It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chess master refuses to wear required saudi clothes, forfeits title

page: 4
47
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Water under the bridge.

Will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt and appreciate your contributions, as always.




posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire

Eh...I thought it was a great analogy. I starred her comment.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler



I guess your article lied about her saying this too though.

I didn't say you, or your article lied. I said that the article you linked (and you) misrepresented her position in a petty manner.

Actually, abayas can be quite stylish and many western women have no problem with wearing them in public. But, as I said, I can understand why she declined to attend.
en-sa.namshi.com...




It isn't about whether or not they can be stylish. It's about whether or not you actually choose to wear one.

I hear there were slave owners who were actually quite humane and treated their slaves quite well too, but that doesn't change the fact that not a single one of their slaves never actually chose to be a slave to begin with.

Perhaps rather than looking at ways in which what someone is forced to do against their will might actually be not so bad, we should focus on whether or not they should be forced to do it in the first place?



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
I hear there were slave owners who were actually quite humane and treated their slaves quite well too, but that doesn't change the fact that not a single one of their slaves never actually chose to be a slave to begin with.

Perhaps rather than looking at ways in which what someone is forced to do against their will might actually be not so bad, we should focus on whether or not they should be forced to do it in the first place?


Another great, thought-provoking analogy.

You have a wonderful way of stating things, ketsuko.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Sophia the robot, also a Saudi citizen, wears no such crap. She gets around with a see-through head and a business suit.

Chess master shoulda said she was a robot, then she wouldn't have to deal with an ultra-sexist elitist male dominated society of desert heathens with oil and cash.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
angeldoll:

What if we hosted the tournament here, and said Saudi women could participate provided they wear a bikini?


That's a dog that won't hunt. No Chess Tournament would ever stipulate such a sexist rule. They could as part of the tournament's regulations stipulate a dress code based entirely on formal appropriateness for the game, which they do, but never base anything on a religious code.

Your strawman argument is pretty much inappropriate for this thread.


It's not a strawman argument. In fact, it's not an argument at all. It's an opinion, which apparently you didn't like. And that is not something I care about. By the way, do you know what an analogy is?



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

saudi arabia is allowed to have any say is their oil and money it generates allah help them when oil tap runs dry or somebody cracks the fusion nut with out oil money the middle east and muslim faith would likely collapse world wide.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
angeldoll:

It's not a strawman argument.


Of course it was a strawman argument. You created a scenario that would never exist to make a point. It wasn't an analogy, because it isn't analogous to anything.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
angeldoll:

It's not a strawman argument.


Of course it was a strawman argument. You created a scenario that would never exist to make a point. It wasn't an analogy, because it isn't analogous to anything.


Do you not see that you are the one making a pseudo-argument? I made a statement to no one, only stating my opinion.
There was no argument. An argument consists of challenging someone's idea, consequently creating a conflict of ideas or facts.
Like you have done.

Attributing your own thoughts and ideas to the person, then starting an argument about it, is a strawman argument, like you are doing here. Arguing with yourself over comments and thoughts you made up. You have presented the only strawman argument here, and tried to engage me in your strawman. How's that working out for ya?

What this tells me:

You don't really know what an argument is.
You have absolutely lno clue what constitutes a 'strawman argument".
You can't tell an exaggerated analogy from something presented as fact.


eta: My comment not analogous to anything? Good God man, do I need to explain that to you also?

edit on 12/27/2017 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: xenon129

She actually looks more sexy to me with the head covering.


This goes right to the heart of the issue. These clothing laws/rules are not about making women look less-sexy...it's about forcing them to submit which makes them MORE sexy to men who demand submission and want the control over women.

That the forced submission of women is "sexy" to anyone....I cringe.

I look at those pics and I think primarily about the fact that she's a chess champion and she must have a fabulous mind. When I evaluate her physical beauty...she is gorgeous in the way that she CHOOSES to present herself.

***

I just want to add that I don't judge you, WillTell, and I don't assume that you find submission sexy. I assume you find the look to be pleasing aesthetically, for whatever reason, and maybe don't view it under the lens I view it.


My great-grandmother was of Russian stock from Poland (last known European address was Polish, anyway) She had her hair covered in the old photos we found, nary a hair in sight. Very, very modest Catholic Pole, flat refused to show hair outside the house or in pictures.

And what a surprise, with that scarf, was she smoking hot for the era. I had no idea great-grandma had such a sultry come-hither look down like that without even trying. That scarf may have signaled Old World religious modesty to her, but many women wear them with as much grace and elegance as Diana did with her everyday clothes. Don't just bash a head scar because it's a head scarf, they can be hot as f#, it's just a matter of perspective, and the attitude of the wearer. IMO, bashing the use of it in any culture/religion is about as dumb & hapless as ripping someone for wearing pants. You don't get to decide what they find modest enough to wear or not wear.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: xenon129

She actually looks more sexy to me with the head covering.


This goes right to the heart of the issue. These clothing laws/rules are not about making women look less-sexy...it's about forcing them to submit which makes them MORE sexy to men who demand submission and want the control over women.

That the forced submission of women is "sexy" to anyone....I cringe.

I look at those pics and I think primarily about the fact that she's a chess champion and she must have a fabulous mind. When I evaluate her physical beauty...she is gorgeous in the way that she CHOOSES to present herself.

***

I just want to add that I don't judge you, WillTell, and I don't assume that you find submission sexy. I assume you find the look to be pleasing aesthetically, for whatever reason, and maybe don't view it under the lens I view it.


My great-grandmother was of Russian stock from Poland (last known European address was Polish, anyway) She had her hair covered in the old photos we found, nary a hair in sight. Very, very modest Catholic Pole, flat refused to show hair outside the house or in pictures.

And what a surprise, with that scarf, was she smoking hot for the era. I had no idea great-grandma had such a sultry come-hither look down like that without even trying. That scarf may have signaled Old World religious modesty to her, but many women wear them with as much grace and elegance as Diana did with her everyday clothes. Don't just bash a head scar because it's a head scarf, they can be hot as f#, it's just a matter of perspective, and the attitude of the wearer. IMO, bashing the use of it in any culture/religion is about as dumb & hapless as ripping someone for wearing pants. You don't get to decide what they find modest enough to wear or not wear.



Well, you missed the point entirely.

If your great grandmother chose to wear a head scarf...then good for her.

Nothing wrong with head scarfs...the only thing wrong is men FORCING women to wear them when they don't want to or face punishment.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Islam is so stupid.

edit on 27-12-2017 by notsure1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Well, you missed the point entirely.

If your great grandmother chose to wear a head scarf...then good for her.

Nothing wrong with head scarfs...the only thing wrong is men FORCING women to wear them when they don't want to or face punishment.

No, it was religious indoctrination from the early 1900's. I'm reasonably certain her own parents made her wear one growing up as well. My late grandmother bemoaned fighting with her all throughout her childhood and teenage years for NOT covering her hair like a good Catholic girl. The point is, I don't really care who wears why and why, so long as THEY prefer it. I've never met someone wearing religious clothing who didn't do so willingly.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Well, you missed the point entirely.

If your great grandmother chose to wear a head scarf...then good for her.

Nothing wrong with head scarfs...the only thing wrong is men FORCING women to wear them when they don't want to or face punishment.

No, it was religious indoctrination from the early 1900's. I'm reasonably certain her own parents made her wear one growing up as well. My late grandmother bemoaned fighting with her all throughout her childhood and teenage years for NOT covering her hair like a good Catholic girl. The point is, I don't really care who wears why and why, so long as THEY prefer it. I've never met someone wearing religious clothing who didn't do so willingly.



If it was a willing decision, then fabulous. I have no issue with someone wearing a scarf they want to wear.

However, this article is about someone who did not want to wear certain *religious* clothing and had to forfeit for refusing.

But she is pictured in this thread acquiescing despite not wanting to wear the head scarf.

You wrote:



The point is, I don't really care who wears why and why, so long as THEY prefer it.


That's my position, too.

ETA: Except your first "why" should be "what." That's the sentiment I agree with.
edit on 12/27/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
A Forced Religion is not Religion, but a Cult.

Either you're free or you're not.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
SA has the right to do it, it’s their country.

Right and the right are two different things


I think a few years ago some east Asian country, maybe Indonesia, required Madonna tone down her presentation

edit on 27-12-2017 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
If it was a willing decision, then fabulous. I have no issue with someone wearing a scarf they want to wear.

However, this article is about someone who did not want to wear certain *religious* clothing and had to forfeit for refusing.

But she is pictured in this thread acquiescing despite not wanting to wear the head scarf.

You wrote:



The point is, I don't really care who wears why and why, so long as THEY prefer it.


That's my position, too.

Right. I also said I don't care about the what & why as long as they're happy to do so, too. That's what you seem to not be able to grasp because you keep crying it's forced. How is that respecting a choice? They choose to view it positively, regardless of religious overtones.
Great-grandma was Russian Orthodox with some cultural modesty mixed in. It was a scarf or you're a disrespectful whore. Not too different from the purported attitude in the ME.

As an interesting side note, to my Great-grandmother -- she eventually converted to Roman Catholicism when my grandmother was very little. But still clung to the Orthodox POV on the head coverings. She may have grown to agree more with the RCC on things than the ROC, but that was the one point she refused to budge on.

NOW. As to the chess tournament. When in Rome, baby. If I'm going to a highly Orthodox area (of ANY religion) and they demand my hair or specific tracts of skin be covered, I'm going to do so. I'M the outsider there, it's not my land to do as I please in -- I'm a visitor. I'm also free to take my holier-than-thou ass back home if I can't adapt for a few days and try to not offend people, too.
To me, this is pretty obvious stuff to do, and I'm atheist. It's akin to learning manners expectations in a foreign country. In Korea, you do not sit at a meal before the elders do, it's RUDE. In other cultures, snubbing "ladies first" is rude. In others, ignoring local dress customs is. Half this planet's problems right now have a lot more to do with cultural rudeness than anything else. I'm not going to go strut around Riyadh in a thong. not just because their laws prohibit that, but because it's goddamn rude & distasteful outside of appropriate stateside places like a pool or a beach to begin with. All this numnuts woman had to do was comply with with a minor sleeve length/neckline height change in another culture's country.
edit on 12/27/2017 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/27/2017 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Guardian10
A Forced Religion is not Religion, but a Cult.

Either you're free or you're not.



All religions have rules their adherents are obliged to obey

BUT they don't suppose to be forced to obey
There's a verse in the Quran that says

"There's no compulsion in religion"




edit on 27-12-2017 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
If it was a willing decision, then fabulous. I have no issue with someone wearing a scarf they want to wear.

However, this article is about someone who did not want to wear certain *religious* clothing and had to forfeit for refusing.

But she is pictured in this thread acquiescing despite not wanting to wear the head scarf.

You wrote:



The point is, I don't really care who wears why and why, so long as THEY prefer it.


That's my position, too.

Right. I also said I don't care about the what & why as long as they're happy to do so, too. That's what you seem to not be able to grasp because you keep crying it's forced.


I not only grasped that, but I said I shared that view.

Also, I wasn't "crying" (and that's a sh*tty way to try to characterize my reasonably stated opinions).

Lastly, laws and rules are PRECISELY methods used to compel/force people to do certain things.



edit on 12/27/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Islam isn't a Religion, it's a Cult. Or didn't you know that? Look it up.




top topics



 
47
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join