- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Pupils will be banned from wearing abayas, loose-fitting full-length robes worn by some Muslim women, in France’s state-run schools, the education minister has said.
The rule will be applied as soon as the new school year starts on 4 September.
France has a strict ban on religious signs in state schools and government buildings, arguing that they violate secular laws.
Wearing a headscarf has been banned since 2004 in state-run schools.
I’m also not a fan of school uniforms in general and I don’t have personal expirence with them.
But the topic of dress codes came up a couple of time when I was in highschool. One of them even lead to a “ban” though, it was only school policy, not a law. But yeah, there were a couple of girls that really pushed the limits of how short they could make their tops and hotpants. I, of course, loved it at the time, but looking back as an adult, 14-16 year olds probably shouldn’t dress like that in school.
Another topic I even caused myself. I went through kind of a punk phase and one day showed up with steel-tipped boots and a 30cm, neon green mohawk. There were some complaints, but ultimatly nothing happened.
My point is, regulating clothing in certain public situation is quite common with widley varying regional standards. It’s not as simple as “everyone should be able to wear what they want”.
Is a rule a good rule because it is common or because it is good?
Definitly because it’s common. I don’t believe in fundamental “good” or “evil”.
I just know what I think is good and I compare that with what other people think is good. And when enough people do that in a society, eventually “rules” emerge that are commonly accepted. And those change with time, which means the collective perception of what is “good” also changes.
You say this but I bet you would stop a baby from getting run over no matter how many people encouraged you to let the baby die.
Not going to agree with you on this one. That is what is good is what allows the individual to flourish not what opinion polls have to say. The majority might get their way but that doesn’t make them infallible.
I’m not sure that is fair. I’ve never been in a “hero” scenario and I have no idea what the hypothetical situation is and if I just adrenline rush in … or rationally weigh the risks. I just don’t know how I would react there.
Morally I would of course agree to save the baby, if possible with acceptable risk. And it wouldn’t detere me if people disagreed, from a moral standpoint (literally being evil and saying the baby should die).
I’m sorry, but that is just naive. History is littered with people dying for a “good cause” (by today’s standards) for nothing. Lucky enough to be recored in history at all. You flourish or prerish at the will of opinion polls, be through lynchings, tribal war or a modern justice system.
There is no fallibility because there is no truth. We don’t know if what we believe is good today, will be judge so in the future. Good (and evil) only ever exist from the perspective of some observer in space and time.
It is plenty fair. You use your own judgement all the bloody time. You don’t conduct opinion polls on every moral or ethnical decision. I gave you an extreme example but the concept is there. Right and wrong are not determined by what the majority has to say they are determined by individual actors.
So no I don’t think children should have their right to expression stripped away because 51% of the population decided to. That might be what ends up happening but that doesn’t make it good.
The majority is composed of individual actors.