First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last

Sharia-Compliant Sex-Segregated Beach in Brooklyn

Post Reply
4148 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
25 / M / North America
Offline
Posted 6/7/18 , edited 6/7/18

karatecowboy wrote:


Koji_Protolight wrote:



its not the same thing, washrooms are a necessity, the choice of what beach you go to is a luxury so therefor everything is ok.
(Also its only on certain days to allow them to practice their culture its not oppressing anyone)


OK so you would say its ok to discriminate by sex on public spaces ... if the use of the public space is not for a necessary function? OK. So, how many days a year would it have to happen for it to become wrong? What if, instead of a bathroom, it was a basketball court, or a water fountain? Who decides what is 'a necessity'.


runec wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:
It's wrong to link to news websites that include commentary you disapprove of, because .....?


You're telling me, with a straight face while reading a website named "moonbattery" and an article that contains lines like "With moonbats in control", that you have absolutely no idea what the term means? You just happened to stumble across this website in your blissful nativity and didn't ask any questions?



I linked to the site, yes, and I shared it, yes... and the thing wrong with this is? C'mon. If it's so obvious you should be able to elucidate, not stall like this. What, precisely, is wrong with linking to the site? I mean, besides the author using jargon of which you disapprove. I mean, it's like "the guy pointing out that sexism gets a pass because it's for the sake of Muslims is 'right wing', therefore, opposing sexism is now a right wing thing!" -- does not make sense to me.


Sharia law style Islam is also right wing, if you want to oppress them then its time to make all christians accept microchips in their heads and hands (which they believe to be the mark of the beast) if you want right wing political beliefs (such as antimulticultural feelings) to be legal, their cultural/politcal beliefs must also be protected so that all free speech and rights are equal under the law
Banned
runec 
43177 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/7/18 , edited 6/7/18

karatecowboy wrote:
I linked to the site, yes, and I shared it, yes... and the thing wrong with this is? C'mon. If it's so obvious you should be able to elucidate, not stall like this. What, precisely, is wrong with linking to the site? I mean, besides the author using jargon of which you disapprove. I mean, it's like "the guy pointing out that sexism gets a pass because it's for the sake of Muslims is 'right wing', therefore, opposing sexism is now a right wing thing!" -- does not make sense to me.


I'm stalling out of a mixture of disbelief and trying to give you a second chance to correct course. But, alright if you want:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=moonbat

Although now I'm genuinely curious as to what you thought moonbats actually where.

Was it aliens? Please tell me it was aliens.
Posted 6/7/18 , edited 6/11/18
What's wrong with that?. Most americans are fat and nobody wants to see their flabs. Or does the wrongness have something to do with the guy's religion? We all know Islam is wrong.
12539 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/7/18 , edited 6/11/18

Koji_Protolight wrote:


Sharia law style Islam is also right wing, if you want to oppress them then its time to make all christians accept microchips in their heads and hands (which they believe to be the mark of the beast) if you want right wing political beliefs (such as antimulticultural feelings) to be legal, their cultural/politcal beliefs must also be protected so that all free speech and rights are equal under the law


That's all very interesting and whatnot... I just don't understand, but would like to: so you're saying institutional, government enforced sexism is OK if it's 1) only some days and not all and 2) not on facilities that are necessary?

What about race? Would it be ok to have whites only days at the beach, so long as it's not every day?


runec wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:
I linked to the site, yes, and I shared it, yes... and the thing wrong with this is? C'mon. If it's so obvious you should be able to elucidate, not stall like this. What, precisely, is wrong with linking to the site? I mean, besides the author using jargon of which you disapprove. I mean, it's like "the guy pointing out that sexism gets a pass because it's for the sake of Muslims is 'right wing', therefore, opposing sexism is now a right wing thing!" -- does not make sense to me.


I'm stalling out of a mixture of disbelief and trying to give you a second chance to correct course. But, alright if you want:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=moonbat

Although now I'm genuinely curious as to what you thought moonbats actually where.

Was it aliens? Please tell me it was aliens.


I am aware of what moonbat means. I just don't understand what your objection here is. I mean:

- Another user described egalitarian, anti-sexist values as 'right wing'
- I replied that describing egalitarianism as right wing values is his own bias
- you see a problem with that because the blog is authored by a right wing guy

I don't see how it adds up. Blogger has opinions and biases, I linked to them, therefore its wrong for me to point out that other people have opinions and biases, as well? Where is the contradiction in here? It should be very easy to point out.
4148 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
25 / M / North America
Offline
Posted 6/7/18 , edited 6/7/18

karatecowboy wrote:


Koji_Protolight wrote:


Sharia law style Islam is also right wing, if you want to oppress them then its time to make all christians accept microchips in their heads and hands (which they believe to be the mark of the beast) if you want right wing political beliefs (such as antimulticultural feelings) to be legal, their cultural/politcal beliefs must also be protected so that all free speech and rights are equal under the law


That's all very interesting and whatnot... I just don't understand, but would like to: so you're saying institutional, government enforced segregation is OK if it's 1) only some days and not all and 2) not on facilities that are necessary?

What about race? Would it be ok to have whites only days at the beach, so long as it's not every day?


if there was a Black/Asian/whatever days too perhaps, but that would be stupid just as this is, but people have the right to have stupid and backwards political beliefs (like anti-multiculturalism) because we live in a free society
12539 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/7/18 , edited 6/11/18

Koji_Protolight wrote:



if there was a Black/Asian/whatever days too perhaps, but that would be stupid just as this is, but people have the right to have stupid and backwards political beliefs (like anti-multiculturalism) because we live in a free society


You mean black/yellow/whatever days?

Isn't that exactly what Jim Crow laws were: separate but equal and all that?
7262 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
29 / F
Offline
Posted 6/7/18 , edited 6/7/18
After reading the article, I am curious of the consequences that may extend with making this decision to abiding on segregating a beach from the request of many people who practice Judaism or Islam. From nydailynews, an additional reason shared through that article is

The separate swimming hours were reinstated after community protests. For reasons of modesty, men and women who are Orthodox Jews and Muslims do not swim together at the same time.


First the request is for the beach, then the next may be other public locations such as stores, Parks and more. I do not approve of the reason of not wanting to swim with individuals who are Muslims, but the decision is made by the residents there in Brooklyn.
4148 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
25 / M / North America
Offline
Posted 6/7/18 , edited 6/7/18

karatecowboy wrote:


Koji_Protolight wrote:



if there was a Black/Asian/whatever days too perhaps, but that would be stupid just as this is, but people have the right to have stupid and backwards political beliefs (like anti-multiculturalism) because we live in a free society


You mean black/yellow/whatever days?

Isn't that exactly what Jim Crow laws were: separate but equal and all that?


did you not read what I said? well then I shall say it again: It would be stupid, but people have the right to stupid beliefs (like being against multiculturalism) because we do not live in a totalitarian society
12539 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/7/18 , edited 6/7/18

Koji_Protolight wrote:


did you not read what I said? well then I shall say it again: It would be stupid, but people have the right to stupid beliefs (like being against multiculturalism) because we do not live in a totalitarian society


OK so you would think it would be stupid, but Jim Crow laws should be allowed -- that is, enforced racial segregation by the authority of the state should be permitted --- because we don't live in a society that forces things like that with the authority of the state? Is that an accurate statement?
Banned
runec 
43177 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/7/18 , edited 6/7/18

karatecowboy wrote:
I am aware of what moonbat means. I just don't understand what your objection here is.


You said the OP wasn't political when its literally as if I had linked an article on something like "rightwingnutjob.com" talking about dire effects of putting conservatives in charge of anything. You did it in the same breath as calling out bias on another user.



karatecowboy wrote:
I don't see how it adds up. Blogger has opinions and biases, I linked to them, therefore its wrong for me to point out that other people have opinions and biases, as well?


The word you're looking for is "hypocritical".
4148 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
25 / M / North America
Offline
Posted 6/7/18 , edited 6/7/18

karatecowboy wrote:


Koji_Protolight wrote:


did you not read what I said? well then I shall say it again: It would be stupid, but people have the right to stupid beliefs (like being against multiculturalism) because we do not live in a totalitarian society


OK so you would think it would be stupid, but Jim Crow laws should be allowed -- that is, enforced racial segregation by the authority of the state should be permitted --- because we don't live in a society that forces things like that with the authority of the state? Is that an accurate statement?


that is a bizzare interpretation of what I had said
anyways by not having sometimes having separate days for men or women would be oppressing Jews/muslims, and yes it is stupid and they should give up on their religion just as I tossed my backwards christian beliefs in the trashcan, but just as its illegal for me to maim a white nationalist(no matter how fun and morally just it would be), it should also be illegal to oppress the taboos of Jews/Muslims
It is impossible to accommodate all beliefs without one oppressing another, which is why we need balance.
12539 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/7/18 , edited 6/7/18

runec wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:
I am aware of what moonbat means. I just don't understand what your objection here is.


You said the OP wasn't political when its literally as if I had linked an article on something like "rightwingnutjob.com" talking about dire effects of putting conservatives in charge of anything. You did it in the same breath as calling out bias on another user.



karatecowboy wrote:
I don't see how it adds up. Blogger has opinions and biases, I linked to them, therefore its wrong for me to point out that other people have opinions and biases, as well?


The word you're looking for is "hypocritical".

I said the OP did not mention anything about 'wings'.

But, even if I did say that... how would that be hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is teaching one thing but doing the opposite. It's not like I said 'you CANNOT be political and I CAN'
25109 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
778 / The White House
Offline
Posted 6/7/18 , edited 6/11/18
Is this a privately owned beach, a private beach open to the public, or a public beach? If its a public beach then take that sexist misogynistic crap elsewhere like Saudi Arabia.

If its a private beach then they can be misogynistic if they wish to be but they will get no respect from me.
6376 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 6/7/18 , edited 6/11/18
that sounds about right for the backwoods bending over of some people who want to make it "safe" for everyone when in fact you're in said country and not in your own. typical pathetic, idiotic and just down right stupid. but, that's New York for you, however I am impressed I didn't read California first for this low level of intelligence. so I'm not certain if that's a good thing or a bad thing...
Banned
runec 
43177 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/7/18 , edited 6/11/18

karatecowboy wrote:
I said the OP did not mention anything about 'wings'.

But, even if I did say that... how would that be hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is teaching one thing but doing the opposite. It's not like I said 'you CANNOT be political and I CAN'


No, its just named after and repeated uses a pejorative term for a "wing".

No, you effectively said "my post is not biased but yours is".

Hence hypocrisy.




Rujikin wrote:
Is this a privately owned beach, a private beach open to the public, or a public beach?


Public beach but rented for a private event. Hence the legal murkiness. Its really going to come down to state and local legal particulars I imagine. From what I read, this isn't just an open public beach. It's attached to a college and only open 11pm-5pm and only to people who buy passes or get permits to rent it for events.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.