No normal, rational human being would want to cover their face. If they do, then it means they’re raised that way and brainwashed. Or they’re straight up lying, for fear of prosecution.
We’re raised to cover our bodies in clothes. You accept that as normal but draw the line at covering your face?
Edit: Updated the quote I was replying to.
In the coldest places it is even necessary for someone to cover their face to avoid frostbite.
Let's not pretend enforced face covering anything except the subjection of the female sex. "Enforced" includes the peer pressure to conform even if it's not breaking a law.
Does Sharia law not apply to unbelievers? Do followers choose the faith only in adulthood? Or are people involuntarily indoctrinated from birth? Are apostates and unbelievers granted the same rights and privileges as everyone else?
I'd love to see you to try and survive naked in the desert for an extended period of time. Temperature isn't everything. Also at night it might get pretty cold.
It is also a thing ex Muslim women complains about a lot. It is a thing that systematically and repeatedly ceases to be worn the moment you remove violence and threats from the equation.
Muslim states including Saudi Arabia exert considerable violence against women disagreeing with these laws. They would not needed the violence if it was all voluntary.
I'm agnostic so I don't really have a horse in the race, but it turns out a lot of people (maybe due to anxiety) actually loved an excuse to keep their faces covered in public.
Anyways, many commenters here could benefit from a broader cultural perspective rather than a narrow minded, tunnel visioned view of the world.
I hope we know better than casual No True Scotsman arguments.
There are limits to acceptance as you imply in your comment.
Freedom is measurable and matters.
How long is the list of things that you can do for which the state can repress you in Saudi Arabia? How long is the list in Belgium?
Is there a fair trial process?
Are there equal rights to people?
Yes, some people want to cover their faces and that is fine. Some others don't. That should be fine as well.
There's a vast difference between "saying 'no sane person wants to do X, therefore if you want to do X, you're insane' is wrong" and "everything is morally OK".
I submit that cannibalism is somewhere over the line and I also agree that 'no sane person would want to be eaten alive' could be considered unfortunate phrasing. But how would you phrase it better?
A better argument would be "this is bad because it doesn't respect the autonomy of women", instead of "this is bad because bad people do it, and the people who do it are bad because they do it".
> No normal, rational human being would want to cover their face.
You could say that some women do it willingly out of piety by buying into the cultural mores they grew up in. That from their perspective women who don't do so are crazy and debase themselves. Or throw the no true scotsman fallacy at them as you did. Technically, you've won the argument...
..unfortunately I can't be sure you're not accidentally straw-manning (why can't it be straw personing! As a scarecrow I am offended :P) the person you were replying to.
I say accidentally because I know you to always argue in good faith. And to be fair it is ambiguously and poorly phrased as you say. But lets extend this same good faith to the rest of their sentence:
> If they do, then it means they’re raised that way and brainwashed.
> Or they’re straight up lying, for fear of prosecution.
I think that is the very heart of the matter.
Can't speak for the op and whether they meant to make that point but my reading of their full argument is:
"this is not only bad because bad people do it, but mostly because the bad people gas-light everybody about their culture and piety and the majority of women have to pretend to go along with it willingly".
No true scotsman obviously doesn't apply to, say, a situation like North Korea.
Anyway, I don't like the woke-y phrasings either but lets not be so open minded as to have our brains fall out. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;)
When it comes to SA they happen to be correct.
I'd rather say "forcing people to do things they want to do is bad", and let individuals decide whether they want to cover their face or not.
If you ask the French: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
> let individuals decide whether they want to cover their face or not.
Sure. Of course, not possible in an absolutist monarchy such as SA and pretending otherwise in an effort to be none-judgmental is (unwittingly, accidentally, what have you) carrying water for them. Which, I don't think is your intention.
It is worth contemplating that playing on this very ambiguity and passive tendencies - in other circumstance perhaps to be commended as sage like reservation - is what keeps places like Russia, SA, NK, Iran coasting.
Honest question about the argument - how would you phrase it (I wrote that comment)?
It makes it sound like they're inhuman monsters and that we'd never do that. The truth is, if you and I were raised there, we probably would, just like we eat meat.
The truth is, if you and I were raised there, we probably would
But that is kinda what I said though, isn’t it?
Anyway, I wasn’t trying to make them sound like monsters (except the rulers, they sure are).
I’ll try to word things better, next time.
Instead, a much better line of thinking is "normal people can do this, under specific circumstances, so we should be very careful not to fall into the same trap ourselves".