dialamah

I think that since the woman is the only one taking on the physical aspects of said pregnancy, including any short-term or long-term health risks, then her preference should hold sway. If a man uses a condom, then he significantly lowers the risk of impregnating a woman who may have made an honest mistake in terms of her birth control, or who may have unilaterally decided that it was time he became a father, whether he wishes it or not. If men want to control their biological destiny, they have choices to make before they insert penis into vagina.

In another post, I linked to a couple of websites which detail alt-right beliefs, which are quite similar to fundamental Christians and Muslims - women should remain at home to have babies, men should be heterosexual (aka no gays allowed), different races should not intermarry or procreate, immigration is bad for the country, feminism is bad for society. If Muslims with regressive values are to be refused entry into our country, what should we do about alt-right regressive values that are already here? Any thoughts? And sure, I have no problem not calling you 'alt-right'. I didn't intend to do so initially, it seemed to me you were actually claiming that for yourself. Sorry if I misunderstood.

@blackbird Clearly we are not on the same page and are not likely to be. I don't care of the "caucasian" race declines because as far as I'm concerned we all "human" regardless of the color of our skin. We have much bigger problems if we hope to keep humans as a species, never mind what color those humans happen to be.

Don't have sex with women, and you need not worry about your genetic property being used in a way you disapprove. Or, if you really want to have sex without giving up your genetic property, use a condom - even if she swears she's on birth control - and take your property home with you. This would be called "Taking responsibility for yourself" and also almost certainly means you won't be having either unwanted babies or having your babies aborted against your will.

I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you ... Besides, it was a long time ago and I can't really remember.

My mother-in-law always said that if men had every second child, no family would have more than three children.

Was I talking about you? I did not realize.

Women have been getting abortions since pregnancy was invented. We've used potions, spells, tools, deliberate physical injury, back alley butchers, all our savings or all our boyfriend's savings to rid ourselves of unwanted pregnancies. Even knowing the risk of going to a secret abortion provider, because abortion is against the law, women will do that. This is because society generally demands from women that they do not get pregnant -- unless a man wills it --- but if they do get pregnant against a man's desires, then they should be solely responsible for that baby, and also vilified for daring to get pregnant without permission. When abortion is outlawed, more women die and no more babies are saved. https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2009/11/facts-and-consequences-legality-incidence-and-safety-abortion-worldwide http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/women-in-countries-where-abortion-is-illegal-just-as-likely-to-have-one-as-countries-where-it-is-a7025671.html For comprehensive information on abortion, read this site thoroughly: https://www.guttmacher.org

Women have been getting abortions for as long as they've been getting pregnant, laws against it will not stop that. The main reason 'abortion' is frowned upon is because it reduces the control men have traditionally had over women. And for the most part, men are quite happy when women abort the babies the men don't want to be responsible for, whether the pregnancy resulted from a moment of carnal irresponsiblity or because birth control failed.

How would we solve the problem of the alt-right and their regressive social values?

According to alt-right, this does not work. What men need to do is be all dominant and well ... err, violently masculine without getting rapey. That's what women really want!

Alt-right. Check out http://www.radixjournal.com read a few of the blogs ... see if you can't pick out the themes of racism and sexism, not to mention anti-gay sentiment. There is a Canadian component too "http://www.eurocanadian.ca/" - same basic message: Men should be men and dominate women; feminism is evil - women should stay home and make babies; non-Whites are 'lesser humans', etc. These folks believe a lot of what Muslims and fundie Christians believe, and they're not even religious! Alt-right growing in Canada Alt-right crime increases after Trump's win Alt-right considered radical hate group SFU Study shows increase of alt-right Perhaps so, but they are no prettier than a Muslim who holds the same views.

Its a motion for a study, not a bill for legislation. Its also already been discussed to death.

Being sexist or racist is not illegal, acting on it in a way that harms someone else is. And given the growing subculture of bred and born racists and sexists in Canada, its even possible to think it is a Canadian value for some people.

@Goddess. In my previous post I missed saying that it was in Egypt that my sister and I were without male escort. The male Muslims I have met and worked with in Canada are all well-educated, as is my sister's husband and family. Regardless of how long these men have been in Canada, they've treated me with respect. For the ones with whom I've discussed treatment of women, they have indicated belief in female equality. The men have been from a variety of Middle Eastern and African countries, but not Syria or Saudi Arabia that I recall. Perhaps education is an important consideration for determining who will more easily fit into Canadian norms?

You are right, you can scorn whomever you want and as many groups as you want. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, blame my bad comprehension this time.

Definitely it should go both ways. Muslims who are abusive and violent should be treated exactly the same as White Nationalists who are abusive and violent. I'm really curious about our different experiences with Muslim men. Even wandering without male escort alone and with my sister we were never harassed to that degree. Hit on, yes lots, and groped once .. But certainly no worse than what I've experienced in Canada from non-Muslim men.

I reserve my scorn for individuals, not groups. For example, not all Conservatives are to be scorned, even if I disagree with their basic ideology. I've even come to appreciate and respect one or two of the more thoughtful ones on this board. I have even modified some of my ideas as a result of what they've written. The scorn-worthy are the ones who fail to differentiate between an individual Liberal and all Liberals and make sweeping and negative generalizations about "leftists" as if they were some kind of borg-race who acted and thought identically at all times. Same for Islamaphobes: constantly warning about all the dangers of Muslims and claiming they are out to change Canada or whatever and ignoring the very real differences between various groups and individuals is scornworthy.

Saying "Islam is a patriarchal religion which supports misogynistic attitudes" is a legit criticism and discussions can be held around that. Saying "Muslims are misogynists and want to turn all of Canada into a misogynistic state" is an Islamaphobic statement and should be scorned. Saying "Islamic terrorism is a problem and needs to be addressed" is a legit criticism and discussions can be held around that. Saying "Islam is a death cult and our sworn enemies" is an Islamaphobic statement and should be scorned. Hope that helps clarify for you the difference between statements based on fear (aka Islamaphobia) and statements that aren't.

I've seen and been the 'recipient' of anti-immigrant attacks in public, and any claim that they're staged sounds like an over-the-top conspiracy theory to me. Especially given that police investigate and charge these people. Agreed.

Scorn.

No doubt you'd consider the anti-Islamaphobia motion that was passed last year was another one ... https://www.dailysabah.com/americas/2016/11/03/canadian-parliament-passes-anti-islamophobia-motion There were those who of course denounced this motion as a limitation on 'free speech' .... http://www.neveragaincanada.ca/13636-2/ - yet, there are still attacks on Muslims/mosques and rants on buses from those who are exercising their 'free speech'. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/after-mosque-fire-in-peterborough-ont-community-rallies-torebuild/article27272714/ http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2017/03/07/high-school-student-captures-violent-anti-muslim-rant.html "Free Speech" alive and well in Canada. God forbid we should define physical and verbal attacks on people due to their religion as 'wrong'.

I think I know what he means by "Islamist" and "liberal", but not sure what he'd mean by 'conservative'. For me, that would be a Muslim along the lines of horse-and-buggy Mennonites. For someone else I suspect that would be someone who'd engage in honor killings/FGM and similar activities; I would consider those people just criminals. Does he offer a definition for each category?

It would solve a lot of problems if we were all some shade of beige. On the other hand, the cynical side of me says that people would find some way of identifying people to hate: "Only beige people with uptilted noses are any good! Ban down-tilted noses!"