text:
Symposium => "Open" Discussions => Topic started by: Liechtenstein on October 02, 2021, 03:17:10 am
Title: Imagine....
Post by: Liechtenstein on October 02, 2021, 03:17:10 am
This will be dedicated to images of "Imagine..." Allexpressed opinions are welcome.
Here's m y first....
Question: Why????? Really. just why? Why do some men demand their wife dress like this?
Title: Re: Imagine....
Post by: VanIslander on October 02, 2021, 03:24:10 am
https://youtu.be/rAn-AWXtHv0
And no religion, too
Livin' life in peace
Post by: JNM on October 02, 2021, 03:58:36 am
Quote from: Liechtenstein on October 02, 2021, 03:17:10 am
My theory, after spending a little over two years in Muslim majority countries:
Fathers and husbands of ugly women try to keep them fully covered.
Post by: gogators! on October 02, 2021, 04:10:24 am
So everyone else can IMAGINE what they look like.
Post by: Aristocrat on October 02, 2021, 06:41:59 am
Quote from: JNM on October 02, 2021, 03:58:36 am
Maybe you're joking, but it's no mystery why these women wear them. 2yrs living in a Muslim majority country and you didn't think to ask someone?
You'd rather sit in a corner and make up theories?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtPzU41og-Q&ab_channel=ThisMorning
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on October 02, 2021, 09:58:52 am
I think JNM was making an attempt at humor rather than his actual sober and serious thinking on the issue.
As for OP, I will give you my own lame attempt at humor as an explanation- I for one think it would be badass to dress like that. Just go full Crimson Guard from Star Wars. Communicate only with very serious and solemn gestures without speaking. Imperiously wave away other workers who try to get you to do some stupid office outing or whatever.
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on October 02, 2021, 09:58:52 am
Not that I can't take a joke, but given the amount of ignorance I've experienced throughout my life regarding my beliefs, it's very difficult to distinguish when people
are joking and when they really are that clueless. On a platform such as this, where communication is done through writing, you can't read facial expressions, tone of
voice or the mood of the environment, making it even more difficult.
I always think it's funny when westerners claim it's oppressively uncomfortable yet theyre the ones sweating with a soaked through t-shirt on a hot day, not the women in niqab or burqa or hijab.
I tend to peg men, and it's mostly men, who make a big deal about women covering themselves as nothing more than perverts.
These some guys are probably just as upset that comfortable, baggy jeans have become popular among young women these days.
Quote from: Aristocrat on October 02, 2021, 10:22:14 am
Well, either that or Canadian and reacting with confusion to anything that looks associated with hot weather. Also, to be fair lots of western women think it looks uncomfortable too.
But yeah a lot of people who feel entitled to eye-f*cking women.
I like to look at a pretty girl too, but I also understand the concept of modesty and society wanting to promote something other than hedonism and lust.
If people really are about freedom, the they should respect the freedom of people to dress according to their beliefs and customs.
Imagine having this as your dining room table. Meals would be solid!
Post by: grimlock2 on October 02, 2021, 01:07:02 pm
It's not about men wanting to ogle women, it's about basic human communication. Facial expressions are part of that communication. Hence people have to show their faces in courts of law. I've never heard of anyone having a problem with Muslim women covering their heads leaving the face exposed.
Post by: Aristocrat on October 02, 2021, 01:41:17 pm
Quote from: grimlock2 on October 02, 2021, 01:07:02 pm
She's a complete stranger in the street. What has she got to communicate to you?
Either way, you're perfectly capable of communicating with someone on the phone are you not?
If you watched the video I posted, the sister addresses this concern.
When the law requires her to remove the face cover (she's in a bank, taking an ID photo, in court etc.) she explains that she has no problem removing it.
Sure, If you don't think it's important to see people's faces when you're interacting with them face to face (not talking about people walking along the street) , that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I was just disagreeing with the idea that seemed to be going round that this issue is largely to do with men wanting to look at women's bodies.
On a related issue, I've noticed a growing trend for my university students to wear masks for Zoom lessons when they're sitting at home. I don't know how you'd feel about that but I have a zero tolerance policy towards it. Am I maybe abusing their human rights or something?
I was just disagreeing with the idea that seemed to be going round that this issue is largely to do with men wanting to look at women's bodies.
You're trying to get a random woman to remove some of her clothes.
What else is it supposed to be?
Their rights as to how they want to present themselves and what the law entitles them to takes precedence over what is convenient for you.
Regarding the Zoom lessons:
- They're not wearing the mask for religious reasons.
- You have a business arrangement with your students, you have no business with a random Muslim woman on the street
- If wearing a mask for Religious reasons, you students have the choice to remove their mask or request a different lecturer, or lay a complaint with the university
This issue is with Ethics and professionalism and would be covered in your universities code of conduct, consult it.
OK, when I talked about wanting to look at women's bodies, I meant in a sexual way, e.g. to assess their attractiveness etc. not to look at their faces to enable better communication. I would argue that when governments mandate things like teachers/nurses shouldn't be allowed to cover their faces in the classroom/ward, it's for the latter reason not the former, would you at least agree with that?
It's also quite ironic that you said this on this actual thread.
it's very difficult to distinguish when people
Which would suggest that you're at least aware of reasons other than sexual, why men might want to see women's faces when they're talking to them.
Post by: JNM on October 02, 2021, 03:20:08 pm
Maybe you're joking…
Of course I am joking.
And for those of you concerned about communication, I have less trouble talking with women in niqabs then I do with others with a lifetime reliance on facial expressions wearing a COVID-19 mask.
Post by: VanIslander on October 02, 2021, 03:21:38 pm
Give a woman who has education and skill some credit.
F*** whatever any man thinks. She deserves whatever she has got.
If a guy refers to her looks or gender, f*** him.
I feel like a 1995 feminist.
(Haven't we past this?)
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on October 02, 2021, 08:16:01 pm
Honestly, that sounds more like a justification than an actual reason. I've had plenty of interactions with people wearing niqab or veils or COVID masks and not once was I like "OMG, me not seeing their face is a real issue!!!"
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on October 02, 2021, 08:16:01 pm
So why do you think some NHS hospitals in the UK have banned the niqab for frontline staff? They're perverts? They're Islamaphobic? They're sweaty Westerners who resent the fact that other races keep cool in thicker clothes? Or they think it reduces the quality of the customer service the patients receive?
"it's very difficult to distinguish when people
voice or the mood of the environment, making it even more difficult."
Not ironic at all as we're talking about completely different issues.
Certain aspects of communication might be difficult without facial expressions, but communication, in civil society, requires mutual consent.
If it's difficult for you to understand what a person is saying, while they are wearing a religious covering over their face, it remains 100% a YOU problem.
A woman is under no obligation to disrobe simply because you can't understand the message. Her communication with you is on her terms, not yours.
The need to fully read the emotional cues of a person's face are only going to be necessary when engaging in deep conversation and if you know anything
about Muslim woman then a deep conversation is the very last thing a Muslim woman, in a burka or niqab, is going to want to have with a strange man.
If you're a parent and your child's teacher wears a niqab then count yourself lucky, unlike you, the kid will grow up giving a lot less of a crap about people who dress unusually.
If you really have serious trouble understanding what people because you can't see their mouths then you might have a serous problem... and I'm not being sarcastic.
According to this research article, Psychopaths tend to focus more on a speaker's mouth than the rest of their face. The theory being that psychopaths struggle with reading
emotions so they ignore emotional windows such as the eyes and instead tend to focus on the mouth of the speaker.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00552/full
Post by: grimlock2 on October 03, 2021, 12:22:10 am
Quote from: Aristocrat on October 02, 2021, 08:58:02 pm
So let me get this straight. You're telling me you know best what kind of conversations Muslim women want to be having with men they don't know and in your mind they don't need to fully display their emotions for those interactions? While of course you, as a Muslim man are free to.
Quote from: grimlock2 on October 03, 2021, 12:22:10 am
...No, you have not got it straight.
Islamically, both Muslim men and women are not permitted to have frivolous/idle conversation with members of the opposite sex or even be alone with
someone of the opposite sex who isn't a family member or spouse. There are exceptions, such as work, legal matters, medical matters etc. but nothing social.
Now, not all Muslims follow these teachings, I've bent the rules many times.
...but, you can bet anything that a woman wearing a niqab is going to to take these teachings seriously. If she's talking to you, she's also trying to keep the
conversation as brief as possible and isn't comfortable speaking to you.
That said, I've never come across anyone who makes this big of a fuss about seeing someone's face, behind a niqab. Do you speak to many niqab wearing
Muslim women in South Korea?
There are exceptions, such as work, legal matters, medical matters etc. but nothing social.
yes, and those areas were the only ones I gave examples in, (teaching and nursing) which you chose to ignore. I never said anything about socialising or women walking down the street, which you constantly referred to. Nor did I ever give my own opinion (or 'make a big fuss') on whether I think women should wear the niqab or not. All I said was there are other, more prevalent, arguments as to why Muslim women in some circumstances shouldn't wear a niqab that are not to do with perverted men wanting to look at their faces. That was it.
I don't know why they banned it. You'd have to ask them. If they did it because other people feel uncomfortable, then frankly, that's a shit reason.
If you're bothered, you're the one that needs to grow up and control your emotions, not the person wearing a perfectly acceptable garment.
Frontline nurse staff in the UK can't wear a niqab, ok. I don't agree with it, but that's the law. You don't have to agree with a law, in fact, you're fully within your rights to protest, petition or take legal action to change any law you wish.
The UK has some rather strange laws too, The Salmon Act of 1986 states that you'll be punished for "Handling salmon (or fish) in suspicious circumstances." Ridiculous, right?
Just because something is a law doesn't mean it makes sense.
It might make more sense if you understand from their perspective.
The Islamic instruction for all Muslim woman is to cover their "awrah" in public. Awrah refers to everything except the hands, feet and face. Covering the face isn't necessary, but some Muslim women choose to cover their face for different reasons, these include surrendering their vanity so they can focus on God. It's important to understand there's nothing in Islam that prohibits them from showing their face in public, it's a personal choice for them. This means that there is some flexibility (they may remove it in certain circumstances and put it back on later).
It's more an issue of liberty than one of Religion.
What I don't buy is that there is a legitimate reason for them not to wear it at school or hospital. I think it's simply a case of certain people being afraid of people who are very different and an irrational fear that their country is suddenly going to adopt Sharia law. The difficulty with communication is probably because you're too distracted by the woman's niqab and can't focus on what she's saying i.e. your problem.
People are different, get used to it.
Imagine watching sunsets like this from your yard every night?
Post by: Kurt Sorensen on October 03, 2021, 11:55:51 am
That's beautiful! Is it your yard or 'a' yard?
Post by: MayorHaggar on October 03, 2021, 02:48:42 pm
I thought religious discussions here were banned?
Imagine being as sad as LIC, some old fart supposedly living in "DA TROPICZ" who gets his jollies trolling on a website dedicated to teaching in South Korea. He's had two good posts, one where he roasted Martin about Admiral whathisface, and another where he detailed his wife's visa woes in China.
Quote from: Kurt Sorensen on October 03, 2021, 11:55:51 am
My yard
Quote from: MayorHaggar on October 03, 2021, 02:48:42 pm
I did 6 years in Korea with a specific goal and timeframe to achieve it from the moment I applied. To whit, make enough money to get set up in the tropics.
Q1: How many people on here are in Korea right now teaching?
Q2: How many people here went to Korea with a clear specific goal and a clear timeframe to achieve it - did it - and then are living their goal?
You???????
Imagine making a living hammering on these. Non-musicians can never understand the thrill of being onstage.
Post by: hangook77 on October 05, 2021, 12:06:05 pm
Imagine an October that wasn't this hot. (My tues school has a problem with their air con which makes it worse.) Otherwise, not much else to say. I'm sure Mr. martin will come on to defend it though.
Post by: tony tony tony on October 05, 2021, 12:07:22 pm
In my younger days, befor ebecomingn a university professor with Tenure (OLD AGE... happens to the best of Us), i was treading the stage of jazz clubs and bars in my native . Rocking that flute day and night. Live Jazz is what I do.
I learned to play this amazing little instrument, my dear friend the flute, in a theater workshop with during a visit to NYC in the early 1980s. My jaw dropped when I first heard Jazz musician Don Pullen playing a Boogaloo beat on a boombox as a company member in an act called Last Tango in Little Rock. A few months later, on the same stage, I saw my first live Jazz.
Post by: tylerthegloob on October 05, 2021, 12:08:44 pm
imagine having a 3 day week this week with only 2 days of teaching (its me. i'm the guy)
Quote from: hangook77 on October 05, 2021, 12:06:05 pm
Dude, it's not that bad. Man up and stop whining about it.
Post by: Savant on October 05, 2021, 01:47:25 pm
Quote from: WhenInRome... on October 05, 2021, 01:16:39 pm
Get the sticky icky, bro. ;)
Marty's definitely on something with his schizophrenic cross-posting or he needs to be.
Quote from: Savant on October 05, 2021, 01:47:25 pm
I think it's hilarious the number of people obsessed with me on this forum who get so wound up over everything.
Post by: WhenInRome... on October 05, 2021, 01:57:41 pm
Youre super interesting, cucky ;)
Get dat sticky icky!
I accept your petition to be the first member of the DeMart fan club.
Nah, Captain Corea started it ;)
When I lived in rural small-town Korea, DMart was my town's worst and filthiest mart.
Post by: gogators! on October 05, 2021, 06:44:56 pm
Dude, it's not that bad. Man the F up and stop whining about it.
The good ol' days of Canadians complaining about the heat. That was all pre-trump of course.
Post by: dippedinblush on October 05, 2021, 11:50:43 pm
What if a a bunch of women made laws forcing men to wears veils and nonsense over their bodies? No way would they comply!
It is ****** wrong. It has everything to do with CONTROL! It's men (who have invented those laws) ordering women that they have to wear these garments because it "protects them" and that Mohammed willed it??? **** off!
It is archaic and it's wrong BECAUSE women have NO CHOICE in the matter and that is the issue! Nobody in their right mind would wear a penguin outfit with two eyes poked out if that was their choice!!MEN MADE those laws offering women NO CHOICE, saying it was God handing it down to a prophet!!! Even being ORDERED to wear a veil over the hair is ridiculous! Why? Because you shouldn't be ordered to do that. it's a law MADE BY MAN to control you! I would argue even if you were ordered to wear a veil over you toes, it is WRONG! WHY? Because you don't have control over your body.[/u]
And I do agree with the many posters on this topic that says it comes to sex and property. It's like "I'm gonna cover my bitch up so you can't see her, she is mine"...and I will mostly keep her in the house, but when I bring her out in public I will dress her up as a mofo penguin so you don't get eyes for her"
How is that not wrong?
ITS WRONG BECAUSE SHE HAS NO CHOICE!!!!! And that is what irks me and should irk everyone! No one should be forced to wear blankets and veils over their bodies because their "mans" can't deal with their looks.
Post by: L I on October 06, 2021, 02:07:25 am
Now in Saudi Arabia: 91F / 33C. High for the day is 101F / 38C. Not even the hottest time of year. That'd be June / July / August.
It's been annoying to wear a mask during the pandemic; imagine a beekeeper suit forever.
Humans need sunlight exposure on skin for optimal health. It's the way we evolved.
Quote from: L I on October 06, 2021, 02:07:25 am
Good point about vitamin D.
Quote from: dippedinblush on October 05, 2021, 11:50:43 pm
Yes, but I mean you could say Western governments control women by forcing them to cover their breasts when they go out in public, and women in the Amazon rain forest etc. are much freer from tyranny. Different cultures and all that. All equally valid.
Post by: OnNut81 on October 06, 2021, 07:59:14 am
A bit of a difference in extreme. Also, in a lot of the west a woman is now free to uncover her breasts in public in the same places a man can. Been that way for a long time in some paces. A lot of women choose not to, and perhaps a lot of Muslim women would choose to cover up. Key word is "choose" here. Most of us in the west are familiar with the "No shirt, no service" signs outside businesses. It applies to both men and women. A woman wants to go stroll down the street in Toronto and hang out in the park topless, she's welcome to. The problem is, she's also very welcome to by every 14 year old in the city, so we're not mature enough with it, yet. Germany is the west. Go to a city park there. There's not a visiting contingent of Amazonian women.
By western government, do you mean Utah? I can see them having issues with a woman's boobs out in public.
Post by: 745sticky on October 06, 2021, 08:05:16 am
Yes, but I mean you could say Western governments control women by forcing them to cover their breasts when they go out in public,
i mean, some people do protest that too, haha. #freethenipple and all that.
A woman wants to go stroll down the street in Toronto and hang out in the park topless, she's welcome to. The problem is, she's also very welcome to by every 14 year old in the city, so we're not mature enough with it, yet
Isn't this exactly the same principle at work in strict Muslim countries? A woman isn't free to walk down the streets topless in Toronto by law because it would have a detrimental effect on young males. A Muslim woman isn't allowed to show her face in strict Muslim countries by law for the same reasons. Just different degrees at work.
You didn't read what I wrote. A woman IS free by LAW in Toronto to walk down the street topless. She just may not be comfortable in doing so as it's only about twenty years since she's been able to. People have to catch up to thinking it's not sexual. But, if a man is able to walk topless, so is a woman. She has that choice. It wouldn't have a detrimental affect on guys. But, she might not want the attention.
Post by: CO2 on October 06, 2021, 09:31:27 am
I mean, let's be frank. The amount of topless men who are just walking around the city are pretty low, too. The beach is one thing, but it's not like there are droves of shirtless men just walking around............. .. well, anywhere.
Quote from: OnNut81 on October 06, 2021, 09:29:01 am
Really? There are no public decency laws regarding breasts in Canada?
Quote from: CO2 on October 06, 2021, 09:31:27 am
Have you never been to Hong Kong? It's pretty common there.
No, but if you can remember Gwen Jacobs, a name that is seared into the memory of males of a certain age range in Ontario, she strolled down the street in the nineties on a hot day and purposely got cited for being topless. She challenged this as men had the right to walk around on a hot day and I guess it wound its way to the Ontario Supreme Court and the law was overturned. Now, obviously most men don't walk around the streets without a shirt, but in a park on catching some rays on the beach or whatever, a woman can go topless. The fact that many do not is because it's still a bit of a novelty and some immigrants from more conservative countries make just explode on the spot (especially if they're from a country where women are forced to cover up.) Apparently, in some cultures a woman in baggy sweatpants going out to the corner store would be too much for males from certain countries. But, I'd say men that can't see women in shirts and jeans without getting excited are just perverts.
Sure, there are. And female breasts are not considered indecent under the laws of Ontario and Quebec. That's pretty much all of Canada. Maybe topless skiing is a thing in B.C. You're never going to go to the rest of Canada unless your plane gets diverted.
Post by: Kyndo on October 06, 2021, 11:07:38 am
Funny you should bring that up because, unlike in the USA, it is perfectly legal for women (and men) to walk about topless in public. In fact, it's explicitly mentioned in the legal books, a hold over from long ago when barroom floozies lobbied for it, I believe.
Related point of interest: Where I lived in BC was originally settled by Doukhobors kicked out of Russia when it went Red (signs in cyrillic, Russian Orthodox Church, ruskie festivals, Russian taught as second language in schools etc etc). One of the things that came along with the Doukhobors was one of their extremist sects called the Sons of Freedom. They enjoyed protesting things, and would often march through parts of town "clad in the light". :huh:
As I said before, I'll go with the desert people who have dealt with this for millennia vs. Westerner who soaks their t-shirt in 15 minutes in moderate heat and stinks up the bus.
Seriously, given some of the ineptitude I've seen on this forum regarding basic measures for staying cool (What do you mean wear an undershirt??? Why is polyester bad????), we really are in no position to lecture.
I fully agree that choice is the core element. While making veils legally binding, it defeats the purpose.
However, UNDERSTAND something BEFORE you critique it.
As mentioned previously in this thread, the veil is not a 'fard' (obligatory) teaching in Islam. What is 'fard' is to cover one's 'assets', which include the body (including the figure), excluding the feet, hands and face. So, your belief the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) instructed his followers to wear it is completely false.
There are few places in the world where the veil is required, in public, and these are mainly isolated regions or areas controlled by ISIS or the Taliban. Even Saudi women don't need to wear the veil. So... no legitimate legal system pear-say is forcing them to.
Again, your beliefs are false.
There are multiple reasons why a Muslim woman would wear the veil and while there are circumstances where she is forced to there are PLENTY of cases where she is doing it by choice. I'd argue that, from my experience and knowledge, the majority are wearing it by choice. Out of curiosity, I asked my wife what she'd say if I told her to wear the veil. She laughed and said I could go find another wife if I asked her to wear that.
To say that all Muslim women are being forced to wear the veil is incredibly insulting and demeaning to the majority who are wearing it by choice. The thought needs to cross your mind that these women have completely different values to you. When you're a white American, growing up in the US, spending most of your time around white friends and family you develop certain values and, in many cases, these values become the objective standard that you measure other people's values too.
The women wearing a veil becomes "oppressed" from your perspective, because where you come from the woman who flaunts her beauty is venerated.
Muslim women aren't the only ones who have different values to modern westerners. I've had a female NET, who I only met twice, get all passive aggressive and pissy after I politely refused her hug (was at the end of a workshop and we were all saying goodbye). At a different workshop, a female CT shrieked when the male NET she worked with went in for a hug to say goodbye. Apparently being co-workers for a year entitles you to a hug. I've seen this happen ALL THE TIME, in Korea.
As mentioned in a previous thread, modern westerners tend to be extremely ameri-centric and oblivious to the values and attitudes of people, cultures and faiths which they haven't been exposed to.
It's pure arrogance to believe that women outside your circle are living under oppression simply because they have different values. The Muslim women wearing a veil is trying really hard to be respected for more than her body, I think giving her that is the least you could do.
Mahmoud Abdul-Raouf, the NBA player who refused to stand for the anthem in the 90s (or was it the 2000s?) and was vilified for it, also refused to shower alongside other players and would be careful to cover himself in accordance with Islam as he practiced it. Rules are not just applied to women.
Post by: CO2 on October 06, 2021, 12:09:34 pm
So... no legitimate legal system pear-say is forcing them to.
Just for the record. But I do love the way you spelled it, too.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/per-se
Quote from: CO2 on October 06, 2021, 12:09:34 pm
Sorry, was a bit of breighn-phart. I make plenty of spelling mistakes when I try to type long posts quickly.
Agreed. There's a lot of not frank on this.
Like lets be frank, we do stare at women in tight jeans and tight shirts, so lets not pretend that there isn't something there. Also, lets be frank, boobies are sexual.
One can make legit arguments regarding decency laws and Islamic standards of dress, but if we're going to do so, we shouldn't pretend certain things that are true, aren't.
. In fact, it's explicitly mentioned in the legal books, a hold over from long ago when barroom floozies lobbied for it, I believe.
Bare breasts aren't sexual according to those who support law on the books because people selling sex lobbied for it.
Like I wrote above, this kind of thinking is just ridiculous. Just admit they're sexual AND let people be topless.
I'm not a mindreader and I have no data, but I suspect that a decent chunk of people wearing Niqab or Burqa or more conservative dress are doing so as a direct response to various things such as, I don't know...
1) Colonization and warfare from outsiders across their lands
2) Being referred to as primitive and barbarians by said invaders
3) Laws banning them being worn in "open and tolerant" countries like France
4) People claiming they are free and independent while drunkenly stumbling across the streets of wherever and vomiting into a garbage pile. "Why don you wansh to be likes ush?" Like did it ever occur to some people that their libertine ways are a walking advertisement FOR adopting a more conservative lifestyle and value set? I mean, likewise with overly fundamentalists who in turn drive people to be more liberal, but the point stands. Sometimes we aren't always the best advocates for the lifestyle we claim is so great.
If say, China invaded us and declared western-style formal business wear for women to be "medieval" and tried to encourage the women of America to shed a few layers as a sign of "independence" while occupying our country and referring to us as barbarians and say, some province banned women from wearing business attire (which overwhelmingly targeted westerners for whatever reason), all while drunkenly stumbling across the streets in Chinese-style dresses and vomiting into roadside bushes and saying "Be like ush greats Chinesesh" you wouldn't think more than a few people would dress formally out of sheer defiance?
Like if America ever got as batcrap crazy as the French and tried to ban the Amish from wearing their garb, I'd wear Amish garb out of solidarity.
Apparently, insults and literal bombs have not persuaded Muslims to adopt western dress. Shocking.
(https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aYy66z2_700bwp.webp)
Absolutely, though I can't think imagine why choosing to not stand during an anthem could be anything other than a political statement.
The word 'hijab' literally means barrier, in English, however the Arabic meaning is broader and also refers to modesty of dress for both men and women. For men, there are certain rules of dress (depending on the occasion). Generally:
- No gold jewellery
- No ostentatious displays of wealth
- No silk (silk ties are a bit of a grey area)
- Shorts which don't cover the knees aren't allowed
- No clothing which draws unnecessary attention to yourself
Some might say, why aren't men wearing long abayas? Well, Islam has this crazy belief that men and women are biologically, emotionally and cognitively different.
Aren't these Canadian laws about bare breasts a bit discriminatory against ass men? What about their rights to get an eye-full?
Mrariage; the devil's dance. careful boys, you mess with a two-bit Yugoslav and she'll poke you in the eye and run off with the groomsman.
She just wanted somethnig pretty to put in her room.
smoke kills you in one way; and doesn't keep you warm for a minute.
He can ask no better match then the dark focres of Hell, and if all women were like her, they'd all be cialled Charles.
I'm twenty-seven, not eight; I'm always twenty-seven, always have been asnd always will be.
Quote from: tony tony tony on October 06, 2021, 02:34:24 pm
EDIT: Wrong thread!
See what'd I tell you? Thankfully my Wed school has air con. I think it will finally break next week and cool down. Woo hoo! Wed or Thurs!
Imagine Joey Biden's approval rating tanking?!!
Oh, wait, it is. He didn't fix your problems like the media claimed last fall.
(He'll be gone soon anyways.)
Keep my quotes out of this! I wasn't making an argument for or against... uh... whatever it is that's being argued here. I was just noting an interesting and possibly little known legal point. :smiley:
But for my 2 cents, I'm always a little taken aback how horrified North Americans society gets over a little nudity, but have absolutely no issue with watching some luckless victim get messily dismembered on television. That's what you guess when you let Puritans colonize a continent, I guess. :undecided:
Post by: Adel on October 07, 2021, 07:04:18 am
Quote from: Kyndo on October 07, 2021, 06:56:56 am
:undecided:
I'm often perplexed by that too!
On a side note is there any chance we could increase the range of emojis in that preview screen.
Simple Machines allows sysadmin to swap out the emoji-panels, but those panels are predetermined.
Arsalan swapped them out a few years ago, and it was horrible. Super horrible. They were blue! People were threatening to light themselves on fire in protest if he didn't quickly swap them back. (Their bluffs were called, but no dice...)
Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to insert custom emojis. Maybe include a folder on your desktop for emojis you want to use and insert them as you would an image (height=17 or 18 for an emoji, I believe) (https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/160/emoji-one/104/thinking-face_1f914.png)
Post by: tylerthegloob on October 07, 2021, 07:39:34 am
yeah i do it all the time (https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/285/call-me-hand_1f919.png)
[edit: you can google emojipedia and then just insert the images from there]
Post by: hangook77 on October 07, 2021, 11:35:27 am
Well, the left (the far left AOC and crew, the woke kids) are the new Puritans now. Everything shocks and triggers them and their over righteous sense of indignation. The folks who fought for free speech in the 60's got old and are scratching their heads at those trying to shut it down.
Rememebr it was this new left that got outraged over some skimpy bikini photos on the London Subway and Sadiq "woke" Khan did exactly as he was told and had them removed.
Post by: Kyndo on October 07, 2021, 12:41:26 pm
Quote from: hangook77 on October 07, 2021, 11:35:27 am
Well, the left (the far left AOC and crew, the woke kids) are the new Puritans now. Everything shocks and triggers them and their over righteous sense of indignation.
I'm shocked that you feel that "the left" are the new Puritans. Shocked!
But no, it's a societal thing, not a political thing. Y'all are messed up. :smiley:
I can't bloody believe it, I'm agreeing with this guy twice in one day.
If it wasn't the Puritans, it would've been a different group of people with an ideology that perhaps had no problem with nudity, but soiled themselves at the sight of a paper cut.
Why couldn't it have been a well balanced, psychologically healthy group of settlers that colonized the New World, decimating the original inhabitants, shipping in slaves en masse, and working as hard as they possibly could to rip every last bent penny out of the soil no matter the cost to future generations? :sad:
Quote from: Kyndo on October 07, 2021, 01:08:16 pm
There were no slaves shipped into Massachussets. They did it on their own and the orginal settlers had peace with the nearby natives for nearly 50 years. One of my ancestors Stephen Hopkins came over there on the Mayflower. You want to talk slavery, the Carribbean and the British along with the Spaniards who also enslaved the local native population to work in their minds. Learn a little history and don't lump all folks in together. Those who came to the North came for religious liberty though some were wound up too tight and to the South - Virginia - Jamestown for business growing crops. They started off with Indentured servants who got their freedom and land after several years. Later they did sadly turn to African slaves like the European nations in the Caribbean and elsehwere. Barbary slavery existed at this time with white slavery up until the early 1800's.
But Puritians is often refered to as those who get offended by almost anything and have a moral outrage. Well, that is the new left today behaving like that now.
It's unsurprising, given everything we know about human evolution and cognition, that "the New Puritans" have emerged. For starters, humans, at least based on what we know about human behavior, appear to be predisposed to form some kind of religion, hence why virtually every society that sprung up around the world had some form of religion. Religion is essentially part of a human's brain, it is natural. If you believe this is a result of evolution, not divine intervention, it is quite likely one of the mechanisms that allowed us to form cooperative, stable tribes and units and actually engage in some elements of long-term thinking.
Modern leftism has largely rejected religion and does not practice it, however that biological impulse still exists. It has seen other forms arise, most often political philosophies which eventually take on the character of religion- ceremony, ritual, purity, elevation of certain people into "sainthood", orthodoxy, even at times ascribing divine/mythological status to certain founding members. Usually these new quasi-religions go through the same things young emerging religions go through- fracturing, purification, declaring certain people to be heretics, and often lead to extremist behavior.
The one thing this hasn't happened with, by and large, is with secular humanism and this might be due to the fact that secular humanism evolved alongside religion and even included various religious figures amongst its ranks (i.e diests or Ancient Greeks or even religious philosophers who might still mention certain divine or religious factors), thus its slow evolution alongside the evolution of various religions allowed it to escape this pattern (though one might argue that later political philosophies sprang from this, which did become extreme, but that's a bit of stretch). Also, its emphasis on the individual and by extension its frequent embrace of solitary views also inhibited the fundamentalist tendency (though again, you did get some extremist splits and spasms).
The religious left now is in large extent going through the same process. Whereas previous leftist movements often had strong religious elements to them (think Black churches in the Civil Rights movement, in fact the two most religious groups on the left- Blacks and Latinos, are also more socially conservative than the Democratic Party as a whole), or the Secular Humanism tradition, that is no longer the case. With many of the children, starting in the 50s and increasing since then, growing up without any religious upbringing or ritual, they fill that biological void with what they have the most exposure to- Grievance politics and what they learned about in school which emphasizes power imbalances, particularly through race and gender. It is unsurprising that they have created this new religion. And like many new religions, it is going through its growing pains- Strict dogma, the casting out of heretics, emphasis on purity, intolerance towards those who don't believe, casting things in terms of good vs. evil, viewing non followers as fair game for violence and labeling in incredibly harsh terms, etc.
Now thankfully, the numbers are not as great as they seem and those on the right like to shriek in panic over. Most on the left (including many young people) still look more towards either their traditional religious upbringing or to Secular Humanism philosophy for inspiration (or something non-political as their primary religion- i.e. Sports/Foodieism/Fandom) but the loud subset, particularly active on campuses and in social media, is there and it is functioning as a religion.
hangook77's clock is stopped today. He is right about this. Lumping the Puritans (who did have their faults) in with all other colonists is not accurate. While you did have local witch trial insanity and strict laws inflicted on themselves, they weren't storming the ramparts of some city in the quest for gold.
That Puritan tradition, incidentally, was the seed of the abolitionist movement in the United States. Yay!
On the other hand, it was also the seed of the temperance movement...
No, my point was that first and foremost about WHO forces and enforces the rule, WHY they do it, and IF the person/s have a CHOICE in the matter. If a person has a choice, I truly do not care what they choose to wear, but if they are forced to by circumstances outside of their control, it is wrong!
If people are using bare breasts and asses as counterpoints, that is kind of out of the scope here as we are talking about women wearing cloth to cover their faces, hair, and in some cases whole bodies (and sometimes screens to cover their eyes) because the custom deems they should and in some cases the LAW deems they should as well.
Now I think WHY would a woman do this....? Because MEN have TOLD them they need to do so. And WHY would men do this? Because they they need to exert their POWER, their CONTROL, and their STATUS over the women wearing these coverings. Because if they don't wear them, they will be seen by other MEN and WOMEN as less in status (socially as well as in terms of piety). (To say this has something to do about rebellion of Western forces is ridiculous because they are CHOOSING to wear these clothes. I'm talking about women who can't choose.)
And HOW could men use this power? By using religion. And through the Quran he has found something that strengthens his claims to power over women, and thus this tradition has thus flourished and has morphed into a culture of oppression. Now to say that many Muslim women in the Middle East are not oppressed is wrong~!
Again, my argument has been about CHOICE and WHO created it and WHY this custom persists.
I think if women don't have a CHOICE, and are being forced to wear this stuff, then it is wrong. And don't keep comparing this to bare breasts and bare asses...cause its apples and oranges.
I do wish to say that I don't mean to disparage Aristocrat AT ALL.... I think he is a very fine man, like a true gentleman (and I do say this because I know that in his posts he shows compassion, tolerance, decorum, and has always shown respect/reverence for people and even animals' well-being).
There were no slaves shipped into Massachusetts. They did it on their own and the original settlers had peace with the nearby natives for nearly 50 years.
50 years! Impressive!
Even the Vikings had a *lot* longer with the Thule. Although, admittedly, it took them about 5 minutes into first contact with the Vinland natives to start picking fights they couldn't win....
You want to talk slavery, the Carribbean and the British along with the Spaniards who also enslaved the local native population to work in their minds.
Yes. And... ... ...?
Learn a little history and don't lump all folks in together. ..But Puritans are often referred to as those who get offended by almost anything and have a moral outrage.
Always open to learning more. But as you yourself have clearly stated, the term "Puritans" can refer to more than just the originals. I wasn't referring to just the OG, sorry if that wasn't clear.
Also, I find that terms like "the right" and "the left" are gross over-generalizations, and lump very disparate groups together. In fact, I think that those 2 terms are the very root of America's current state of extreme political polarization. It leads to the "us vs them" mentality that has seriously undermined the unity of that nation, and provides a huge lever for competing/hostile nations. The sooner that broad-sweeping terms like "the left" and "the right" are abandoned, the faster the US can heal and continue on its previous path of prosperity.
I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, people who promote partisanship will be retrospectively branded as agitators, and perhaps, even traitors.
Those who came to the North came for religious liberty though some were wound up too tight and to the South - Virginia - Jamestown for business growing crops. They started off with Indentured servants who got their freedom and land after several years. Later they did sadly turn to African slaves like the European nations in the Caribbean and elsewhere. Barbary slavery existed at this time with white slavery up until the early 1800's.
Again, sure, no arguments. But... what's the point you're making?
Well, that is the new left today behaving like that now.
And *only* "the left", of course. :wink:
It's unsurprising that...
I appreciate the explanation. It was an informative read. But really, I was expressing my not-so-very-shockedness at our resident far-right poster ascribing yet another negative quality to "the left".
ie: (https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CraftyFailingDuckbillplatypus-max-1mb.gif)
It is the far left that is crazy and is increasingly taking over the Democratic Party. You did see how they harassed Kristin Sinema the other day. So, there are reasonable Democrats out there and centrists like Sinema and Joe Manchin. But the crazies like the squad, the air heads like Trudeau and Kamala Harris are something else but will give the woke kids whatever they want with no delay. Either way, the new left is crazy and other traditonal liberals have pointed this out on their own. Long time Liberal and Trump hater Bill Maher being but one example. Antifa rioting and burning down buildings. Trying to storm the White House in summer of 2020 where Trump had to go into the bunker. Yet, we only hear of Jan 6th over and over. No bias there.
As for history, the point is you said everyone was a slave owner. The truth is many and most were not. The original Puritans had good relations with the natives for 50 years.
It is the far left that is crazy and is increasingly taking over the Democratic Party.
Your biases are showing. :smiley:
As for history, the point is you said everyone was a slave owner.
I did not say that, actually. :smiley:
Perfectly legitimate questions. I'm assuming they aren't rhetorical so I'll answer them.
WHO forces and enforces the rule
The veil is NOT a rule in Islam. In fact, Islam doesn't have rules, rules are for games. Islam has teachings. Therefore, if someone claims it's a rule it's because they made it a rule. In Islam we call this 'bidah' or innovation, which refers to making things up and claiming it's a Religious teaching.
Enforcement? Again, Islam has teachings so laws and the enforcement of said laws are done by governments or whoever/whatever is in charge. If you enforce a teaching it's no longer a teaching, it becomes a law. A rule or law has a penalty when broken, a teaching does not.
Some critics might get frustrated with the logic I'm using saying I'm just playing with semantics, but it isn't. You really have to be incredibly thorough and knowledgable in these things before you can critique with any degree of competence.
WHY they do it
The 'men doing it purely to subjugate women? I don't know, maybe. Though, I'd say it's more rigid cultural practice and not wanting to stand out or go against the norm... same as everywhere else. Honestly though, I don't know as in all my years in a Muslim community that LOVES to gossip, I've never heard of a woman being forced to wear a veil by her father or husband, at least where I'm from. It also seems kind of odd as a means to 'claim ownership', 'status' or 'control'.
Essentially, you're claiming that these men are trying to brag to everyone with what they 'own'. Well, this is done all around the world, ALL THE TIME, with both men AND women. A man will parade his hot girlfriend around and a wife might brag about her rich husband to everyone around her. Why your theory makes no sense to me is that when someone brags, they want everyone to see and covet what they have. It makes no sense that a man would want to show off his wife... and then cover her up, completely. It's like buying a fancy handbag to show off, but keeping it wrapped inside a towel.
Is the man trying to show off his ability to 'control'? In certain places in the world, perhaps, but how is that different from abusive and controlling men you find everywhere who:
- force their partners to dress and speak a certain way
- call their partners 50x a day to check where they are
- not allow their partners to have friends or leave the house
Hopefully, you can see how I've established that the veil is, in fact, a cultural practice or custom. Please pay attention as my previous post clearly explained that these men can't use Islam or the Qur'an to justify it as there is NO mention of a veil in the Qur'an (find a single mention of woman being instructed to wear a veil/face covering in the Qur'an and I'll become and Atheist right now). So, your theory of men using the Qur'an to justify the veil is completely wrong.
WHO created it
The idea to wear a veil is a very old custom from the Middle-East. In the dessert, it was originally a practical solution for protecting the face and eyes from the sand. About 150yrs after the death of Muhammad (PBUH) it's not clear who or why some Muslim women began wearing the veil, but it's suggested that some women took it upon themselves to surrender their beauty to emulate Muhammad's (PBUH) wives, who are referred to as 'Mothers of the Believers'. These women where revered, the veil was venerated as a symbol of abandoning worldly concerns to please God and that's likely how it become adopted as a cultural practice.
I give these sisters the benefit of the doubt and I think you should too.
I really think you have no idea who these women who wear the veil are?
If you're brave enough, try wearing a veil or even a hijab for a day in a place where Muslims are the minority. Experiencing just one day of the abuse, insults, threats, stares and comments these sisters put up for most of their lives might give you some idea of the ridiculous strength and faith these sisters have to tolerate this sh*t and still do it.
Maybe then, you might think twice before jumping to the concussion that someone that strong, resilient and defiant can be controlled by anyone.
Or braver still, try walking around Riyadh in a crop top and mini skirt
I spent quite a bit of time writing that post and the topic isn't something one takes lightly. Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom, not a Democracy. You are not free to wear what you wish there. Saudi Arabia isn't being hypocritical about it, you wear what the law allows you to wear or you don't go there. Western nations ruled by Democracy, a woman should be free to wear either a veil or a boob tube if she wishes.
Oversimplifying as you did is a peanut gallery worthy contribution by someone looking to devolve a serious issue into a joke.
If you're not going to engage it in a constructive and mature manner then I ask you to kindly piss off.
I spent quite a bit of time writing that post and the topic isn't something one takes lightly. Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom, not a Democracy. You are not free to wear what you wish there. Saudi Arabia isn't being hypocritical about it, you wear what the law allows you to wear or you don't go there….
Crown Prince MbS has reminded us that Quran says nothing about abayas, hijabs and niqabs.
Foreign women are (explicitly) not required to wear them anymore, and when I was there (late 2019 to late 2020) I noticed more and more choosing not to every week at the grocery store - the only place I could go due to lockdowns. Even some local women choose not to wear them. There is a fine for dressing immodesty, but it can only be leveled by police, not the "religious police".
They have also removed the "single (men)" and "family" dining area in restaurants, and allow unmarried foreigners share hotel rooms (acknowledging that different cultures have different practices).
Much of what you have seen in Saudi in the past has been "culture" and "political control" rather than religion. Culture changes, and King Salman and his heir MbS seam to be less interested in that type of control than their predecessors.
Post by: Liechtenstein on October 08, 2021, 03:51:06 pm
Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try.
Imagine how amazing it would be to live here. As long as I had something to read I could do without much of modernity.
Quote from: JNM on October 08, 2021, 03:46:47 pm
Thanks for that.
Watched some YT video of an American guy who travels to unusual locations, like Saudi. I believe he travelled there quite recently
and spent a lot of time with some young locals. The locals claimed that it's changed dramatically in the last couple of years, gender mixing
is taking place in cafes and restaurants where young couples are meeting and spending time. This is part of a drive to increase investment
and business from abroad.
I was a good time to have been there to see the changes happening almost every week.
I started this thread about imaging cool stuff. It sure was diverged into something it was not meant to be.
You posted this:
The discussion followed exactly how a rational person would expect it to.
Quote from: Liechtenstein on October 08, 2021, 11:26:04 pm
Imagine an affordable, versatile vehicle with great gas mileage: https://news.yahoo.com/ford-maverick-truck-america-needs-170400011.html?_guc_consent_skip=1633541470
It's Friday night and I have had the worst week of work since I started working in the summer of 1979. I am drunk.
My family were big magazine buyers. I don't even know if people still buy magazines. They came every month in the mail, usually on the same day'ish and it was an exciting time.
My ____mag should be here today!
Our family, including my choices got: National Geographic (family), Reader's Digest ( mom and kinda me), Popular Mechanics (dad and kinda me), Discover (my science mag), MAD! ( me and dad...he loved that mag and he was a very talented artist. The liner cartoons by Sergio Arragones....), and Circus my Rock n Roll mag. And of course Playboy which my mom bought a subscription for me for my16th birthday. Pretty cool thing for a mom to do.
But that National Geographic with the picture of the Terra Cotta Warriors on it. Dreams become reality.......
Imagine.........
The Nat. Geo. mag showed up in our mailbox and I was instantly gripped. The cover picture looked so awesome. I read the story, I was 13 or 14, and I said to myself, "Someday I will see those warriors."
I spent 4 hellish months in China in 2016. But 2 things happened that made it worthwhile.
#1 I met a really nice girl from Italy who was teaching at our university and had an MA in Chinese. She spoke, read, and wrote Chinese Mandarin fluently.
#2 We went to Xian together and you could not ask for better company. We had a nice hotel room and hired a private driver for 4 days while we were there. He was at our beck and call. We appreciated everything he did, and of course my friend could talk to him.
She. too. has spent a 2 week holiday here in our house with me and me wife. At my wife's behest I might add.
These are some profoundly amateur pictures I took with my lousy camera.
Can you dig the detail? The bottom of the shoe pf the archer, the hair, the armour....
For me it was an absolute dream come true.
Imagine a a 40 year old dream coming true!!!
As JNM explained, you set the initial topic and it was NOT about 'cool stuff'.
While we're all happy that you're enjoying life, it seems people are infinitely more
interested in discussing current issues than ogling over your personal photo album
and holiday pics.
You're living your dream, but buddy... we really don't care.
You seem like a truly miserable cantankerous person.
I can't imagine being like that.
Quote from: gogators! on October 08, 2021, 11:51:08 pm
In 2016 I bought a new Kia Picanto. It was expensive her, $16,700, due to import taxes. No problem, my wife won $7000 the next day and we put it straight down on the car.
Decent wheels and comfortable and a great city car. Not too sure I'd like to drive it from T'or Bay to Vancouver.
No problem, my wife won $7000 the next day and we put it straight down on the car.
How'd that happen? Card game or what? That's a big stroke of luck!
Funny story. Everybody that bought a new Hyundai/Kia car that year had their name automatically put into a draw. We didn't even know about it till they called the next day, and of course thought someone was taking the piss. My wife and her family are lucky. We've been together almost 16 years, married almost 14, and I figure to the best of my memory and math skills my wife has won about $20,000 total in lotteries. No idea what the total would be if her family was added in, but likely double that.
The day she got the call from Hyundai she ran right up to the street and bought a lottery ticket and won $600.
2 weeks ago I bought a lottery ticket and won $18 and my entire family laughed! It was the only time I have ever won anything in a lottery. Funny.....
How much do they *spend* on lottery tickets?
Maybe $2 a week. Lottery here has no bearing on lotteries in Canada at all. I can't even figure them out.
It doubt that.
The basic premise is that a lottery collects x$ and pays out (x-n)$.
Promotional contests (like the car contest) work on the premise that enough more people will buy your product to cover the prize.
Whining about hijabs that don't affect you is "cool stuff?"
I still wanna know if the religious discussion ban is still in effect here. When I first started coming here it was a big no-no. Not anymore?
Nah, you're approaching this with Lotto 649 in mind. Liechtenstein isn't talking about his Canadian provincial lottery. In Thailand for example, there is the government run lottery which isn't as popular as the lottery everyone plays on a daily basis. It's basically running the numbers. People can bet whatever they want whenever they want with whomever the local "bookie" is. In Thailand the one my ex would play was based on the movement of the stock market that day. They can go and bet a dollar if they want because someone in the neighborhood had a dream about a number. It's illegal and massively popular and down there when people talk about the lottery that's what they are talking about.
Liechtenstein likes to mock random things he has no clue about, typically in his trademark juvenile fashion. He likes things to start and end with simple mockery and hates it when his mockery brings about a discussion which proves him wrong or requires him to articulate his rhetoric with finesse greater than that of a 4yr old trying to eat uramaki.
In this thread, he posted a picture of the sunset from HIS yard, the pictures from HIS holiday and the drumset in HIS studio. He wants us to talk about him and isn't happy that we generally don't care.
Not too long ago, hundreds of people regularly used and posted on this forum. Discussing Religion, making sock accounts etc. these got you suspended or banned. With only a few dozen people regularly posting, whoever runs this site knows they can't be particularly picky anymore.
I don't mind discussing Religion and even though I'm not threatened by the subject I've never instigated a discussion or thread on it.
Nah, you're approaching this with Lotto 649 in mind.
Well, in some sense, whether it's Lotto or a numbers game, the principle is the same- The person running the game takes in a certain amount and pays out a certain amount that they profit from. They may or may not use promotionals and such. Whether it's based on the stock market or scores or random numbers chosen by a computer, at least in overall concept it's the same.
That being said the lack of state-run oversight and funds going to things like education is a big significant difference and I think that while conceptually they're the same, the practical differences are enough to be worth pointing out and do have a significant impact.
How is that different? Collect a bunch of money, pay most of it, cover your expenses and profits with what you don't pay out.
Post by: OnNut81 on October 11, 2021, 03:50:57 pm
I was referring to his statement that his family spent about 2$ a week on the lottery and that it isn't run through the government and is in fact illegal. In that respect it has no bearing on how the lottery functions in Canada. You're not guaranteed your prize if too many people win big (the bookie will abscond). You don't run the risk of the draw being scrapped by authorities and you losing whatever you risked, and certain charities do not benefit from you playing.
As for the concept of choosing numbers, and paying and hoping your numbers come up so that you win; it is so obviously similar that no one would even bother debating that. That's the part you thought he was saying was different?
Post by: MayorHaggar on October 13, 2021, 04:22:03 am
Soooo does this need updating? Just wondering because Festivus is coming up and the Airing of Grievances is nigh!
https://www.waygook.org/index.php?topic=108031.0
Other Forum Rules
- Posts or threads about religion or matters related are not allowed. With the exception of providing links to the name, location, and times of officially recognized religious services, any posts relating to religion will result in said post(s) being edited or the thread being locked.
Annnd...here come the insults from you know who. I don't want anybody to talk about me. I don't know you and I don't really care about you in any way shape or form.
It was about imagining.
Seeing beautiful sunsets. Perhaps the most beautiful sunsets I've ever seen were sitting at Rick's Cafe in Negril.
Playing a beautiful set of drums before a crowd of appreciative folks.
Cruising the highways on a Honda Goldwing.
Bouncing and bumping your way through jungle trails on a nice dirt bike.
Or seeing my wife leave the house like this.
Imagine............ ....
I don't want anybody to talk about me.
Then STOP WRITING ABOUT YOURSELF!
Seriously, whenever a disagreement occurs, you bring up not just anecdotal evidence, but very personal stories. You don't have to be completely secret, but put a burqa on your mouth and don't describe personal issues like your divorce, wife, relationships etc. in detail to the internet.
Seriously, a 60yr old man should know when to hold his tongue and how to approach an argument or disagreement without bringing up personal information.
People talk about you because 'YOU' because 'YOU' is the only thing that interests you. Like a nut, you started a bloody thread about your eyes. As soon as you typed 'imagine', everyone knew it was going to be about some sort of bullocks about something you own or did. It's rare that I come across someone so self-centred and who only writes in the active voice.
You're a geriatric behaving like a 12yr old kid who just watched a bunch of Adam Sandler movies.
(We're all typing, so I'm using 'speak' and 'talk' figuratively)
Annnd...here come the insults from you know who. I don't want anybody to talk about me.
"Damnit, why don't you women wear less clothing so I can tell if you're hot or not? What's wrong with you people!"
Honestly, why does it bother you so much? I mean, it's not indecent or anything. No one is shoving it in your face. A Muslim woman driving the Honda Odyssey to Walgreen's and stepping out in niqab shouldn't be an issue for you any more than a woman Sunday Best or a wizard's cloak or construction worker's garb.
People don't have to dress to make us happy. If they feel happy dressed like that, more power to them. They certainly don't have to dress a certain way just so it's more arousing for me to look at them.
Now, if there were some practical workplace considerations, that's something else. There do have to be painful decisions (and not just for Muslims) when workplace safety/performance/etc. clashes with personal dress, but we're talking in someone's leisure time.
Post by: Mr C on October 13, 2021, 03:15:39 pm
... that's why everybody comes to Rick's.
Quote from: Mr C on October 13, 2021, 03:15:39 pm
That and the place is honest, as honest as the day is long.
Post by: dippedinblush on October 14, 2021, 12:38:39 am
I had no idea that you responded to me until now cause the page was so far forward. I just looked back on a whim and saw your thoughtful response.
I still maintain that wearing these clothes *for women who don't have a choice, is wrong! Not only is it hot and uncomfortable, it's wrong to hinge modesty on women and the clothes that they wear.
You are also thinking that I have never encountered women/girls wearing hijab and niqab. Not true at all.
I grew up with girls wearing the hijab and niqab in my elementary and middle school...(My school was one that accepted a certain number of refugees) In the girl's locker room (getting ready for PE) we would help 2 of our classmates in our class (there were 3 girls) tuck in their traditional clothes into their skirts or pants (they were wearing so many layers to cover their skin as well), so they could participate in Phys. Ed.
When I say they needed to be covered up they wore.. turtle necks and so many layers. 2 of the girls would participate in sports but they would be so hot and uncomfortable, and they were always checking whether or not their skin was showing.
And NOBODY would make fun of them at all, but we would feel so bad for them...WE asked WHY DO YOU HAVE TO WEAR THESE CLOTHES, ARE YOU OK?>>>They would always say: It's my religion. The other girl would/could not participate because she wasn't allowed to do any gym activities because her father didn't allow her to mingle with boys in the PE class. She also wasn't allowed to wear pants.
Contrary to the girls we also had 2 Muslim boys in our class and they always wore what they wanted to. They could play any sport with shorts and a tee and NOT have to be covered up. They were free... and they also chided the girls wearing hijab and niqab that they needed to cover up more when they were ATTEMPTING to play ANY SPORT! I remember a boy named Hammad that would go around to 2 girls and check what they were wearing and if their clothing didn't cover their neck and bodies he would chide them, mercilessly.
Do NOT tell me that I don't have an understanding (at least a little bit) of the struggle of women wearing these oppressive clothes. I don't have any issue at all what they wear but what I DO have a problem with is why WOMEN have the ONUS of being MODEST in Muslim culture? Why does religion and custom/culture make women hang MODESTY on them? Why is it ok for a Muslim boy to be free to play soccer with shorts and a tee shirt, and yet a Muslim girl of the same age has to wear layers of clothes and be so uncomfortable doing the same activity because she is Muslim?
Please stop saying that it does not originate from the Quran... It does. Being modest is encapsulated there in your prophet's words 24:31...
Why has this verse in the Quran become the burden of women? Perhaps you will say that this meant to be a, b, and c, but that isn't reality at all. What is reality is the subjugation of women.
Of course I will say to you it must be hard for women wearing the hijab and being outstanding in Western society (but it wasn't when I was little and that was a loooooong time ago, nobody laughed or made fun at all..). And I don't see it being hard for Muslim women wearing scarves in Canada AT ALL. No one would say a nasty word about a woman wearing a headscarf these days. Other countries maybe?~
I do think that wearing a hijab/niqab/ or burqa is WRONG if the person doesn't want to and is/has been forced to.
And to be honest I feel like the whole SITUATION of a woman enrobing not only her body, but face has been created from the start by men wishing to exert control and power over women by covering them, diminishing their individuality and by using religion as a justification.
Women wearing these threads (for the most part) are not Bedouins scrounging around in the desert eking out an existence. A woman is not honouring her heritage by wearing these clothes.
They are hot and uncomfortable (coming from people I have met). And they block peripheral vision (the burqua and niqab). Why would someone wear that?
I understand your need to defend Islam because it resides in you, and as a MALE you have all the power of your religion to fulfill yourself as a man because it was made by men for men. But you should also understand the sisters you can not see who are suffering due to an oppressive system which they wish to break free from. There are many women who have immigrated to other countries and they are happy that they are free from the veil as well.
Quote from: dippedinblush on October 14, 2021, 12:38:39 am
Everyone has encountered Muslim women wearing hijabs, niqabs etc.
You story is about ELEMENTARY and MIIDDLE SCHOOL kids. They and you were kids who are going to be insecure, judgemental and somewhat rigid and immature in their thinking. These aren't fully grown adults.
- They were refugees meaning this was likely their first time doing P.E around boys, Nevermind the heat, can you imagine how uncomfortable that must make them feel?
- They were refugees meaning all the boys and girls knew was the culture where they're from
- If the Muslim girls were at a girl's school, they'd have no problem wearing shorts and a t-shirt.
- Muslim immigrants are immigrants because their country is a conflict zone. Conflict zones have a large extremist presence. Therefore, most Muslim immigrants in 1st world western right now are going to be very conservative and/or have a strong extremist cultural influence governing
their behaviour.
if their clothing didn't cover their neck and bodies he would chide them, mercilessly.
Because that's what immature little piss ants do when they find a little bit of power to play with. He was a kid trying to show off how tough he has to the other boys, nothing new.
Contrary to the girls we also had 2 Muslim boys in our class and they always wore what they wanted to
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
Islam and all proven science share the belief that men and women are biologically and cognitively different. Contemporary Western ideology and culture tends to challenge this.
Islam teaches that in light of this differences, men and women have different strengths/weaknesses and responsibilities. They're taught to dress differently and do things differently. Sometimes it's easier for men, sometimes it's easier for women.
If you lived as a Muslim women, instead of just watching them on occasion, you'd see what happens when they're not at school. Your experience is too limited to make a judgement.
Either way, if you disagree the solution is simple, don't be Muslim.
And NOBODY would make fun of them at all, but we would feel so bad for them...WE asked WHY DO YOU HAVE TO WEAR THESE CLOTHES, ARE YOU OK?>
You were kids, so you get a pass, but if there's one thing that's more patronising and condescending than mockery it's pity.
"Poor you, from your backward culture and Religion, it's ok to be like us"
She was doing P.E around boys because she thought she had to, not because she wanted to and she was simply trying to get through the experience. She should've enrolled in a girl's school, but
obviously didn't have that luxury because her parents were poor, desperate immigrants.
Imagine (see, I honoured the thread title) if I had to walk about to women who was scantly dressed and I had to feel bad for her and say...
WHY DO YOU HAVE TO WEAR THESE CLOTHES, ARE YOU OK?>>>
If you see no problem with me or any other person saying this to someone who is dressed scantly (but not breaking laws of public indecency or exposure)
yet you take issue with this kid trying to cover her skin then that's nothing short of raging hypocrisy and discrimination.
Most Muslim people in Western countries are holding their tongue when it comes to commenting on non-Muslims' clothing. In some ways, they practice Democracy
and liberty better than native Westerners who can't seem to mind their own business.
Clothing isn't always meant for comfort. My tracksuit pants and slippers would be far more comfortable to wear to work than my dress pants and shirt, but
we sacrifice a bit of comfort in order to be appropriate for the occasion. You understand the concept? Now consider that levels of appropriateness vary by Religion and culture.
Not that hard to at least understand the reasoning if you are willing to be reasonable.
I said there's no evidence to instruct women to COVER THEIR FACES. Covering the face is not necessary, it is optional. If covering the face was necessary, why
are millions of Muslim women, every year, allowed to enter Masjid al-Haram (The Great Mosque of Mecca and the holiest place in Islam) while having their
faces exposed?
understand your need to defend Islam because it resides in you
I'm not defending anything because nothing is under attack and I'm not feeling threatened at all.
I'm simply answering your questions. If you stop asking, I'll stop answering. As a Muslim, it's my duty
to answer questions about Islam and if I can't, I'm to direct you to a source that will answer your question.
Islam isn't always easy, both men and women have difficulties. The issue is that the Muslim women's difficulties are apparent to you as it's easy to see in public and it's highly publicised on the media.
There's so much you haven't seen and don't know. You don't know the responsibility that rests on a Muslim husband/father's shoulders and/or what God holds him accountable for because you haven't
studied, asked or seen anything about it on a short news segment.
Yes, Islam isn't always easy, but things that also aren't easy include: training to get a physique or reach a certain athletic level, mastering an instrument, learning a language and making a living.
To be fair that's because it's not their country or their culture. Do you think if a load of Western female immigrants suddenly appeared in a Muslim country walking around in Western style clothing, the locals would hold their tongues?
I believe dippedinblush explicitly mentioned that she only took issue in cases where women are *forced* to abide by conservative values. "If you disagree, don't be Muslim" isn't much of an option for women who are forced to be Muslim.
I do support parent's rights to raise their children according to their custom. At the same time, if the kid grows up and breaks with that custom, I'd hope the parents would meet that with some amount of grace. Many do, some don't - not saying that I'm identifying a trend of oppression here, just talking about a specific situation.
Correct! Glad you also used the word culture and not Religion.
So a Muslim immigrant fresh off the plane understands the concept of leaving people who have different beliefs alone and not trying to change them as he/she is now in a culture where people are allowed to dress how they wish. Strange that someone who has lived in the free world for their entire life struggles to get this.
Quote from: 745sticky on October 14, 2021, 07:59:00 am
True, but she brought up a lot of other issues and questions which I'm trying to answer which is why this is going on.
It's impossible to force someone to be a Muslim. Really, it's impossible.
You can force someone to dress like a Muslim and act like one, but you can't force someone to be one. That's between them and God. Forcing a kid with sticks and threats is no way to go about it and it's not what my parents did. My parents raised me to understand my Faith.
Sadly, one of my best friends had a father who did this. His father was one of the most uptight, Taliban assholes you could imagine and what happened. He beat my friend and his mom, brothers and sisters constantly. My friend and his two sisters turned to drugs (meth) and my friend ended up slipping into a coma and dying (at 23) while his sisters eloped with drugy boyfriends (one is living on the street and had her child taken away from her last I heard). Other brother basically became a soft weakling and the eldest is a mirror of his father.
You can force someone to dress like a Muslim and act like one, but you can't force someone to be one.
I mean, sure, but that doesn't stop people (like your friend's dad) from trying. Plus "people shouldn't be forced to be Muslim" is basically just shorthand for "people shouldn't be forced to dress/act like a Muslim" anyways. What 99% of people (excluding the weird internet turbo-atheist in the corner nobody listens to) *actually* take issue with is the dress code itself. Hell, a lot of em simply take issue with dress codes in general. "Dress codes in primary/secondary educaiton are classist/sexist/etc" has been an actual argument I've seen a decent amount of. Of course I'm also terminally online and there's no guarantee people spouting off on twitter have any bearing on the real world, lol.
Anyways, I do think that you guys catch most of the heat due to prejudice, but honestly orthodoxy in general has been on a bit of a steady decline. A lot of the criticisms in this thread have also been/are being thrown at more culturally conservative folks in general.
So a Muslim immigrant fresh off the plane understands the concept of leaving people who have different beliefs alone and not trying to change them as he/she is now in a culture where people are allowed to dress how they wish.
Some do, some don't, I'm sure you don't want to get into the subject of grooming gangs. What you don't seem to get is you're comparing the tolerance level of people immigrating into a country with the people already there. Obviously both groups will have different attitudes to cultural differences.
Well, we have seen in both colonial times and modern times, as soon as westerners set foot in some other place they don't hold their tongues and do have 50 things to say about how people should dress and act and that somehow it's their country.
Well, we have seen in both colonial tims and modern times, as soon as westerners set foot in some other place they don't hold their tongues and do have 50 things to say about how people should dress and act and that somehow it's their country.
Are you including yourself in that gross generalisation?
Marti is the opposite. He's taken it upon himself to tell westerners how they should behave instead of the locals.
My schtick, from the get go, is I firmly believe in the "home rules" view of things and that I am NOT here to transform the society of various peoples around the world or to indoctrinate their youth. Their lives are not empty because they arent into whatever it us I am into ir like to eat. If they do not like something I do, I do not resent them for it. By all means share what you have in mutual exchange and if say at a forum for exchange of views and ideas and morality, then go ahead, but these people do not exist for the purposes of being molded to my view. They are individuals who should set their own hopes, dreams, values and aspirations.
If the people of Afghanistan feel that a strict interpretation of Islam is what they want for their society, more power to them. And if the people of Hedonia want to frolick in the nude and spend all day drinking and fing, go right ahead.
I want the right to dress as a Benedictine monk. Or in a toga or yamulke or as a Buddhist monk or rasta or Kahless or Kefka.
Now does this mean I wont be judged or can do this as a factory worker or teacher? No. But because of that freedom I wish for myself, I grant it to others and I also try and grant them the respect that being part of a protected class (religion) grants them. I dont go around demanding Amish women show more skin or dress more comfortably. Obviously they seem quite capable of taking care of themselves and working quite fine. Their society is doing perfectly fine.
Put another way, we and I have enough shit to worry about without butting our nose into how Muslims dress.
Quote from: OnNut81 on October 14, 2021, 12:07:16 pm
Dude, all I'm advocating for is for people here to show the locals basic decency, respect and kindness (even if they don't experience it themselves), not strolling in with the presumption that they know more, everyone here is an idiot, and the place would be better off if everyone here just followed their list of 50 different suggestions.
You know, not being a d*ck.
Dippedin Blush's answer is perfect.
The huge majority of time there is no choice. Women are forced to dress and behave a certain or get stoned. Not in the good way either.
Clad in a taekwondo uniform, a 13-year-old Afghan girl says she is happy with her newfound freedom in South Korea.
She can participate in all sorts of social activities, which were limited only to boys in her home country, and is glad she can do taekwondo without wearing a hijab.
http://m.koreaherald.com/amp/view.php?ud=20211014000896
The huge majority of the time?
Son, I'm betting you've never interacted with a Muslim person once in your life but you somehow have personal knowledge of some 800-900 million Muslim women. It's impossible for even the most skilled researcher or statistician to make such a ridiculous conclusion, yet your old ass sitting in "The tropics" (hereinafter known is China) seems to have developed Noble Prize worthy research methodology.
I take it you've seen a Muslim women getting stoned for not wearing a veil? No? Then please shut up.
As they say "You know nothing (about Islam). In fact you know less than nothing. If you knew that you knew nothing you'd know something."
i had a lot of muslim classmates in high school and many of them wore hijabs and i know (from facebook) that at least a few of them have decided to stop wearing them. fortunately, i dont think any of them got disowned or stoned
I never have seen a woman stoned but don't doubt that it happens in some parts of the world. Fortunately, most of the muslims I think I have met practiced a more moderate form of the faith and not a more extreme one as has been practiced in some places.
Quote from: tylerthegloob on October 20, 2021, 12:58:00 pm
I also know a few who decided to START wearing them and this wasn't due to any pressure, just that they decided that doing so as an expression of their faith was something they wanted to do. And as you said, those who decided to not wear them. And those who went back and forth based on whatever reason. Same as Christians and others wearing visible expressions or not wearing them, perhaps with parental/peer pressure involved, perhaps not.
They don't get stoned for not dressing modestly enough, they get beaten or slapped in some countries, like these.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/19/video-of-iran-morality-police-wrestling-with-woman-sparks-outrage
https://gulfnews.com/world/gulf/saudi/outrage-as-riyadh-video-shows-religious-police-abuse-1.1669751
This I learned today: Islam=Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Islam isn't America either, as you and Tyler were trying to have us believe. There are lots of versions of it in lots of different countries
But I went to high school in Canada with some Muslim women and they weren't beheaded for smoking marijuana behind the school!!!!!
Muslim women are free (in my opinion)
There are lots of versions of it in lots of different countries
well aint that the truth?
Right and those most relevant to us are the people who we know back home and in Korea or SE Asia. We also have to determine to what extent there is free will in countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia. While I think private support for less restrictive measures would exist among many women in those countries, I also think many would support the current standards.
What I do know is that many of the opinions on this seem to be taken up by people who presume to speak for those who wear niqab or the burqa, rather than an actual listening and response to their opinion. I understand that in many cases this is with the best of intentions, especially other women in western countries who want to advocate for equality and freedom. At the same time there also seems to be a subset of men who want to do little more than leer at women and are upset that some practice dares to have some modesty and covering of skin and form.
More than 5yrs old.
Saudi has changed a hell of a lot in the past 5yrs, as guys like JNM can testify. Principals groping female teachers at hweshicks is pretty much a thing of the past just as the "Religious police" in Saudi have been rendered toothless and become nothing more than a bunch of grumpy old men, sitting on the corner.
Either way, what you're saying is that different countries have different laws... splendid... so how do the actions of a grand total of 2 countries tie into a Religion followed by 1.7 billion people across the globe? The historians among you will tell you that Muslims have been in South Africa for 350yrs. Guess how many stonings or public beatings for dressing immodestly took place during that time, ZERO.
It's culture, end of story.
At the same time there also seems to be a subset of men who want to do little more than leer at women and are upset that some practice dares to have some modesty and covering of skin and form.
Sounds like projection to me. I can honestly say I've never looked at a woman in a burqua and thought 'I'd like to see her naked.' Or even less modestly clothed. Don't know what other people think.
I know this: PM sent with 2 videos. Please DO NOT watch them. They are grotesque. They are brutal in the extreme. If you do watch them - Please do not because they are horrifying - PM me and translate.
Damn! I was going to be all rebellious, ignore you and watch the videos. I can't because you didn't send them.
For future reference, copy the link address, paste into the message.
I don't know how to attach them here. If you have the balls, and I seriously doubt you do, give me a place I can send them too. This is what the world needs to know about what is happening in the Muslim world. Defend it. I dare you.
Religion is the problem on this planet and anyone who self-identifies by their religion is a dangerous individual.
^The PM I was sent... with no attachment or link.
I don't believe in discussing these things in secret.
Are you going through menopause? You're thinking with your emotions and no small amount of bias and ignorance. Find a way to relax and marshal whatever logic and reason you have before you discuss anything with me because frankly, I have absolutely no idea what you're on about.
Incorrect, big time!
See, this is where and why wording matters A LOT! There is only one Islam because there is one Qur'an. No Muslim on Earth will tell you that, in this reality, there exists a
higher authority than the Qur'an.
The teachings within the Qur'an and hadiths are not things you can learn overnight, they typically take years in a Madrasa (I attended one for years after school, like a hagwon as do most Muslim kids where I'm from since we're generally from middle-class families).
Plenty of Muslims don't have the opportunities/motivation and/or do not invest the time and effort required to learn all these teachings. So, the gaps in their Islamic knowledge get filled with cultural practices and I'll explain exactly how this happens.
Pakistan has a literacy rate of 60%, as of 2021.
This means that of the 96.47% of the population that identifies as Muslim, around 36.47% of them are unable to read the Qur'an. 36.47% of Muslims in Pakistan rely on hearsay and cultural practices
for their understanding of their faith. This isn't including the lazy or busy Pakistanis who can read and study the Qur'an who simply choose not to.
So, you have plenty of Muslims all around the world who simply do not know how to follow their Faith and rely on strong cultural influences. This is why there's oftentimes a discrepancy between
how many Muslims act.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1628652
I'm not really sure what a sock account or a stoat is in this context. I'm quite new to this.
Post by: D.L.Orean on October 21, 2021, 07:31:26 am
He can be lured out of his cave with discussions of Islam, feminism or the plight of black people in the US.
Post by: Mr C on October 21, 2021, 07:41:33 am
Exactly what stoat would say!
I think he also went by the name of Yoda. An English chap as I recall.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Perhaps there are some Muslim communities where guys would go ape sh*t seeing a woman in capris and a cardigan, but it's not western guys wishing they could ogle a woman in a burqua. There are plenty of good looking women strolling along the street or at the beach or at my gym. If seeing a good looking women dressed attractively is important, guys are spoiled for choice. It's generally western women that feel they need to tell Muslim women how they should dress.
So the silence of the mods speaks volumes. Clearly there is no ban on religious discussion, despite it being in the official Terms of Service. The Airing of Grievances is a go! First up: Calvinism. A bad sect of medieval Christianity, or the worst sect of medieval Christianity? You decide!
(https://memeguy.com/photos/images/-airing-of-grievances-gonna-be-out-of-hand-happy-festivus-457613.png)


text:
Rick's Cafe Texan
Everybody Comes to Rick's
Franklin & Bash: Coffee and Cream Review
That's Some Bad Magic Act...
FRANKLIN & BASH:
We now begin the third season of Franklin & Bash, the story of two lifelong friends who grew up to be lawyers but in every other way just didn't grow up (and again, that wasn't a Breckin Meyer short joke). The first season (or what I remember of it) was sharp, clever, amusing, and had some heart to it. The second season was a nightmare of egoism, of two dimwitted man-whores bumbling their way to success while regressing even more into permanent childhood.
The first season, I saw the characters of Jared Franklin (Breckin Meyer) and Peter Bash (Mark-Paul Gosselaar) trying to be antiestablishment while also navigating a growth to adulthood. The second season I saw them turn into self-absorbed jerks, skipping staff meetings and going into court unprepared but still somehow becoming full-fledged partners and winning their cases (though usually someone else, either their associates Carmen and Pindar or other attorneys at Stanton Infeld stepping in to save them...and in return, Franklin & Bash hardly ever bothered to acknowledge the work others did for them). Their selfishness and egos were so great that despite having been at Stanton Infeld all this time they never invited anyone from the firm to one of their legendary parties (unless they were hot interns) until Franklin & Bash somehow managed to save the firm...from Jared's own father! To me, this signaled less a "we are against The Man" mindset and more"'we're in our own bubble and don't see a need to associate with people we work with" mindset.
Therefore, which version of Jared and Peter would we get in Coffee and Cream, the season premiere of Franklin & Bash? Would we get the maturing Jared and Peter, or the men-sluts Jared and Peter? The indicators appear to be pointing towards the latter, but being early in the season, perhaps some new blood can turn things around.
Jared and Peter have a theft case, where magician August West (Adam Goldberg) is accused of stealing a valuable bracelet when performing a magic act. Jared, who insists he's a magician despite any real talent or presentation of such powers, is geeked out by representing someone who performed an incredible act where he would be drinking coffee in one location, then appearing somewhere else because he needed cream (hence, Coffee & Cream). The trick is quite easy: August has a twin, Tim (Goldberg again), and it was Tim who performed in August's place and who stole the bracelet. However, August won't reveal that he has a twin because it could hurt his career, so he'd rather take the fall.
Meanwhile, the firm of Stanton Infeld now is Stanton Infeld and King, with the addition of a new partner, Rachel King (Heather Locklear). This doesn't sit well with Infeld's nephew/Franklin & Bash's nemesis Damien Karp (Reed Diamond) who sees he'll never take over the firm, or with our boys, who were publicly humiliated by King on Piers Morgan Live (where having lost a bet with her, they had to appear nude on television).
King wants them to make a deal, and soon she goes over them and does it for them. Franklin & Bash don't want to admit defeat (or do as they are told), so they decide to find Tim and get him to work out his differences with his brother and more importantly return the bracelet after their legal strategy of convincing the jury that the victim had agreed to the theft bombed.
Karp has his own problems: that videotape of his masturbating continues to haunt his desires to be a judge. King gives him the suggestion that he ought to leak it himself (there's a pun somewhere in there) so as to have less of an impact in a future election. Reluctantly he does so, which makes him a hero of sorts to the Southern California Serial Masturbators Society. With a little investigative work from Carmen (Dana Davis), we find Tim, his criminal past, and a twist that both gets the case resolved and circumvents King's decree that neither Jared or Peter speak with 'her' client August. In the end, they win their case, the brothers decide to join forces in a double-act, and the panophobic Pindar (Kumail Nanjiani) overreacts to termites by first forcing everyone to not enter the house due to his paranoid fumigation, then by accidentally burning down the house.
Coffee and Cream is a boring episode, and at times nonsensical. Let's go over some things that don't make sense. It doesn't make sense that these two highly cocky guys would be so stiff and paranoid on television. Far from it: their egos would relish the idea of being seen around the world. However, by again showing them to be a couple of doofuses (such as when they cannot name a single case that would support their argument against a more polished attorney) we have to ask how they managed to graduate high school, let alone law school. You can't be good lawyers if you don't know the law.
Another thing that doesn't make sense is their strategy, which can summed up as, 'blame the victim'. I'm not a trained attorney, but I would have argued that there was an implied agreement between magician and volunteer that he would not be allowed to keep her expensive property. The fact that they were somehow unaware of the hotel's contract which stipulated the magician would return all property only makes them wildly inept.
When Pindar unilaterally fumigates the house, Franklin & Bash are forced to sleep in their office. I wondered why, being rather wealthy, they just didn't get a room (which given the silent homoerotic nature of their relationship, has more than poetry in the phrasing).
Infeld, who was always an oddball, now is veering towards wimp territory by letting King roll over everyone. While it is nice to see that Franklin & Bash have to be subservient to someone, especially a woman, it does make one wonder why their boss appears so willing to bring in someone who had so publicly embarrassed the firm or not bothered to discuss this with anyone.
Finally, the entire plot collapses if one examines it. The whole point of August not wanting Tim's identity to be exposed (no pun intended) is to protect his rep, but at the end he decides to have a brother's act (which would reveal Tim's identity)? It does seem rather idiotic for August to say at the beginning 'I don't want people to know about my twin' (already a hackneyed idea) only to end up saying 'I'm telling the world about my twin'.
Speaking of August/Tim, Goldberg looked either bored or stoned throughout the episode. Goldberg went the 'mumblecore' method of acting, where with a dull expression and barely-moving the mouth delivery was suppose to express so much.
You can see how boring and unimaginative everything is just by the Twitter handles of Franklin, Bash, and King. They are as follows: BashPeter1, FranklinJared1, and KingRachel1. While Franklin and Bash having similarly-written handles is a possibility (given just how bizarrely, even psychotically close they are), whatever are the odds that Rachel King would have a similarly-written handle.
I'm also finding Pindar more annoying in his phobias and general behavior. It is as if he is regressing (which everyone is really, but that's neither here nor there). A little part of me wished he'd burned with the house (and oddly, the boys don't appear all that bothered that someone burned down their home/whorehouse).
There are a few good things in Coffee & Cream. Heather Locklear is so effective as the new partner, not being overbearing but being an ocean of sanity within the nutfarm that is Stanton Infeld. (I do wonder if bringing in Locklear is a sign of desperation...isn't the introduction of a new character a sign that people are running out of ideas?). Reed, who's got the flustered nemesis down pat, has a great line when he first sees Jared and Peter after the disastrous (and irrational) Piers Morgan appearance when they see Rachel King with Stanton Infeld. "It's the mop who wiped the floor with your naked asses last week," he sneers. Seeing Jared's little-boy fixation on magic (not a Meyer short joke), down to his constant efforts to summon "the flame of Zeus" is amusing, right down to Franklin's declaration that "Harry Potter was based on me" (although Harry was not a magician but a wizard). Little technicality there.
However, on the whole I found Coffee & Cream to be a sludge. Franklin and Bash are stupid men who haven't grown up, the twin story boring (and Goldberg looking more bored than anyone else), and while King and some good lifted it up I found the whole experience almost sad.
Jared and Peter...grow up.
Here Comes Trouble...
Next episode: Dead and Alive
Posted by Rick at 3:15 PM
Labels: Franklin and Bash, Television Programs
Views are always welcome, but I would ask that no vulgarity be used. Any posts that contain foul language or are bigoted in any way will not be posted.
Rick's Other Blogs
Rick's Reviews Archives
Rick's Doctor Who Reviews
Rick's Book Reviews
Rick's Cafe Texan on Twitter
Follow @RXCafeTX
Esperanza Acosta Moreno Regional Library
Join us this Saturday for.....
Buddy2Blogger
Joker (2019) Teaser Trailer - Review
J and J Productions
In The Shadow Of The Strip...
The New Doctor Who Review
Doctor Who - "A Good Man Goes To War"
The Greatest Show on Earth (1952): A Review (Revie...
It's A Bird! It's A Plane! It's A Franchise!
Man of Steel: A Review
Superman Returns: A Review
A Very Important Announcement
Safe Haven: A Review (Review #540)
Liz & Dick: The Television Movie Review
Elementary: The Woman and Heroine Reviews
Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. A Review (Review...
Elementary: Risk Management Review
Bottle Rocket: A Review
BOTTLE ROCKET WASP Crime Wave... I've always found Wes Anderson a heavily acquired taste. Sometimes I find him enchanting in his...
The Boob Remains The Same
Takes one to know one... It's been one week since the 85th Annual Academy Awards and the fallout over the We Saw Your Boobs open...
It's Chuck, Not Clark. Brief Thoughts on Zachary Levi on His 30th Birthday
There aren't many things I know about Zachary Levi. I know he was mean to Sara Rue and that Chuck is a show that, like Heroes , I wat...
The Tenth Doctor: An Introduction
The Tenth Doctor: David Tennant (Born 1971) Once, Twice, Tennant Times A Time Lord... My mother never understood my love of Doc...
Personal Reflections on Sherlock vs. Elementary
Illustration by Kyle Burles Sherlock, Elementary And Me I have now seen every Sherlock and Elementary episode up to Elementary '...
On To The Second Star To The Right: Peter Pan Retrospective Introduction
I decided to do a brief retrospective on Peter Pan in cinema. I can't find a particular reason: the play premiered 108 years ago, th...
The Harry Potter Retrospective: An Introduction
I'm Just Mild About Harry... The Harry Potter book and film series is a phenomena that I can't get into and don't understa...
Bates Motel: The Man in Number 9 Review
BATES MOTEL: THE MAN IN NUMBER 9 The Many Loves Of Norman Bates... The Man in Number 9 , the newest episode from Bates Motel , conf...
Rick Aragon: Film Viewer, Writer, Whovian. Simple theme. Theme images by luoman. Powered by Blogger.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl