Entitled refugees

[Modest]

14 hours ago, dialamah said:

Weird, barbaric, ignorant philosophy you have there claiming that women prefer being dominated, controlled and raped over having rights and freedom.  Is that Incel?  MGTOW?  Are you a refugee from here?  

No, you failed to understand fully what I although did write above: It is fact that a lot of women prefer to be dominated (just look at how normal sex happen, and the fact that the so-called rough sex is spreading exactly when women have more rights and voices than ever: choking, gagging, face-slapping and spitting has become a new fashion. Canada had a very popular guy, a feminist indeed, that made all that to a lot of women (that a lot of time stayed silent) without any punishment...), and it is what one can expect from them as the less strong half of the humankind. Biology rules... But I do not think and nor said that they like to be raped. Or that they like to not have human rights and some freedom. Of course they do like such things...  As I said above, they want that and it is comprehensible to want it, but that doesnt mean they can be happy when getting all these rights. Otherwise there would not have been such a crash of the institution of family in the Western world, and nor would have these women a fertility rate of less than 1.3 . . .   Just consider the unbelievable quantity of idiotic Western women that did go with islamists in Syria and Irak to live in the most cruel and patriarchalist model of society. These women were searching for a lost normality not to be found in the Western liberal societies.      

If you like it or not, the reality is there: the western women which have the most rights of any other group of women on earth, are barren and their societies are dying because of that. In no society and in no age women were so mentally disturbed and in search of treatment for that as it is the case today in the Western world . . .     

No, I am not an incel: I am married, I have a child, 20 yrs old. I love my wife and I dont need to choke her to get an orgasm. I am not even dominant - take it as the pure truth. I dont hate women. I only hate what the political and economical model in the western world did to women - and actually to all of us -, i.e. to steal us the future. And the growing inequality is just one of those evils of the last half of century liberalism, the biggest being that this ideology condemned us to be wiped off the face of the earth only to be replaced worldwide by other races and probably à terme also by other cultures.

And no, I am not MGTOW (I even didnt know yet that such a sad category of people exists...): I need women. We all need women. And I would have preferred to live in a liberal society where women, and indeed men too, have all the sweet rights that a liberal order allows. But that not as the price for being condemned to get extinct . . .   If there is this risk, and actually it is a certitude already (just the most stupid of us do not see it yet), I am ready to go back to a traditional social order and mend whatever the liberalism destroyed.  

[Modest]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

Perhaps not worse than 'any' other religion There are probably still some cults that practice human sacrifice out there. But it's certainly worse than any other major religion in its cruelty, barbarism and violent punishments, as well as the behaviour it inspires in a lot of those who practice it. It's also the only one I'm aware of which focuses so much on how to treat 'unbelievers' - little of which is kindly.

You fail to consider the fact that islam is comparatively an younger religion - 600 yrs matter. Not a long time ago, the christians had the same traditionalist ethos as the muslims do have today. There was many a civil wars in Christian Europe so that this harsh ethos so typical of a semitic religion is tamed or at least dompted. Just let the internet bullshit for a while, and read the book of Christine Ockrent named The Black Book of Women’s Condition. You will see there that if the muslims subdue harshly their women, at least they do not kill them in such an astronomic number as do the budhists in China, or the hindus in India (sex-choosing before birth, seelctive abortion, neglecting to ilness or to death afterward, or even simply killing the girls). 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Modest

[Guest]

I'd never heard of MGTOW until this thread.

Do they hurt anyone, or do they just GTOW?

[Guest ProudConservative]

On 2/4/2020 at 12:40 AM, Marocc said:

I don't think that is a burqa. I like the picture. Don't you?

Muslims follow sharia everywhere.

No I hate the Image... Every time I see a girl dressed up like that, I wanna puke. Why Canada let women walk arround dressed like teorrist, is beyond me.

Edited February 5, 2020 by ProudConservative

[Guest ProudConservative]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I'd never heard of MGTOW until this thread.

Do they hurt anyone, or do they just GTOW?

Mgtow is basically guys who are to lazy to get laid.

Edited February 5, 2020 by ProudConservative

[Modest]

9 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

No I hate the Image... Every time I see a girl dressed up like that, I wanna puke. Why Canada let women walk arround dressed like teorrist, is beyond me.

Now about you puking, unfortunately you throw up here the same shit that you mentally was gavaged with: most of the time when you undress a burka girl - any - you are still pleased by what you see. In contrast, camouflage-dressed or naked, the girls that spread ugliness in Canada and in the world breeding like rabbits are. . . well, ugly. The most you can do is to dress them, the more the better.  You can de-radicalize islamists, but you cannot un-uglynize the ugliness. If ugliness could be an illness, seeing the speed and the obstinacy with which it is spreading globally, one can think it is cancer.

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Modest said:

You fail to consider the fact that islam is comparatively an younger religion - 600 yrs matter. Not a long time ago, the christians had the same traditionalist ethos as the muslims do have today.

No, they didn't. Certainly Christianity was a lot more harsh in medieval times than it is now. But it never tried to mandate cutting off the hands of thieves, or stoning adulterers to death, or dropping walls on homosexuals, for just a few examples. And certainly Christians were, in the past, unkind to unbelievers, though not as unkind as Islam universally was. It did not require special taxes of them, for example. Nor did it so universally require conversion or death as Islam has. As an example, as unkind as the Europeans were when they conquered the Americas, they did not execute everyone who refused to convert to Christianity. The Spaniards were vicious, but in a secular manner, and while they sent priests to try to convert the natives they didn't behead them if they refused. Compare that to the Muslims who invaded India and slaughtered tens of millions.

 

[Modest]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

No, they didn't. Certainly Christianity was a lot more harsh in medieval times than it is now. But it never tried to mandate cutting off the hands of thieves, or stoning adulterers to death, or dropping walls on homosexuals, for just a few examples. And certainly Christians were, in the past, unkind to unbelievers, though not as unkind as Islam universally was. It did not require special taxes of them, for example. Nor did it so universally require conversion or death as Islam has. As an example, as unkind as the Europeans were when they conquered the Americas, they did not execute everyone who refused to convert to Christianity. The Spaniards were vicious, but in a secular manner, and while they sent priests to try to convert the natives they didn't behead them if they refused. Compare that to the Muslims who invaded India and slaughtered tens of millions.

 

You suggest that an auto-da-fé which finished in burning at the stake is less harsh as a punishment than stoning to death.   And that that makes the christian ethos less traditionalist as an worldview than muslims' one. Or that cutting thieves' hands is more harsh than cutting their ears, or hanging them, as it happened in the christian world. You seem to ignore your own history, and that ignorance makes somehow for a good excuse of your awful ethnocentrism. You try to make muslim conquest and conversion of India appear worse than christian conquest and conversion of America. Fact is that they are very similar, if not with an worse final point for the victims of the christians - there is still 800 milion hindus in "India", which makes for half of all subcontinents' population now, meanwhile there is no more any numerically relevant traditional religion in America.  The fact that you do not find an single incitement to stoning in the Koran, but you find many incitements to stoning in the christian (and hebrew) Bible, maybe explains this sad result. 
   

Edited February 5, 2020 by Modest

[Argus]

Just now, Modest said:

You suggest that an auto-da-fé which finished in burning at the stake is less harsh as a punishment than stoning to death

Burning witches was never a part of Christianity, nor was it ever widespread. Not everything done in Christian lands or by Christian leaders is done in the name of Christ. Unlike the Koran, the Bible does not contain a legal code.

Just now, Modest said:

You seem to ignore your own history, and that ignorance makes somehow for a good excuse of your awful ethnocentrism

No. Like a lot of Islamophiles you're trying to pretend that if you can find something barbaric done by Christian countries centuries past, this somehow equates with the barbarism practiced throughout the Muslim world TODAY. It doesn't.

Just now, Modest said:

You try to make muslim conquest and conversion of India appear worse than christian conquest and conversion of America.

It was, in every respect. Most of the deaths in American came about accidentally by disease. The deaths in India were very much on purpose. Muslim warlords held competitions to see who could build the biggest piles of heads. Whole cities of a million people or more were depopulated.

 

 

[Modest]

17 minutes ago, Argus said:

Burning witches was never a part of Christianity, nor was it ever widespread.

Burning at the stake was not reserved only for witches . . .  Your only source seems to be Hollywood films or wikipedia. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Modest

[Modest]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Not everything done in Christian lands or by Christian leaders is done in the name of Christ.

Maybe. But that applies also to the islamic world case

[Modest]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

 Unlike the Koran, the Bible does not contain a legal code.

 

Oh que oui !   The whole Leviticus is just that. You need a Bible and a lot of time to read it, it seems . . . 

[Modest]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

No. Like a lot of Islamophiles you're trying to pretend that if you can find something barbaric done by Christian countries centuries past, this somehow equates with the barbarism practiced throughout the Muslim world TODAY. It doesn't.

 

I am not an islamophil. I dont like islam, and I like not any other religion (although I am culturally an orthodox (eastern) christian. I simply dont like stupidity . . .  Islamic countries are as many other cultures of the world still en retard when comparing them with the western world (and not with the christian world, because the blacks in christian africa are as bad as any muslim there). It is what one expect and can easily comprehend. Except you . . . 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Modest

[Modest]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

It was, in every respect. Most of the deaths in American came about accidentally by disease. The deaths in India were very much on purpose. Muslim warlords held competitions to see who could build the biggest piles of heads. Whole cities of a million people or more were depopulated.

 

 

I have no problem to admit that a substantial part of the victims in America died in epidemics, but you want to exonerate the mass killings perpetrated by spanish and english in America against the continents population, which is disgraceful. And hilarious in the same time. You are a muslim apologist, only with a cross hanging on his neck, and a big one on his brain.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Modest

[Argus]

20 hours ago, Modest said:

I have no problem to admit that a substantial part of the victims in America died in epidemics, but you want to exonerate the mass killings perpetrated

Nothing I said or even inferred would lead an honest person to write such a thing.

[Argus]

20 hours ago, Modest said:

I am not an islamophil. I dont like islam, and I like not any other religion (although I am culturally an orthodox (eastern) christian. I simply dont like stupidity . . .  Islamic countries are as many other cultures of the world still en retard when comparing them with the western world

Other countries aren't as universally backward, nor in the same way as Muslim countries. As per previous examples, Muslim countries specifically do not grant men and women or Muslims and non-muslims equal rights. And if you don't like stupidity perhaps you might reconsider posting stupid opinions.

[Argus]

20 hours ago, Modest said:

Oh que oui !   The whole Leviticus is just that. You need a Bible and a lot of time to read it, it seems . . . 

Apparently you have little understand of what Christianity is. I understand, you progressive atheists get confused. It's all the same to you, and you've got video games to play so no time to study.

[Argus]

20 hours ago, Modest said:

Maybe. But that applies also to the islamic world case

No one suggested otherwise. However, some things, many things, are specifically done in the name of God and the Koran, haddiths and other parts of Islamic law are cited for reasons. Then and now. And again, this is a common tactic of Islamophiles, to try to equate what Islam teaches today and how the Muslim world behaves, with how the West behaved in medieval times or earlier. This is intellectually bankrupt, since those concerned with a flood of backward religious zealots coming into Canada today would be just as upset if the backward zealots were medieval minded Christians.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Argus

[jacee]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Other countries aren't as universally backward, nor in the same way as Muslim countries. As per previous examples, Muslim countries specifically do not grant men and women or Muslims and non-muslims equal rights. And if you don't like stupidity perhaps you might reconsider posting stupid opinions.

Canada is not "a Muslim country".

Your comments are irrelevant to this topic of refugees arriving and living in Canada, who are fleeing from oppression and violence.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, jacee said:

Canada is not "a Muslim country".

Your comments are irrelevant to this topic of refugees arriving and living in Canada, who are fleeing from oppression and violence.

Most refugees are simply fleeing poverty. And I was responding to questions put. The relevance would be in the danger of bringing in tens of thousands of people each year who have no intention of ever integrating or accepting our culture and values.

[Modest]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

Nothing I said or even inferred would lead an honest person to write such a thing.

Well, then you admit that killing 10 000 or 15 000, or 100 000 or 1 000 000 is a bad thing to do, and was done by many, your ancestors too, and to quantify the horror is something that only the jews like to make, and for a (profitable albeit immoral) reason.  

You need to define what "backward" mean to you. And you have to notice that countries like Bosnia or Albania, Lebanon or Tunisia, grant women and men, muslims and non-muslims equal rights, or at least are not as socially conservatives (or backward, to cite you) as the other Islamic countries. 

Before asserting that I have little understanding of what Christianity is, you have to prove it. For instant the only one that seem to fail to know something relevant of the Christian religion is you: you didnt know that Leviticus is a legal code, and that many other parts of Christian and Jewish Bible are also. There is no confusion here . . .  As for  progressive and atheist me that use video games, I can tell you that the toxic sharks that create and sell this bullshit named video games would all be bankrupt if many people were as a fan of video games as me. Actually if I could, I would ban all video games, or at least restrict their use to adult people. As for being progressive, you would be surprised to learn that I would ban and harshly punish the use and selling of drugs, alcohol and prostitutes, as I would ban and punish the obscene propaganda for homosexuality that one can see in our towns each summer (As I know that they are born screwed and their drives are not an free choice, I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as the heterosexuals, but once that it is assured I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR THEM OR FROM THEM NOTHING. You cant be proud for being homosexual, anyway not more proud then me. As I don't need to make obscene gestures on the main street to prove how much I am proud of me (??), they also should renounce this aggressive privilege). 

There is nothing bankrupt in observing that what many muslims are today, we the christians were yesterday in my opinion. It is just fair to admit that. Those concerned with backward zealots, be they christian or muslim zealots, do not have to be concerned at all in Canada, because even if I know that a majority of muslim immigrants here are traditionalists and conservatives in their islamic beliefs, they are not a danger: fundamentalism not equal fanaticism, and fanaticism not equal terrorism. One can promote the other, but not always, to the contrary, rarely. To that I want to make you consider the advantage we have by importing muslims from Middle East, North Africa or South Asia: they make children, which we forgot how to make and raise already for a long time. For the liberal party as the exclusive tool of the business class, it doesn't matter if the hordes of immigrants landing here each year are esthetically speaking at least minimally human-like or simply monsters, because as long as the immigrants are willing to break their backs for less money than the people born here, for the business class it's all OK.  Actually it is perfect. You, the conservatives and christian believers, you are completely irrational to attack the muslims immigrants that are the last chance to keep our society from the complete degeneration to which the fanatics of feminism, leftism and liberalism have sentenced us all, for the sake of their stupid masochist victimization. You have to understand that there is no third way or third solution: either you feed continuously the death machine that our model of society and economy is, and we are all disappearing only to let africans inherit our countries and the whole world, or we backtrack from the edge of the cliff and adjust the model so that we make it demographically sustainable again. Or the muslims still know a trick or two about how to make a society sustainable demographically. That mean to forget for a while all the bullshit which the liberals gave us freely to put in our void brains - freedom, equality of sexes, obsesssion with the minorities while the majority is (exclusively) DYING. The muslims still KNOW how to be religious and prolific demographically - there is NO point in being religious and barren. The only thing useful that religion still has to give us is to make fertile again. Christianism, tamed and disfigured by a long civil war with the liberalism forgot how to be alive as a society. The islam still knows, but the danger is that it will degenerate as the christian religion has already - I have many muslims where I work, and what I saw is that the old are still fundamentalists in their mentalities, meanwhile, the young are already brainwashed with all the poison that will make them barren as us are. The hedonism is VERY tempting. Look at Arab world: the only country where the arab spring succeeded is Tunisia, the most liberal and feminist of all of them, and . . .  where the women have a fertility that is less than the necessary for maintaining the population. Turkey, a muslim country, already is there: fertility less than 2.1. China, still worse. India on the way to get there where Iran, and Turkey are now, that is countries that have people condemned to be replaced by others. Who are these others ?  Well, it is not too difficult to guess - the planet of the apes was not a fiction movie, but a visionary film . . .   

Edited February 7, 2020 by Modest

[Guest ProudConservative]

2 hours ago, Modest said:

You, the conservatives and christian believers, you are completely irrational to attack the muslims immigrants that are the last chance to keep our society from the complete degeneration

What I would say to our Mideast immigrants is, that if you don't like it here, than you're free to leave. You're free to go back to your own countries, but maybe the Muslims don't want that, since they have made their own countries totalitarian Sh@tholes.

Apparently this is what a Muslim girl looks like, when she's not forced to cover her hair. I don't see her as threatening. Ah that picture is so elegant and relaxing.

Now lets contrast to that pretty girls face and hair, to your sadistic religion.

Edited February 7, 2020 by ProudConservative

[Guest ProudConservative]

While you're not happy with the way our girls dress, this offends me more. I couldn't travel with an unmarried girl to Brunei, because If I shared a hotel room with her.... We would both recieve a manditoriy death penalty.

Edited February 7, 2020 by ProudConservative

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Modest said:

Well, then you admit that killing 10 000 or 15 000, or 100 000 or 1 000 000 is a bad thing to do, and was done by many, your ancestors too, and to quantify the horror is something that only the jews like to make, and for a (profitable albeit immoral) reason.  

What the hell is it you're even trying to say here? Is English a third language for you? What do you mean quantifying the horror is something only Jews do and for profit?

I gather you're an anti-Semite. Which is not especially surprising in an Islamophile.

 

12 hours ago, Modest said:

You need to define what "backward" mean to you. And you have to notice that countries like Bosnia or Albania, Lebanon or Tunisia, grant women and men, muslims and non-muslims equal rights, or at least are not as socially conservatives (or backward, to cite you) as the other Islamic countries. 

No one has suggested every Muslim country across the world enforces Islamic values to the same degree in the same way.

But they ALL enforce them. And those values, coming from a religion which, unlike Christianity or Judiaism, has never experienced a reformation, are violent and backward.

12 hours ago, Modest said:

Before asserting that I have little understanding of what Christianity is, you have to prove it. For instant the only one that seem to fail to know something relevant of the Christian religion is you: you didnt know that Leviticus is a legal code, and that many other parts of Christian and Jewish Bible are also.

Perhaps you don't understand that the New Testament is the story of Jesus Christ. Christians base their views and values on that, not on the old testament. As an example, the OT agreed to stoning. But Jesus said no. So that's no for Christians.

No even remotely mainstream Christian church suggests that the morals or punishments of the OT are relevant or should be imposed today. But pretty much all of Islam still accepts the harsh punishments towards blasphemers, apostates, adulterers and others as Islamic law. Just as they do the view of unbelievers, women, gays, etc.

12 hours ago, Modest said:

Those concerned with backward zealots, be they christian or muslim zealots, do not have to be concerned at all in Canada, because even if I know that a majority of muslim immigrants here are traditionalists and conservatives in their islamic beliefs, they are not a danger: fundamentalism not equal fanaticism, and fanaticism not equal terrorism.

But fundamentalism is the antecedent of fanaticism, and fanaticism is a requirement for terrorism. Thus the more people you have who are fundamentalists, the more fanaticism you have and thus the more terrorism. Muslim numbers in Canada have been doubling every ten years since the 1970s and they are set to triple over the next twenty years. I might add I'm unaware of any country with a sizeable Muslim minority which does not experience terrorism, and demands from the Muslim minority for special treatment and laws to recognize the laws and values of Islam. And those values are irredeemably hostile to unbelievers.

Canada's laws and values are a product of its citizens. The more Muslims here who believe in the harsh and backward values of Islam, the more their votes will influence our laws and political climate.

 

 

 

[Shady]

On 2/5/2020 at 6:43 PM, Modest said:

You suggest that an auto-da-fé which finished in burning at the stake is less harsh as a punishment than stoning to death.   And that that makes the christian ethos less traditionalist as an worldview than muslims' one. Or that cutting thieves' hands is more harsh than cutting their ears, or hanging them, as it happened in the christian world. You seem to ignore your own history, and that ignorance makes somehow for a good excuse of your awful ethnocentrism. You try to make muslim conquest and conversion of India appear worse than christian conquest and conversion of America. Fact is that they are very similar, if not with an worse final point for the victims of the christians - there is still 800 milion hindus in "India", which makes for half of all subcontinents' population now, meanwhile there is no more any numerically relevant traditional religion in America.  The fact that you do not find an single incitement to stoning in the Koran, but you find many incitements to stoning in the christian (and hebrew) Bible, maybe explains this sad result. 
   

The problem with your argument is that you’re comparing people from 500+ years ago to people now.  The world has evolved.  At least most of it that’s not influenced by Islam.