For an apparently westernised country - how can this be acceptable?
Oct 15th 2010, 8:36 pm
#46
Near the outer fringe
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Porirua
Posts: 466
Re: For an apparently westernised country - how can this be acceptable?
Actually I can simplify that.
If you're concerned about the effects of the artifacts, you would voluntarily not go.
If you're not concerned about the effects of the artifacts, you would ignore the request and warning and visit anyway.
Seems ok to me.
If you're concerned about the effects of the artifacts, you would voluntarily not go.
If you're not concerned about the effects of the artifacts, you would ignore the request and warning and visit anyway.
Seems ok to me.
Oct 15th 2010, 8:37 pm
#47
It is what it is Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Blockhouse Bay, Auckland
Posts: 2,797
Re: For an apparently westernised country - how can this be acceptable?
No one has answered yet and I think it's interesting: those of you who are comfortable with the conditions attached to the exhibit, would you be happy if Te Papa advised men with erectile dysfunction and children with hearing problems to stay away because they are tapu?
Yes I would have issues with any unwarranted ban affecting those groups but that isn´t the issue here. I also don´t have a problem at all with outright bans on pregnant women riding theme park rollercoasters, or people with back problems, is that discriminatory or just sensible precaution? If sensible precaution in whose eyes does sensible have to be? If I have a belief system that means I believe a danger exists should I not make people aware so they can make an informed decision??
If ANY belief system has issues that they believe may affect unborn children then de facto that will only affect women. That makes it a biological issue and not a discriminatory issue AND that only if it was an outright ban (which it isn´t).
Oct 16th 2010, 12:26 am
#48
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Tamaki Makau Rau
Posts: 778
Re: For an apparently westernised country - how can this be acceptable?
I´ll answer. Neither of those problems could involve any possible harm to an unborn child as with the belief being put forward above (whether or not you agree with it), so any comparison on that basis is irrelevant.
Yes I would have issues with any unwarranted ban affecting those groups but that isn´t the issue here. I also don´t have a problem at all with outright bans on pregnant women riding theme park rollercoasters, or people with back problems, is that discriminatory or just sensible precaution? If sensible precaution in whose eyes does sensible have to be? If I have a belief system that means I believe a danger exists should I not make people aware so they can make an informed decision??
If ANY belief system has issues that they believe may affect unborn children then de facto that will only affect women. That makes it a biological issue and not a discriminatory issue AND that only if it was an outright ban (which it isn´t).
Yes I would have issues with any unwarranted ban affecting those groups but that isn´t the issue here. I also don´t have a problem at all with outright bans on pregnant women riding theme park rollercoasters, or people with back problems, is that discriminatory or just sensible precaution? If sensible precaution in whose eyes does sensible have to be? If I have a belief system that means I believe a danger exists should I not make people aware so they can make an informed decision??
If ANY belief system has issues that they believe may affect unborn children then de facto that will only affect women. That makes it a biological issue and not a discriminatory issue AND that only if it was an outright ban (which it isn´t).
Oct 16th 2010, 12:47 am
#49
---
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,994
Re: For an apparently westernised country - how can this be acceptable?
I´ll answer. Neither of those problems could involve any possible harm to an unborn child as with the belief being put forward above (whether or not you agree with it), so any comparison on that basis is irrelevant.
<snip>
If ANY belief system has issues that they believe may affect unborn children then de facto that will only affect women. That makes it a biological issue and not a discriminatory issue AND that only if it was an outright ban (which it isn´t).
<snip>
If ANY belief system has issues that they believe may affect unborn children then de facto that will only affect women. That makes it a biological issue and not a discriminatory issue AND that only if it was an outright ban (which it isn´t).
Oct 16th 2010, 9:14 am
#50
It is what it is Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Blockhouse Bay, Auckland
Posts: 2,797
Re: For an apparently westernised country - how can this be acceptable?
I have no idea how it applies to anything as I am not part of that belief system and have zero knowledge of it (but I assume it is genuinely held by those that are part of it).
I would assume from a position of no knowledge that it is to do with their beliefs about reproduction in some way.
Does it matter what the mechanism is believed to be? If they believe harm could be done then are they wrong to warn? Do you think they are just trying to be a pain in the @ss to menstruating women for no purpose??
I would assume from a position of no knowledge that it is to do with their beliefs about reproduction in some way.
Does it matter what the mechanism is believed to be? If they believe harm could be done then are they wrong to warn? Do you think they are just trying to be a pain in the @ss to menstruating women for no purpose??
