Why Women DESTROY NATIONS * / CIVILIZATIONS - and other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS

Goshin said:

Sigh.

Xenophobia has been mentioned a couple times. I'd like to address that.

I'm not xenophobic. I've traveled out of the country, I'm fascinated by other cultures, I've taken a stab at learning several different languages (the only one that stuck worth a darn was Espanol), I'd love to take a tour of the Far East.

I have no problem with legal immigrants who make a reasonable effort to assimilate and obey our laws and respect our customs. Nor do I expect them to give up all theirs.

I DO have a problem with those who come here illegally, often through stealing someone else's identity, and often with no intention of becoming a citizen or fitting in.

I have a MAJOR problem with letting Muslims into the country in great numbers until we have a FAR better means of "vetting" them to weed out the terrorists and militants than is currently the case. Given the tendency of Muslims in large numbers to start pushing for their own Shariah law system, I'm concerned about letting too many of them in period.

Until we can tell Haji the peaceful shopkeeper from his cousin Haji the seemingly-peaceful-but-secret-Jihadist, we need to be a bit more cautious.

This does not make me xenophobic; it makes me mindful of a real and present danger, and a potential but severe future danger.

Click to expand...

I'm the only one who mentioned xenophobia, so I'll take this as addressed to me.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that Islam is incredibly illiberal, has a massive terrorism problem and is in great need of reform. I'd also like to say that the vast vast vast majority of muslims are peaceful. These statements are not mutually exclusive.

Now that's out of the way, the point I was making was that the only reason this guy seems to think women are the heralds of destruction is that they are more welcoming to outside parties than men are. So this guys fear of our nation being destroyed is not down to women, but to foreigners.

As to the actual threat posed by foreigners, you're more likely to be killed by Steve from down the street than either one of the Haji's in your example.

There were just 25 U.S. noncombatant fatalities from terrorism worldwide. (The US government definition of terrorism excludes attacks on U.S. military personnel). While we don’t have the figures at hand, undoubtedly more American citizens died overseas from traffic accidents or intestinal illnesses than from terrorism.

The March, 2011, Harper‘s Index noted:

Number of American civilians who died worldwide in terrorist attacks last year: 8 — Minimum number who died after being struck by lightning: 29.

Click to expand...

You say you are mindful of the danger presented by muslims. Well, a phobia is characterized as an irrational fear, and fear of muslim immigrants is irrational. If we expressed our fears in proportion to the amount of danger we are actually in, then instead of seeing calls for banning immigration of muslims, we would be seeing calls for funding road safety initiatives 20x more than they are now. There is very little reason to be scared of muslim immigrants, but for some reason the irrational fear that we do have is preventing us from finding the humanity to help hundreds of thousands of people who are in dire need of help, help that is well within our means to provide.

Aunt Spiker said:

lol - I'm a woman as in 'an organism'.

HAREMS FORM ... dun dun dun

Hell yeah - let me form a harem and ruin the world with our collective *****.

[oh don't worry - no offense taken. I laughed my ass off the entire time.]

Click to expand...

Oh and btw, "women are biological just like all the "others"." lol

Moot said:

Oh and btw, "women are biological just like all the "others"." lol

Click to expand...

Gives biological warfare a new meaning?
badum dum pshhhh

I find the article mostly circumstantial in its very customized point but that's just me.

Goshin said:

Umm. I'm not talking about political allies. I'm talking about your survival, and ability to continue living a liberal lifestyle without getting your head chopped.

Click to expand...

No one is chopping heads off in Pakistan, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, or a number of other Muslim nations. In fact, in some of them (two of the four I just mentioned) the death penalty is either completely outlawed or de-facto outlawed (in a seemingly permanent moratorium status). One of those countries (Pakistan) had a woman president some 28 years before the US even came close to electing one (only as of this year are we close to electing one). Eight muslim countries in total have already elected female presidents (or prime ministers, as the case may be).

Goshin said:

Look at Europe: birth rate falling below replacement level in most nations.

Click to expand...

What do birthrates have to do with Islam?

More importantly, if you do have a shortage of people reaching working age in your country, that's when you want to push to INCREASE immigration, not decrease it.

Goshin said:

Single biggest immigrant group? Muslims. What do Muslims do when they reach a certain percentage of the population? Start pushing for Sharia courts. If they ever reach a majority? There's a major risk they'll push for Shariah to be THE law of the land over all. Maybe worse, if the radicalization trend continues.

Click to expand...

You're mistaking right-wing talking points for facts.

Can you prove that:
1. When Muslims reach a certain population level, they push for the imposition of Sharia law throughout a nation
2. There is a trend towards radicalization within Muslim communities

Goshen said:

Perhaps you think I'm being overly dramatic and speaking doom where none will come. Well, I hope you're right and I hope I am wrong... but I'd hate to bet my ass on it.

Click to expand...

Yes.

I think you've fallen for right-wing propaganda. The contemporary version of this:



The first image is from the "yellow peril" era of the 1800s back when it was the Chinese who were going to kill us all if we let them in the country.
The second image is from the "red scare" era of the 1910s and 1920s when it was the commies who were going to kill us all if we let them in the country.

This is the just the latest round of xenophobic hysteria pushed by the latest political party that benefits from people being in fear. It's been done in this country to:
Jewish immigrants
Irish immigrants
Chinese immigrants
Catholic immigrants
Japanese immigrants
Mexican immigrants
Central and South American immigrants

You're falling for a really old scare tactic.

Ntharotep said:

Gives biological warfare a new meaning?
badum dum pshhhh

I find the article mostly circumstantial in its very customized point but that's just me.

Click to expand...

Good one. But isn't it "badda boom badda bing?"

I find the video to be mostly stupid...and I don't think it's just me. lol

Nilly said:

I'm the only one who mentioned xenophobia, so I'll take this as addressed to me.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that Islam is incredibly illiberal, has a massive terrorism problem and is in great need of reform. I'd also like to say that the vast vast vast majority of muslims are peaceful. These statements are not mutually exclusive.

Now that's out of the way, the point I was making was that the only reason this guy seems to think women are the heralds of destruction is that they are more welcoming to outside parties than men are. So this guys fear of our nation being destroyed is not down to women, but to foreigners.

As to the actual threat posed by foreigners, you're more likely to be killed by Steve from down the street than either one of the Haji's in your example.



You say you are mindful of the danger presented by muslims. Well, a phobia is characterized as an irrational fear, and fear of muslim immigrants is irrational. If we expressed our fears in proportion to the amount of danger we are actually in, then instead of seeing calls for banning immigration of muslims, we would be seeing calls for funding road safety initiatives 20x more than they are now. There is very little reason to be scared of muslim immigrants, but for some reason the irrational fear that we do have is preventing us from finding the humanity to help hundreds of thousands of people who are in dire need of help, help that is well within our means to provide.

Click to expand...

Harper's seems to have missed a few, like those gunned down by Mr and Mrs Jihadi not long ago.

Nilly said:

...You say you are mindful of the danger presented by muslims. Well, a phobia is characterized as an irrational fear, and fear of muslim immigrants is irrational. If we expressed our fears in proportion to the amount of danger we are actually in, then instead of seeing calls for banning immigration of muslims, we would be seeing calls for funding road safety initiatives 20x more than they are now. There is very little reason to be scared of muslim immigrants, but for some reason the irrational fear that we do have is preventing us from finding the humanity to help hundreds of thousands of people who are in dire need of help, help that is well within our means to provide.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, I don't know what your position is on gun rights, but I wonder if this trail works when you insert guns everywhere I've bolded above.

I personally have no issue with any person from any nation following proper protocols and procedures in a real desire to immigrate to our nation.

However, as I've made plain elsewhere, MIGRANTS are a different story.

Captain Adverse said:

There has been a lot of debate surrounding how America should handle... immigration. snip

Click to expand...

It's not simply a matter of "terrorism," it's much more than that as the current examples in various European countries are facing shows, and exactly what Goshen was trying to express.

CrabCake said:

No one is chopping heads off in Pakistan, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, or a number of other Muslim nations. In fact, in some of them (two of the four I just mentioned) the death penalty is either completely outlawed or de-facto outlawed (in a seemingly permanent moratorium status). One of those countries (Pakistan) had a woman president some 28 years before the US even came close to electing one (only as of this year are we close to electing one). Eight muslim countries in total have already elected female presidents (or prime ministers, as the case may be).



What do birthrates have to do with Islam?

More importantly, if you do have a shortage of people reaching working age in your country, that's when you want to push to INCREASE immigration, not decrease it.



You're mistaking right-wing talking points for facts.

Can you prove that:
1. When Muslims reach a certain population level, they push for the imposition of Sharia law throughout a nation
2. There is a trend towards radicalization within Muslim communities




Yes.

I think you've fallen for right-wing propaganda. The contemporary version of this:



The first image is from the "yellow peril" era of the 1800s back when it was the Chinese who were going to kill us all if we let them in the country.
The second image is from the "red scare" era of the 1910s and 1920s when it was the commies who were going to kill us all if we let them in the country.

This is the just the latest round of xenophobic hysteria pushed by the latest political party that benefits from people being in fear. It's been done in this country to:
Jewish immigrants
Irish immigrants
Chinese immigrants
Catholic immigrants
Japanese immigrants
Mexican immigrants
Central and South American immigrants

You're falling for a really old scare tactic.

Click to expand...

Bud, it's not imaginary. We ARE letting in people who want to kill us in job lots.


It stopped being imaginary even before 9/11.

Captain Adverse said:

Hmmm, I don't know what your position is on gun rights, but I wonder if this trail works when you insert guns everywhere I've bolded above.

I personally have no issue with any person from any nation following proper protocols and procedures in a real desire to immigrate to our nation.

However, as I've made plain elsewhere, MIGRANTS are a different story.



It's not simply a matter of "terrorism," it's much more than that as the current examples in various European countries are facing shows, and exactly what Goshen was trying to express.

Click to expand...

Had my fill of beating my head against a brick wall.


There's a world of difference between being scared of Irish immigrants or Chinese laundrymen and being concerned about a group that contains a disturbingly large minority of potential Jihadis, Jihad-sympathizers and Jihad-supporters.


But it falls on deaf ears, so **** it.

Goshin said:

Harper's seems to have missed a few, like those gunned down by Mr and Mrs Jihadi not long ago.

Click to expand...

Still tiny numbers, relatively speaking.

Goshin said:

Had my fill of beating my head against a brick wall.

There's a world of difference between being scared of Irish immigrants or Chinese laundrymen and being concerned about a group that contains a disturbingly large minority of potential Jihadis, Jihad-sympathizers and Jihad-supporters.

But it falls on deaf ears, so **** it.

Click to expand...

As for the beliefs of people who are not extremists, one of the foundations of the western secular world is that when people present ideas in a non-violent/hateful/coercive way, they have every right to a platform to speak. That is what makes us better, and it is a quality of our culture that I like to keep. And as for the propagation of non-secular ideals, I have every confidence that if such issues come to light, they will be rejected in the same dignified fashion that theocratic, bigoted ideals have been since we became a secular nation.

Captain Adverse said:

Hmmm, I don't know what your position is on gun rights, but I wonder if this trail works when you insert guns everywhere I've bolded above.

I personally have no issue with any person from any nation following proper protocols and procedures in a real desire to immigrate to our nation.

However, as I've made plain elsewhere, MIGRANTS are a different story.

It's not simply a matter of "terrorism," it's much more than that as the current examples in various European countries are facing shows, and exactly what Goshen was trying to express.

Click to expand...

I used to be anti-guns (I'm originally from a country where guns are banned) but the argument I laid out is essentially what convinced me that banning gun's wasn't the way forward. I'm still not a big fan of guns but no longer seek to ban them. Honestly my thoughts on the topic are still developing.

As for the examples of various European countries, most of it is a load of BS. Media have claimed that the city I used to live in had 'no-go zones' which I can categorically tell you is a load of nonsense, and whilst there are issues with assimilating large numbers of people (the refugee crisis is by no means a good thing, it's a problem, which is always going to be difficult to deal with) it's something that, given the means, we should absolutely strive to do. I will also say that I am going to be biased in this situation. For me it's incredibly personal. My father was a refugee to Britain in the 60's, after which he married my English mother and they had me. If it wasn't for the magnanimity of countries with the means to take refugee's in, I wouldn't be alive and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Nilly said:

As for the examples of various European countries, most of it is a load of BS. Media have claimed that the city I used to live in had 'no-go zones' which I can categorically tell you is a load of nonsense, and whilst there are issues with assimilating large numbers of people (the refugee crisis is by no means a good thing, it's a problem, which is always going to be difficult to deal with) it's something that, given the means, we should absolutely strive to do. I will also say that I am going to be biased in this situation. For me it's incredibly personal. My father was a refugee to Britain in the 60's, after which he married my English mother and they had me. If it wasn't for the magnanimity of countries with the means to take refugee's in, I wouldn't be alive and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Click to expand...

While I appreciate your personal example, I remain unconvinced.

My arguments in the thread I posted in that link remain valid. Your personal views about "no go" areas and enclaves of trouble don't seem to jibe with all the news and documentary reports we keep seeing more and more of. Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands and Germany. I think your self-amitted bias blinds you to the very real examples of problems dealing with mass migrations. Transplanting a culture whole and trying to integrate it into an established one is hardly a simple matter of "means to do so."

Complete garbage, and akin to the right hand shooting the left.

Henrin said:

From my observation male lead nations are more commonly transparent in their tyranny, while nations with a good amount of female influence are many times hard to detect as tyrannical because they do a better job at masking it under bull**** intentions.

Click to expand...

Examples?

I sat through all 18 minutes and 36 seconds of it.

I feel it is a classic example of taking a few facts and twisting them to fit an agenda.

I am sure one of you can tell me the name for that kind of thing.

I don't have enough time to list the outright falsehoods mentioned.

The biggest, I feel, is it saying women having no "loyalty to the tribe".

Captain Adverse said:

While I appreciate your personal example, I remain unconvinced.

My arguments in the thread I posted in that link remain valid. Your personal views about "no go" areas and enclaves of trouble don't seem to jibe with all the news and documentary reports we keep seeing more and more of. Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands and Germany. I think your self-amitted bias blinds you to the very real examples of problems dealing with mass migrations. Transplanting a culture whole and trying to integrate it into an established one is hardly a simple matter of "means to do so."

Click to expand...

I don't think it is a simple matter, and I don't think it's an easy one. I do think it's one that we can rise to, and one that we should rise to. Again, I will readily agree again that I do have some bias and personal stake in that issue.

What I don't think my bias clouds is the sheer amount of fear mongering propagated by certain media outlets on the issues of no go zones and the like. I used to live in a supposed one. I have friends who live in Sweden, who can attest the same. And my evidence there is not just anecdotal. There is a wide variety of sources out there who have debunked many of the claims about no go zones and the like. This video claims that the issue is one that 'destroys civilizations'. That just seems absurd.

CrabCake said:

No one is chopping heads off in Pakistan, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, or a number of other Muslim nations. In fact, in some of them (two of the four I just mentioned) the death penalty is either completely outlawed or de-facto outlawed (in a seemingly permanent moratorium status). One of those countries (Pakistan) had a woman president some 28 years before the US even came close to electing one (only as of this year are we close to electing one). Eight muslim countries in total have already elected female presidents (or prime ministers, as the case may be).



What do birthrates have to do with Islam?

More importantly, if you do have a shortage of people reaching working age in your country, that's when you want to push to INCREASE immigration, not decrease it.



You're mistaking right-wing talking points for facts.

Can you prove that:
1. When Muslims reach a certain population level, they push for the imposition of Sharia law throughout a nation
2. There is a trend towards radicalization within Muslim communities




Yes.

I think you've fallen for right-wing propaganda. The contemporary version of this:



The first image is from the "yellow peril" era of the 1800s back when it was the Chinese who were going to kill us all if we let them in the country.
The second image is from the "red scare" era of the 1910s and 1920s when it was the commies who were going to kill us all if we let them in the country.

This is the just the latest round of xenophobic hysteria pushed by the latest political party that benefits from people being in fear. It's been done in this country to:
Jewish immigrants
Irish immigrants
Chinese immigrants
Catholic immigrants
Japanese immigrants
Mexican immigrants
Central and South American immigrants

You're falling for a really old scare tactic.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. Certain Mexican ILLEGAL immigrants are quite violent and repeat offenders.

The Remembrance Project

These are facts. NOT scare tactics.

Goshin said:

Bud, it's not imaginary. We ARE letting in people who want to kill us in job lots.


It stopped being imaginary even before 9/11.

Click to expand...

We were discussing whether Muslims pose a threat to the US by virtue of being Muslim. Your position was that as the number of Muslims increases, they will begin to have more and more influence over the country and eventually push for Sharia law and the Islamization of America. This is, to put it bluntly, nonsense.

The fact that people with evil intent are getting into the country is a whole different topic which has nothing to do with our original discussion. The people who come here to perpetrate terrorist attacks come here on student visas or tourist visas. Changes to immigration won't affect that and the spread of Islam will make absolutely no difference. Those people aren't a threat because they are Muslim, they are a threat because they are terrorists.

The bottom line is, and this is the answer to your original question:
As a progressive, I believe it is wrong to discriminate against people based on their religion. That is why I defend Islam from the attacks of right wing zealots.

As a progressive and, more importantly, a God fearing Christian, I believe welcoming refugees is the right thing to do; I believe it to be what Jesus would do. For that reason, I welcome refugees regardless of their faith.

Unfortunately, you have fallen for a fear-driven narrative perpetuated by people who benefit from your fear. To that, I answer:
2 Timothy 1:7
For God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline.


Even if I believed there was a chance that what you are saying is true and we are putting ourselves at risk by doing the right thing for these people. Even so, I would still believe it to be the right thing to do. I wouldn't allow fear to cause me to discriminate against people based on religion nor would I allow fear to keep me from giving shelter and help to those in need. I don't believing allowing your fear to keep you from doing what is right is the right thing to do. I think when fear keeps you from doing what is right, the enemy wins. That's the enemy's best hope, a world filled with people too afraid to do what is right.

Sorry...got a bit sidetracked into theological issues. The preacher coming out of me.

Seems to me this was written by the type of guy who "wants his rib back"...

Goshin said:

I watched, or well at least skimmed, the whole vid. Mostly overhyped, at best.



There was one thing that stuck with me, because I've been wondering this for some time... why do liberals, particularly female or gay liberals, tend to be apologists for Islam? To favor welcoming large numbers of Islamist immigrants into their nations, not pressuring them to assimilate, etc.... when Islam typically treats women much like cattle, stones hangs or beheads homosexuals, suppresses free speech and basically is the ANTITHESIS of all things liberal in most nations where devout Islamists hold a majority?

Has liberalism become suicidal?? What's the deal there? Does liberalism think they're going to assimilate and become good tolerant feminist-allies? Sweden, France and Germany argue otherwise..

Click to expand...

what exactly is an apologist for Islam if thats for not treating people like ther criminals for being Muslim then i guess i am one dont care for the religion though

dont know any 1 who supports Muslims braking the law and hurting people so what do you mean by assimilate?

CrabCake said:

I had a much longer response prepared (which I'm sure as a mod you can go read if you want). But I realized that the last few sentences did a great job of summarizing the whole thing, so I've cut out all the rest.

Progressives are opposed to religious discrimination because they believe that to be wrong. They are in favor of welcoming refugees from Muslim nations because they believe that to be right. How many political allies it might gain them or lose them is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

that sounds right

RetiredNSmilin said:

I sat through all 18 minutes and 36 seconds of it.

I feel it is a classic example of taking a few facts and twisting them to fit an agenda.

I am sure one of you can tell me the name for that kind of thing.

I don't have enough time to list the outright falsehoods mentioned.

The biggest, I feel, is it saying women having no "loyalty to the tribe".

Click to expand...

Propaganda?