Reality. Realize it.
“diversity is more important than your security.”
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
Reality. Realize it.
So admittedly, you've got nothing. There's a surprise.lain:
So, you have nothing to offer up outside of your bitterness and demands that I go find your imaginary proof myself ...
Where's the proof that it isn't the case?
You see, you run around with the imagination that all these women are abused when, in reality, many men are going to jail for stupid things. Like pushing an irate wife in their face.
I live in a place called reality. You do not. If you did, you would acknowledge that most people in jail for 'domestic assault' shouldn't even be there. They shouldn't have to suffer a restraining order and not be around their own house while the wife packs up everything you invested in and moves out. Or gets custody of the kids. Or seen as a wife beater.
My proof is right outside your window. Women get an extra counselor in domestic courts by default from social services, and the standard for prosecution is cut in half if they are the plaintiff. They make it a point to convince the woman to rape the man the best she can in court. I've seen it outright.
You just deny these things because it hurts your stance considerably. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you were guilty of such. It's surprisingly common.
I didn't make the claim. YOU did. It is not my responsibility to prove your claims are true. That's on you.
Sigh. The proverbial "many men".
BTW, why would anyone *push someone in their face*? THAT is not okay. For the short time I was married, I never pushed him in the face or physically assaulted him in any way. As a matter of fact, I have never done that to any man I have been in a relationship with.
Admittedly, when I was in the sixth grade, I punched a classmate in his jaw ... however, he hit me first. My teacher ... a (GASP) man viewed the whole thing and even admitted I didn't start it.
Why is it so difficult for you to simply say "Men AND women should not assault one another ... there is no excuse"?
Why would I acknowledge such a self-serving and dishonest statement. Rather than you running your mouth about it, please feel free to provide some documentation.
Answer this: Outside of the exception of physically protecting and defending the children and themselves, can you give a legitimate reason for any man to hit his wife or girlfriend?
Before you accuse me of defending women who hit men, I will go on the record as saying "hitting men is NOT acceptable outside of defending the children or one's self".
People who are incapable of controlling their temper and resort to violence are not fit to be the primary caregiver for their children.
*opens the drapes and looks outside*. Nope, I see a cat sitting on the corner and a quiet neighborhood.
Sigh. So many words, so few examples. You know it. You've seen it.
So convincing.
I admittedly DENY that you have offered anything consistent with proof outside of your bitterness towards women.
Insofar as your accusation of domestic violence ... it's just as bizarre and out of touch with reality as everything else you claim.
For employment reasons, my fingerprints are on file with the school districts in Contra Costa County and Lake County, as well as in my current county in Nebraska.
My clean criminal record and court documents from family court do not lie.
Now other than your claims, where is that proof that you keep claiming exists?
Last edited:
Yes it is. If someone is in your face acting like a lunatic, you have a right to physically back them out of it- and not in some fragile little way neither.
The rest of your argument is just wish wash denial.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I've been told I'm 'Skybringr', 'Sum1sgruj', 'Homeskillet'.. can't think of the rest.
No less than thirty times by the same few people over the past two months. I deny it, they keep saying it.
Why would it matter anyway? Why are you few so obsessed with that? Is it because your real intent is just to be nerve racking and generally miserable toward other people?
I think so, because it's what you few do all the time you are on here. Nothing intelligent or interesting to say, just gossiping females.
Rusha said:
No, you don't. Words are words. They do NOT constitute physical abuse. You have the right to back away or walk around them and leave. IF they hit you, call 911.
Thus far, you are only providing examples of supposed men who hit someone out of anger.
It's NOT okay ... and anyone who would tell you it is ... is a fool.
Of course that is what you always say ...
Still waiting for all those documented examples that you claim exist ...
Well considering the low life made several threats (one included ripping my face off and the other about coming back and making my life hell), it would be rather odd if I wasn't concerned.
However, it has been stated that you aren't him.
Ho hum.
I did a bit of digging, and told by a little bird some things. You all treated ol' Sum1sguj like garbage and he got tired of it.
You're not concerned about anything except racking others nerves. He must be that golden skeleton you all keep in the farthest reach of the closet.
Uh huh.
I see.
Oh. Are you aware that little tantrum throwing cry baby has been kicked off several other theology forums for the same behavior? Everyone must pick on the poor little guy OR ... he was just a pathetic loser with a chip on his shoulder.
It's such a relief that I can say that freely since he is no longer present on this forum.
What a presumptuous statement for such a new member to make. :shocked:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
He got banned under several usernames and generally for being a misogynistic extremist moron. If you're not the latest incarnation of this cretin them I'm a strawberry cheesecake...
Avoid little birds. They have little bird brains and little bird agendas.
Also, if you're being accused of being someone else, someone you didn't know or interact with the worst possible thing you could do is be seen coming to his defense.
Mostly he was sent on vacation following a profane image, implied profanity and a couple of really stupid attacks on the trinity. You have to know where you are and if you can't keep muddy boots off the dinner table, eat at home.
Here's an example of a couple.
Originally posted by Sum in the thread Views on the Trinity and Jesus
And this is one from a still existing thread:
Such is life.
You're going to insist on objective surveys, statistics, etc.
I am going to answer:
1. I don't have such surveys, etc. With respect to those, I'm simply ignorant.
I'll further ask, however:
2. Whether there even are such things. Who is doing the surveys? What are their political motivations? What facets of the issue are they looking at?
I read an article not too long ago in which EU leaders came out and insisted that the Cologne attacks had nothing to do with immigration. The evidence for this...? Well, they certainly didn't cite anything in the article, just a bald assertion that it's not true.
Seriously. Who's doing the surveys? What's their methodology?
Anecdotal evidence ultimately can't carry the day. But in cases like this? It counts for something. I keep talking about the Cologne attacks, and you'll keep insisting on objective data.
But I'll ask you:
Have you heard of entire crowds and gangs of mexican, Jewish, etc. immigrants roaming the streets harassing, assaulting and raping people?
Have you heard of entire crowds and gangs of mexican, Jewish, etc. immigrants firebombing police vehicles?
It's not enough to prove that Muslim immigrants are dangerous in general. But it does show, I think, that there is something different about Muslim immigrants.
One or two Muslim immigrants going around harassing people is the sort of thing you have to expect, I suppose. An entire crowd of them?
Do you have even anecdotal reason to think that Syrian eastern Catholics would be as dangerous as Muslims?
How do Syrian eastern Catholics conduct themselves in their own native country? Do they have a disproportionate tendency to commit rape, murder, etc? What about Muslims?
Yeah. One guy. You've just strengthened my point.
You're begging the question. You speak as though they have merited or otherwise have some right to inclusion. I disagree with this assumption.
And summary executions of any Muslims who dare attempt to enter by violence, fraud, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden#Immigrants
"The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats Party has repeatedly made the claim that the high number of rape reports is at least partly due to the influx of Muslim immigrants.[34][35] Two reports from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÅ) are relevant to the rate of rape among immigrants to Sweden and their descendants. The latest published report that indicates the association between immigrants and rape was published in 2005 and revealed that from 1997 to 2001 foreign born individuals were 5.5 times more likely to be charged of rape than individuals born in Sweden to two Swedish parents and that foreign born individuals from all regions, apart from East Asia, committed sexual assaults at rates up to 5.3 times greater than that of individuals born in Sweden to two Swedish parents.[36]"
Yes, Trad, I'm going to unreasonably insist that before we start deporting every Muslim immigrant you can rationally justify the necessity.
I appreciate the candor. Then you have to understand and should acknowledge that your conclusion, founded on ignorance, is likely as ignorant and that the correct solution to a thing almost never arrives via that particular.
There's a lot of data being collected and even a cursory Google search can begin to unlock both that and the problems of causal linkage/other factors to be considered and cross compared, etc., but I'd suggest that if you can't even answer this much you should probably have refrained from more than inquiries and general concerns in your comments on the question. Instead, you reached fairly strong conclusions and offered a fairly radical notion/solution to your perception of a problem you now admit you are insufficiently versed in to make more than an uninformed speculation.
I once knew a kid who thought cheating on exams was the way to a good grade and a bright future.
A good place to begin inquiry. But a lousy defense of an uninformed opinion.
Because anecdotal evidence isn't acceptable to establish a rule. An anecdote is only useful as an illustration of a rule that's understood from a broader statistical observation, when you're speaking to something like this.
I've heard of a gang of American soldiers behaving worse. Do I condemn American soldiers or simply insist on prosecutions for My Lai? I suspect we both know the answer to that one and it's really the answer to any attempt to generalize from an anecdote.
Ever hear of people, mobs really, responding violently to wins and losses after soccer games? Championship celebrations ending in burning cars? Or, violent, stupid behavior and mobs have histories and confluences that are rarely about the obvious.
I know you think that. I'm tying to get you to think about why you do and to dig a bit deeper, ask a few questions that aren't grounded in your personal bias and tendency relating to the "other".
One or two soccer fans going around harassing people is the sort of thing you have to expect after a match, I suppose. But a crowd of them?
From a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, by Naftali Bendavid:
April 29, 2015 8:01 a.m. ET
BELGRADE, Serbia—Fans of the soccer team Red Star, furious at being penned in at the stadium before a match against rival Partizan, began ripping out the hard plastic seats and hurling them by the dozens at the police...
BELGRADE, Serbia—Fans of the soccer team Red Star, furious at being penned in at the stadium before a match against rival Partizan, began ripping out the hard plastic seats and hurling them by the dozens at the police...
You first have to establish the base for Muslims before you can compare them with another base you likely haven't researched.
You're not paying attention. That was offered as an illustration of your demonstrated problem, extrapolating from too little data.
I wrote: What you're suggesting [mass deportation] works an injustice against those who have not by their actions merited the exclusion.
Then you're mistaken as to every legal immigrant. Their right to be where they are is established prima facie by following the law and residing subject to it. Now if you want to deport illegal immigrants, within the framework of the law, go to.
The law should not be the instrument of fear, but of justice. An unequal law is an unjust law. Your suggestion is insufficiently reasoned, founded on ignorance and unjust, unless you mean to revise capital punishment (not allowed in most Western European countries, I believe) on the whole.
Partly? Not exactly ringing condemnation. But the studies they're using to justify particular condemnations of Muslims aren't speaking to Muslims but to all foreign born individuals... Among those is there data to suggest a disparate habit for all Muslims? Most? Many? About the same?
And the years in play aren't reflective of the current situation and influx (a thing which may or may not help the anti immigration case). Yet the current and sudden outcry is fueled by insufficiently particular statistics from ten years ago?
Why don't you google "Are Muslim immigrants more likely to commit rape?" If you simply survey the results, I think you'll understand what I mean. You will get a whole lot of websites which will tell you that Muslim immigrants are dangerous and that they are responsible for a vastly disproportionate amount of rape. I looked at one website just now which indicated that, in 2011, the vast majority of rapes in Sweden were committed by foreign-born persons (code word, more likely than not, for Muslim immigrants).
I could very well cite these things and pull sources for any number of claims that I could be making. The problem, of course, that you will find with it is that these tend to be anti-Muslim, anti-immigration, right-wing websites and news sources. You'll accuse them of bias.
Fine.
But do please indicate to me, TH, the studies which I might find on google to which you won't object, which aren't being used by these right wing sources.
Once again, this goes back to my question about whether anyone's bothering to do these surveys, who those people are, how they are doing it, etc.
It seems clear to me that Western governments and liberals in general have a determinate political agenda, and that agenda involves importing Muslim immigrants and sweeping the obvious consequences of these things under the rug.
Again, consider the fact that EU leaders are insisting that muslim immigration has nothing to do with Cologne. Never mind the testimony of the victims. Never mind what German politicians have already publicly said, i.e., that the assailants were pretty much all muslim immigrants.
Why should I think that liberal Western institutions should have even the slightest interest in focusing their attention on the problem and getting hard data which actually would show that muslim immigration is a bad idea? It's in direct conflict with liberal ideology.
So no, TH, I ultimately don't agree with your assessment. My views aren't based on ignorance. My views are based on the information which I have been presented by conservative sources...I would, perhaps, listen to liberal or so called neutral sources, but it seems as though every time information harmful to the liberal agenda arises, they bring accusations of "fear mongering" and "racism."
Do you have relevant data, TH? I would love to see it if you do.
The cologne attacks are evidence of something. What degree of evidence? I won't dispute it. But they are evidence.
TH, these examples actually work against your case.
Military combatants at war?
Championship soccer matches in Europe?
It's common knowledge that people behave badly at these things. From the incident that you cite later, i.e., soccer-goers throwing chairs at policeman, we cannot perhaps "prove," but we do see displayed very clearly, that European soccer matches can be dangerous and that European soccer goers can be very unruly.
This is common knowledge.
But do tell me, TH, what the cause of the Cologne attacks were.
Were the assailants in an unduly stressful situation? Were they at war? Were they at a European soccer match? Was there something inherently stressful about their situation?
No?
Then the problem lies with them.
But what differentiates them from all sorts of other people who would not have acted in that way, e.g., Mexicans, Jews, etc.?
They were Muslim immigrants!
I've heard an awful lot about collective Muslim ill-doing even in the middle east. Muslim protests (read: "riots") after the address of pope emeritus Benedict XVI comes to mind.
I haven't really heard a whole lot of horror stories about Syrian eastern rite Catholics. Well, scratch that. We've all heard horror stories involving Christians in the middle east...the Muslims were pretty much invariably the villains.
Ex hypothesi, if the West decided to expel all Muslims, there would be no legal Muslim immigrants.
You are begging the question.
Depending on what you mean by "of fear," I simply disagree.
Justice and fear are not mutually exclusive. The law should be a terror against those who are enemies of the State. I believe strongly in the State's right of violence. This right of violence should be a great occasion of fear to those who might set themselves against the common good of the body politic.
-----------------------------------
At any rate, TH, let us set aside the question of the actual Muslim threat. There is the further fact that they hold to an ideology which very easily lends itself to violence and in fact often does lend itself to violence. Are you surprised by the cologne attacks? I'm not. Look at Mohammad.
The Islamic "religion" is diametrically opposed to Western values, legal and political doctrine, etc. Combine that with the prevalence of Islamic terror activity and the generally bad and unruly conduct of Muslims? There is no such thing as a "good Muslim citizen," if by "good citizen" we have reference to a Western body politic.
Combine this further with the fact that Muslims historically have been hostile, and this, in a military sense, against the West and have threatened her time and time again throughout their entire history?
I once again renew my call:
Remember Charles Martel!
Remember the Crusades!
Remember Lepanto!
Remember all of the wrongs that the Muslims have done to us and to others throughout history. Consider the innocent Europeans and Americans enslaved, forcibly converted or put to the sword by that barbaric and savage race.
EXPEL ALL MUSLIMS FROM THE WEST!
PS:
Your claim that unequal laws are unjust laws is just flat wrong, depending on what you mean. Justice is the virtue whereby each is given according to his due; another way of understanding this is "proportional equality." In this sense, every just law is "equal," i.e., effects proportional equality.
But most certainly not arithmetic equality in all cases. Unequals are not due equal things.
Last edited:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
