westerort i respect your point of view. i wish i had chance to see people like you in Turkey. believe me my answer would be same as yours if the subject wasn't a medical issue.

from codex' point of view; there is no limit for freedom unless it limits others freedom.

Well that's a healthy motto to live by. I salute that.

All these issues you brought up as an example, westerort is reaching out with an open mind and thinking rationally but when it falls down to womens choices on wearing a head scarf and their basic but most essential freedom of receiving an education, he turns a blind eye to it?

The problem with the turban isn't what freedoms they are fighting for, but the freedoms they ignore. I wholeheartedly believe they should, indeed MUST, recieve education on the highest level. But the situation isn't as simple as that. There isn't a black and white argument here where evil fundamentalist secularists want to hinder the achievements of religious women. There are enormous political tensions within the country and for islamists to push this subject so fiercely in light of so many other bigger issues at hand is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Within a university there must be complete harmony and equality between sexes. Education must build the foundation of critical and rational thinking in the minds of the young. If AKP had pushed for more democratic rights in ALL areas of society and THEN asked for the turban ban to be lifted, they would have credibility. Now it seems as if the rights and wellfare of turban-wearing muslims are the top priority and, as we've seen with this gay rights example, they clearly do not speak from a true democratic standpoint.

Sooner rather than later universities must come to accept all students, but for a political party whose democratic legitimacy is getting more bankrupt by the day to suddenly become ardent freedom fighters...well it doesn't really fly straight. You would immediately ask yourself why, not because you disagree, but because you've seen a glaring contradiction in policy. Why here? Why this? Oh, could it have something to do with your party being politicized islam? Perhaps not, but probably. Now it turns from a matter of a simple turban ban to a clash of philosophies. As a democrat you'd have to agree with lifting the ban, but as a sensible rational person you must critically dismember the motive. You start to realize that symbolism plays a huge part in this; the turban itself isn't traditionally turkish; nor is it worn by the majority of women. It doesn't represent anything more than a certain religious mindset. Then the issue reaches the point where, in many minds, becomes a turf war between secularism and islamism. Should we give legitimacy to their claim? But what about the rest of their policies? There is an allhovering sense of anti-laicism about this.

You decide to be cautious. You decide to wait and see what happens, let the story unfold alittle more. Then little by little, more contradiction. Talk of alcohol bans, friday as a holiday, bikini posters discouraged, discomforting statements regarding the founding father, threats toward parliament members - remarkable quotes from the party leader from past years. You begin to believe that this issue isn't at all about democracy or freedom of religion but more freedom of a religion. The image of the so called "mildy" islamic party suddenly strikes a taste of repulsion within. What was this turban thing? It's apparently not just about people serving democracy but democracy serving people. The humble innocence of what this proposal was intially percieved as, still perpetuated by those who still wish for it, is not at all what they wished for us to believe.

There is nothing but this cloth that hinders them from receveing a world of knowledge. Why hinder oneself? In the end, is it not what you believe to be true inside that matters and not what you choose to wear? And why is this so important? There are numerous other religious laws the same people ignore. Why? Oh, might it have to do with that not wearing a turban is sometimes considered to be skanky? Loose? Naked? Isn't that really what these women feel? Isn't that really what they must NOT feel? It is not because they do not wish to insult God, that's why other creeds are ignored. It has to do with chauvanism and making women believe they are somehow more virtuous if they wear this insignificant thing. News for all; you can be the biggest slut in the world and still wear that foreign cloth. Now because there is a perception of virtue regarding this, women "choose" to wear it so that they won't be looked upon wrongly. So that they may not bring dishonour to their family, infront of friends, father and neighbours. Perhaps the AKP should fight this fase perception, this LIE, instead of perpetuating it's NULL importance and getting on wih real issues instead of bitching and moaning for "freedom". If they were truly democratic, to equal standard in contrast to western nations, I'd be a supporter. As they are clearly not, I choose to not lift the ban. Not because I do not agree, but because I do not want this party to gain any credit before they prove they deserve it.

You are an utopian aren’t you...? People like westy (and you) are universally in the extreme minority, forget about Turkey for a second.

You admit that engaging in such sexual activity would be perverted and claim these people should be directed to medical institutions, yet you have no qualms about tolerating such behaviour in the name of “liberty”. You can not allow mentally deranged people to have all their liberties, so why did you even ask those questions...? Your cause is lost as soon as you judge these people to be mentally and morally inferior, yet you fail. At least westy was smart enough to not get caught in that detail.

How was I to know that your sister is under-aged, or is it you...? Shame, ay...?

For the record, are you tolerant on incestuous sex solely on casual basis, or should we also allow siblings, or a child, forming their own family with their parent, “as long as they don’t conceive any children”...?

Wait, what...???



Ulen Kadir, for once you brought forward a decent argument.

Westy, I am sorry but you are stumped here mate. Having to explain yourself in four long paragraphs doesn’t help your cause. If you are an ardent follower of liberties, surely the politics of such issues shouldn’t enter your mind. If you came out and put more emphasis on the banning of turban instead of analyzing AKP, you'd have more credibility. Afterall, why must these poor sıkmabaşlıs be oppressed even longer, while waiting for politics to mature in Turkey...?

But Emre, I thought atleast I made it clear that sex involvning two concenting (sane) adults cannot be prohibited - unless of course the sex itself results, in case of incestuous activity, in malignant reproduction. If you can argue against this based on something else than personal or religious grounds, I'd love to see it.

And my non-existent sister is none of your business, dear brother.

--------
But surely, the politics regarding such liberties is always what prevents and enables them to incarnate in reality? I do believe that progress cloaked in an alternate motive is not progress at all; just a mere illusion of it. I assure you, those sikmabaslis wouldn't be banned from universities if I could impose my will on society. As it is, and as I explained, there's more going on than a simple matter of religious freedom and taking that out of context wouldn't enable me to rightfully judge anything or anyone properly. Thus, I really do not believe that AKP should be able to lift the ban.

How much more emphasis can I put on this? AKP is the turban issue. You can't take them out of the equation. Philosophically speaking, I'm on the same lines regarding the ban, but politically (relevantly) I'm not. And so, the reason for keeping the ban is quite clear and sensible; AKP has not understood anything regarding it, they approach the issue feebly and immaturely and without any insight or regard for the women themselves, but instead their interst is to safeguard their own religious beliefs and ideals on society. There is no legitimacy in their cause so why should I listen?

The women must wait because we are all subject to leadership. We can change things, but not over night. Change must come sensibly, rationally and with certain caution. As you said, politics must mature in Turkey, until it does we'll be sitting here debating the same trivial shit in ten years time. There's no concensus in the country so the focal point of the next generation of politicians should be to come to some sort of agreement or even partitioning of the nation to stabilize matters enough for things to change. It's a bold proposal, but we're getting nowhere with this so what the hell.

Yes, you’ve made yourself clear. When I said a child, I didn’t mean one with non-adult status. When my sons reach 25 years of age, they will still be my children, right...?

So, my question remains : Are you in favour of incestuous activity just on casual basis, or should we tolerate families forming their own families solely from within...? Well, I can’t call them families as you oppose to them having children, let’s call it long term partnerships. Are you in favour of these people having an open status in society...? As in : Hello Stefan, let me introduce you to my wife Ingrid... And allow me to let you in on something; she also happens to be my sister... I know we get some looks but the sex is ggrrreat. I just wish people stopped judging.

There is physically nothing stopping two consenting adults engaging in incestuous activity, (except for laws) just ethics and moral codes. And obviously ours differ immensely on this point and that is it. In the same way there is no physical obstacle to polygamy apart from laws and moral codes. Should it be acceptable to have 3 consenting females as wives...? Your argument relies heavily on the “adult” bit, which definition of adult do we follow...? 16, 18, 21...? Who judges one to be an adult, does your liberty allow one to decide on their own merit...?

I am not a libertarian and having society restrict my freedom on certain things does not bother me. Simplest example of this is the smoking topic from another thread. I am in favour of these bans when the society moves against it. I have no qualms about getting down from the 3rd level of an open stadium and going out to have a smoke during half time of a game. I am certainly in favour of seeing smoking socially unacceptable. When it comes to incest, I am more than happy with its banned status and social acceptance of it bothers me greatly.

Yes, currently AKP=turban, but turban issue pre dates AKP. I can not understand your willingness to oppose this leadership on lifting the ban of turban, considering above. If you are broadminded enough to debate in favour of social acceptance of incest, surely you would want the heads to roll when it comes to a mere head covering. Why does it bother you if AKP have other agendas when they are not able to implement them...? You are even accepting the partitioning of the nation, so what worse can AKP do...?

Philosophically you are in favour but politically you are not. Pardon me, but just GTFO !
If there was a referendum tomorrow, what would your vote be...?

i ve been away for a long time and dont know most of the forum members.
I was shocked when I read your post about westerort

i am sorry to learn someone like him supports ban on headscarf.

@emre

I ve asked those questions to Red who -*test*-('")s people's limit of freedom. but no answer has come from her. cevaplar ezberinde yoktu herhalde. as usual she stops debating when a new argument is put on the table.

I don't claim to be an anarchist, democracy hero or freedom fighter. Its islamists' role in Turkey,they are domacracy champions. I always hear the same argument:"I support turban because I support freedom"

To answer your questions:

1. Yes it should be free.

2. I don't have an opinion.I think westy made good points on this subject.

3. Animal abuse-No it should not be free.

You need to ease down these word frenzies little fella, your personal crusade against believers won't achieve anything especially on this board.

You need to respect others personal values and religious beliefs in order to be respected, being a minority doesn't give you the right to exercise your corrupt system of thought on the majority. We now live in a global sphere with ties on EU and other surrounding strong, developed nations who one way or another shape and influence our politics and liberties. Besides, as can be witnessed totalitarian governments are not feasible to achieve any progress other than being isolated from the rest of the global community.

Kemalists scare mongering tactics are blundering these young innocent minds which instead of providing solutions for unison or working out other means to battle their views democratically, they're teaching to hate and loathe its own people.

I dont respect hypocrasy,I don't buy "I support turban because I support freedom" takiyyas. As we see here. What about sexual freedom? No,its immorality according to those people who speak about freedom 24/7..

I dont buy it.

I don't understand, if I find it acceptable for them having sex, I think it's obvious that it is acceptable for them forming some sort of long-term relationship. They would have the right to call themselves husband and wife for all I care, as long as they don't produce an offspring. And the legal age for adulthood, atleast here, is 18, so that was what I meant with "adult".

Yes, when your son is 25 he'll still be your kid, but he won't be a kid to the law. And your opinion regarding his hypothetical sexlife would be nothing more than that, an opinion. The fact that you're his father shouldn't change anything (unless he respects your wishes and stops fucking his sister). Sure, the two of you won't be the best of friends after him telling you about his sister, but what can you do at that point? It's his and hers choice and hence you would have no right to impede - unless of course one of the two weren't concenting and over the age of 18. So when he says "I wish people could stop judging" I guess the person he talks with will responde with something like this; "dude, that is sick". So the sister-fucker asks him "why? I do not plan having kids, I just feel that this is right and we're both in complete agreement." So he answers, "but dude...it's unnatural, like.." and the sisterfucker replies, "I'm not asking you to high-five me dude, just get the fuck out of my business".

On polygamy; if all wives are concenting and are happy with sharing one man with three others, who is ANYONE to judge their choice and their will? If it's their will and it doesn't hurt anyone and it doesn't pose danger to themselves, why hinder them? There is absolutely no feasable reason to. Nor should there be.

You speak of moral codes and ethics...philosphically all moral codes have a reason behind them. I wonder, what is your reason for saying this type of sex is morally unacceptable? I just want the reason. Give me the reason and I will agree with you 100%.

Yes, I think I knew that already. But you have gloriously avoided telling me why it bothers you. Reasons not based on personal or religious grounds please (as these are intellectually unacceptable as reason).

1. I'd rather see a partitoning than AKP dream realized. The reason being that the amount of time and effort that has been taken to make this country to almost what it should be is too valuable to sacrifice for a couple of covered heads. That is the "worse" part.

2. Well sometimes philosophy is too utopian to be implemented exactly at the same time as politics would have it, I'm sorry but that is how it is. My vote would most certainly be a big echoing "no". Still confused? I said earlier that progress cloaked in alternate motives is not progress at all, just an illsuion of it. So why would I have qualms about voting "no" when I do not believe it progresses society the least?

lets make things simple.
beginning point was the limits of the freedom. forget about homos, incests, animal sex

lets talk about sex between opposite sexes, everybody agrees with it's legimate.

find below the ages at which people of different sexualities can legally have sex.

country.......legal age for sex

Turkey........18
Greece.......15
Malta..........18
Spain..........13
Tunisia........20
Philippines..12
Peru...........14
Norway.......16
Tajikistan....17

which limit is correct, which is wrong ? who decides the limits on what bases?

in Tunisia 20 years old person is considered as an "adult" while 13 is enough for spanish people.

Not at all, I predicted your answer before you gave it. You want to rearrange Turkey on a Swedish model. If you folded her to 8 and partitioned it to 16, you wouldn’t have it. I am sorry but that’s how it is.

While I don’t agree with your views I find them interesting to read. BUT still one thing in all the text you type irks me. You have no qualms in tolerating incest and polygamy, while opposing smoking bans and possibly drug bans (?) , but still vehemently deny a couple of covered heads their right. I am having a hard time in understanding this predicament, so I question our right to judge AKP in their sincerity. And I’d hate to be taken as a pro AKP fellow here as I seem to toe their line in my last two posts, but it was merely an attempt to get an insight. No AKP and no turban for me.

As a person that was born and grown up in Turkey, I was raised with certain values and morals. I don’t mean to convey the message that my morals hold a higher ground than yours, but they are obviously different. You may refer to it as the conditioning of the human brain, but these ethics and morals simply prohibit me to see incest as socially acceptable. I am not gloriously avoiding my reasons, these are it. Whether you find them acceptable or not is not my concern.

While codex would like to see more of you in Turkey, I am glad that it is highly unlikely. You already partitioned the country because of some political tension, fuck, your founding father would be turning in his grave, considering he had to fight with worse while waging a war with occupiers and pushing them out of Turkey.

The ones that are not correct are wrong and the rest remain correct.

There is no correct or wrong age of consent. Each country set their own limits based on their values and culture. You can't force some states to lower their limit or others to raise it. Well, maybe except in the case of Philippines, sadly it fuels their tourism.

BTW, age of consent has nothing to do with adult status.