Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Robert_S]

"This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

It was from the "Root of all Evil" video where the Ex-Jew Muslim guy goes off on a rant about how we dress our women and Richard retorts that the women dress themselves. The Muslim guy answers that we allow it as a norm.

Given experiences like that and like the violence coming from some parts of Muslim society in the UK toward people who do not toe the gender role line, I can see how quite a few people might be just a little skeptical about how much voluntarily certain articles of clothing are worn in the UK.

[Exi5tentialist]

"This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

It was from the "Root of all Evil" video where the Ex-Jew Muslim guy goes off on a rant about how we dress our women and Richard retorts that the women dress themselves. The Muslim guy answers that we allow it as a norm.

Given experiences like that and like the violence coming from some parts of Muslim society in the UK toward people who do not toe the gender role line, I can see how quite a few people might be just a little skeptical about how much voluntarily certain articles of clothing are worn in the UK.

'Experiences like that' - you mean one video? Organised by Richard Dawkins?

Anyway the question is, what responsibility do muslim women in the UK have for the clothes they wear, and who is Richard Dawkins to take that responsibility away from them?

[Robert_S]

"This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

It was from the "Root of all Evil" video where the Ex-Jew Muslim guy goes off on a rant about how we dress our women and Richard retorts that the women dress themselves. The Muslim guy answers that we allow it as a norm.

Given experiences like that and like the violence coming from some parts of Muslim society in the UK toward people who do not toe the gender role line, I can see how quite a few people might be just a little skeptical about how much voluntarily certain articles of clothing are worn in the UK.

'Experiences like that' - you mean one video? Organised by Richard Dawkins?

Anyway the question is, what responsibility do muslim women in the UK have for the clothes they wear, and who is Richard Dawkins to take that responsibility away from them?

Muslim women have about as much responsibility as they have power and freedom I suppose. Although, if their whole social support would be taken from them for not wearing some article, I suppose I would absolve them of some responsibility.

I forgot... What was the context of RD's "bin liner" comment?

[Exi5tentialist]

Muslim women have about as much responsibility as they have power and freedom I suppose. Although, if their whole social support would be taken from them for not wearing some article, I suppose I would absolve them of some responsibility.

Yeah this is my point, it goes back to the existentialist position that we all have absolute freedom and absolute responsibility for our freedom at the same time. This absolute freedom applies to all human beings everywhere, some of whom are in the most oppressive situations. Personally I don't absolve ("take away") either freedom or responsibility from muslim women. They have every freedom to wear the niqab and every responsibility for doing so. This is the only empowering position that is philosophically justifiable, in my view.

I forgot... What was the context of RD's "bin liner" comment?

Anyway here's an article about it.

[Robert_S]

It does kinda look like a bin liner.

But that doesn't mean I or RD think that they are garbage any more than I think these saggy trousered kids who look like they cannot afford a belt are actually that skint.

[Exi5tentialist]

It does kinda look like a bin liner.

But that doesn't mean I or RD think that they are garbage any more than I think these saggy trousered kids who look like they cannot afford a belt are actually that skint.

Why does he use an expression that portrays them as garbage if he doesn't think they are?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It does kinda look like a bin liner.

But that doesn't mean I or RD think that they are garbage any more than I think these saggy trousered kids who look like they cannot afford a belt are actually that skint.

Why does he use an expression that portrays them as garbage if he doesn't think they are?

You keep trying to distort what he said, just to have something nasty to post. Get a life.

[Robert_S]

It does kinda look like a bin liner.

But that doesn't mean I or RD think that they are garbage any more than I think these saggy trousered kids who look like they cannot afford a belt are actually that skint.

Why does he use an expression that portrays them as garbage if he doesn't think they are?

Why do they dress in something that looks like a garbage container liner unless they think it's going to rain and they don't have proper rain gear?

[Magicziggy]

This is content-free in a world where content is king.

The Australian Curriculum - history component addresses religion in an impartial contextual way. I am happy to provide the content of this curriculum if you require.

Implementation is all important. You mention you want religion taught at primary school but are you insisting it is taught to all pupils? Are you bullying kids into religious education?

The Australian Curriculum will be mandated. I haven't researched the primary element, but I'd be surprised if religion isn't given some treatment in primary school.

ATM in the UK primary school kids in the UK stay with the same teacher, have the same lessons all day. There is a right of withdrawal from religious elements, but like in the Oz system, there is no requirement for the school to offer an alternative, just a requirement to supervise the child to make sure nothing happens.

It is a very poor system, arranged thusly to prevent kids withdrawing and having a proper lesson instead. When I go to school in the morning there is often one or two children having some remedial lesson (reading/maths) before school. They have this out of hours so as not to disrupt the rest of the day. The schools could teach them maths and reading during the time wasted on religion but they are not able to. This is not fair on the kids and I would withdraw them from religion and then at least they could improve their reading, even if they are not taught.

You may have missed my previous post on my experience at school. I was one of those withdrawn.

So under your system of implementation are you going to offer alternatives or are you insisting on compulsion but with some form of withdrawal as exists ATM?

If kids withdraw and don't get the religious shit then, under your rules, has the child been failed by the school/teachers/parents because they haven't been exposed to shit (implicit in your assumption that kids need RE)?

I have stated a view, not a set of rules. History is one of the most controversial of topics in Australian education. It is the appropriate place to expose students to the religious nature of the world.

If you offer an alternative lesson then this would be (in the UK) the only time in the school day that the children are split up for different lessons, so you now need to double up on teaching staff (usually a teacher and a teaching assistant) just so that you can put non-compulsory religion onto the school day.

I think you are faced with a choice between compulsory attendance or an increasing drain on resources just to get religion on the agenda.

Neither of these are acceptable.

Agreed. There is no place for a religious studies lesson at school. Time and resources are lacking. But religion is a fact of the historical record, and students will be exposed to it through the mandated history curriculum. I would hope that it puts today's world into a better focus for the young people in schools. I do not propose anything more than that.

It's the lack of planning that we see from people who say that religion is important let's force it on 5 year olds, that leads me to dismiss all this as the cultural overlay charlou displayed. Why would people say let's force religion on children, without a consideration of how they were going to do it, unless there was a psychological rather than an educational reason?

Can I ask, would you extract the religious content from the history curriculum? Again, I am happy to provide this content should you require. It is rather lengthy.

[Hermit]

1. You impute all sorts of nonsense to Richard Dawkins statements, (Alien meaning "non-human"?)

The word alien has an ambiguous meaning. You probably need to look in a dictionary and you will recognise the provocative ambiguity. Of course I am sure that Dawkins could clear all this up in the minds of lots of people...

He has explained what he means by 'alien', and links to that have been provided in this thread several times. Your insistence in ignoring that is getting a bit irritating.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

1. You impute all sorts of nonsense to Richard Dawkins statements, (Alien meaning "non-human"?)

The word alien has an ambiguous meaning. You probably need to look in a dictionary and you will recognise the provocative ambiguity. Of course I am sure that Dawkins could clear all this up in the minds of lots of people...

He has explained what he means by 'alien', and links to that have been provided in this thread several times. Your insistence in ignoring that is getting a bit irritating.

He's not interested in the facts, he just wants to argue. About what, doesn't matter, just so it's arguing. Its a very bad case of ingrown fauxlosopher.

[Bella Fortuna]

1. You impute all sorts of nonsense to Richard Dawkins statements, (Alien meaning "non-human"?)

The word alien has an ambiguous meaning. You probably need to look in a dictionary and you will recognise the provocative ambiguity. Of course I am sure that Dawkins could clear all this up in the minds of lots of people...

He has explained what he means by 'alien', and links to that have been provided in this thread several times. Your insistence in ignoring that is getting a bit irritating.

Same for the "bin liner" stuff.

[Hermit]

1. You impute all sorts of nonsense to Richard Dawkins statements, (Alien meaning "non-human"?)

The word alien has an ambiguous meaning. You probably need to look in a dictionary and you will recognise the provocative ambiguity. Of course I am sure that Dawkins could clear all this up in the minds of lots of people...

He has explained what he means by 'alien', and links to that have been provided in this thread several times. Your insistence in ignoring that is getting a bit irritating.

He's not interested in the facts, he just wants to argue. About what, doesn't matter, just so it's arguing. Its a very bad case of ingrown fauxlosopher.

The way Exi5tensialist posts in this thread, he's becoming another forum member who causes the scroll wheel on my mouse to get some exercise.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The way Exi5tensialist posts in this thread, he's becoming another forum member who causes the scroll wheel on my mouse to get some exercise.

He sure loves his own words.

[Robert_S]

It does kinda look like a bin liner.

But that doesn't mean I or RD think that they are garbage any more than I think these saggy trousered kids who look like they cannot afford a belt are actually that skint.

Why does he use an expression that portrays them as garbage if he doesn't think they are?

Why do they dress in something that looks like a garbage container liner unless they think it's going to rain and they don't have proper rain gear?

That was kinda serious. I see people in bin liners often when there is a heavy rain on a day that started out bright and sunny. They do keep you dry and while people don't look their best, I've yet to say to myself: "That girl's wearing a garbage bag, she must be garbage."

But then he doesn't use language that portrays them as garbage. He uses language that portrays them as being portrayed as garbage. That is an important difference

And while we're at it, do you think the burka bears no resemblance to a large bin liner?

This picking and poking at all the little details in every off the cuff remark in search of something that someone somewhere could take offense to is the reason we can't have straightforward talk from politicians anymore.