it always the 'oh the ebil mooslems destroying our civilisation' crowd who DON'T READ THE FUCKING THREAD?

[Wallenburg]

I just noticed that--despite the OP being edited 3 times--there are still rudimentary spelling errors in it.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

I just noticed that--despite the OP being edited 3 times--there are still rudimentary spelling errors in it.

Not to mention Infowars.

[Gauthier]

Why is it that it's always the native Europeans who have to adjust their ways to the sensibilities of Muslim immigrants, in order to avoid being brutalized by the said immigrants IN THEIR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY?

Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this picture?

---

On a personal note, I have no problem whatsoever with decent dress codes being enforced in a school. It's the reason why it's being done in this case that is the problem.

Why is it always the 'oh the ebil mooslems destroying our civilisation' crowd who DON'T READ THE FUCKING THREAD?

Because they want to believe that every single Muslim in the world is evil and destroying civilization so badly they'll buy any story that rings those magic tones even if it's certified bullshit.