Why Is Patriarchy Seen As A Bad Thing?

[sweep_shot]

I would caution you to be very careful with your defamatory posts about Amber Heard, because you appear not to have understood either the proceedings of the court case or the verdict.

Firstly, there have been TWO trials on this matter.

The British trial found that Depp assaulted Heard on multiple occasions, mainly while under the influence of illegal drugs. The Judge found that "the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard".

The American trial was not a trial as to whether those assaults took place. It found that BOTH Depp and Heard had defamed one another, with BOTH Heard and Depp to be paid damages.

There is no universe in which the American verdict wipes out the British verdict.

Basically BOTH trials found that Depp assaulted Heard on multiple occasions. But the American trial also found that Heard's op-ed in the Washington Poost was defamatory, but largely because she had no inherent legal right to litigate their abusive relationship in the media.

But if you think that Depp was somehow cleared, he wasn't. He was exposed as a drug addict who is violent at times when intoxicated in BOTH trials. It's just that Heard had to pay large damages for the damage to his reputation and career caused by her publicising his abusive behaviour in a newspaper editorial which was unecessary.

You clearly either didn't see the trial or are purposefully overlooking things.

See these:

 

[sweep_shot]

I would caution you to be very careful with your defamatory posts about Amber Heard, because you appear not to have understood either the proceedings of the court case or the verdict.

Firstly, there have been TWO trials on this matter.

The British trial found that Depp assaulted Heard on multiple occasions, mainly while under the influence of illegal drugs. The Judge found that "the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard".

The American trial was not a trial as to whether those assaults took place. It found that BOTH Depp and Heard had defamed one another, with BOTH Heard and Depp to be paid damages.

There is no universe in which the American verdict wipes out the British verdict.

Basically BOTH trials found that Depp assaulted Heard on multiple occasions. But the American trial also found that Heard's op-ed in the Washington Poost was defamatory, but largely because she had no inherent legal right to litigate their abusive relationship in the media.

But if you think that Depp was somehow cleared, he wasn't. He was exposed as a drug addict who is violent at times when intoxicated in BOTH trials. It's just that Heard had to pay large damages for the damage to his reputation and career caused by her publicising his abusive behaviour in a newspaper editorial which was unecessary.

These are the official verdicts:

Depp's complaint:
Heard was found liable in all three matters of defamation raised. Depp was awarded $10 million (of the $50 million claim) in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages (reduced to $350,000 per state law limit).

Heard's counterclaims:
Depp was found liable in one of three matters of defamation raised and Heard was awarded $2 million (of the $100 million claim) in compensatory damages.

As you can see, Amber was found guilty in all matters. She is a lying and manipulative individual and I am surprised you are defending her.

 

[Junaids]

Amber Heard was caught lying. This is what people online think also. Looks like you didn't watch the trial and just got your information from feminist websites.

It doesn't matter what misogynistic / incel websites say, like the two videos that you uploaded.

There were two trials, one in the UK and one in the USA.

The British trial ruled that Depp assaulted Heard on multiple occasions. That is now a finding, a fact in law.

The American trial did not consider whether one party assaulted the other, although it heard lots of evidence - including recordings - that that happened. It was a trial to determine whether the actions of either party negatively impacted the other one's ability to earn a living - and it found that BOTH did.

If you think that you watched a trial which found Amber Heard guilty and cleared Johnny Depp, then you basically did not understand what you were watching.

All of us saw two pretty disgraceful human beings. And we saw Depp found in the British courts to have definitely assaulted Heard, while in the American court they were BOTH found to have defamed one another.

If your interpretation was that Depp was innocent and Heard was guilty, you have proved yet again that you are incapable of processing information accurately, and will generally side with an abusive male.

 

[sweep_shot]

It doesn't matter what misogynistic / incel websites say, like the two videos that you uploaded.

There were two trials, one in the UK and one in the USA.

The British trial ruled that Depp assaulted Heard on multiple occasions. That is now a finding, a fact in law.

The American trial did not consider whether one party assaulted the other, although it heard lots of evidence - including recordings - that that happened. It was a trial to determine whether the actions of either party negatively impacted the other one's ability to earn a living - and it found that BOTH did.

If you think that you watched a trial which found Amber Heard guilty and cleared Johnny Depp, then you basically did not understand what you were watching.

All of us saw two pretty disgraceful human beings. And we saw Depp found in the British courts to have definitely assaulted Heard, while in the American court they were BOTH found to have defamed one another.

If your interpretation was that Depp was innocent and Heard was guilty, you have proved yet again that you are incapable of processing information accurately, and will generally side with an abusive male.

Amber Heard caught lying many times. For example, she said, "My dog stepped on a bee." HAHAHAHA!

There are more instances. See that video I posted:

I can process info just fine. But, radical feminism seems to have brainwashed you.

 

[Junaids]

These are the official verdicts:



As you can see, Amber was found guilty in all matters. She is a lying and manipulative individual and I am surprised you are defending her.

is English your second language? Because you are struggling to understand what you are then posting.

The British trial found that Johnny Depp was a drug abuser who assaulted Amber Heard on multiple occasions.

The American trial did not consider whether or not that was the case, because they were both on trial for DIFFERENT OFFENCES.

The American trial was whether they caused one another economic damage by their public comments. And it found that BOTH of them did. But there was extensive evidence played in court showing

1. Johnny Depp intoxicated by alcohol and drugs (which you refuse to let women become, but for him it's clearly fine by you because he is male), and
2. Johnny Depp assaulting Amber Heard and destroying property (and his own body) while intoxicated.

Depp was not on trial for assault because the offences played in court did not take place in the state of Virginia. But we saw behaviour by him which you condemn in women, and make no criticism of in him.

And frankly, his behaviour which was shown on video - assault, vandalism and threatening behaviour - is much worse than a woman lying.

You really are exposing your double standards here. And your excuses for abusive men really make you completely unqualified to hold any patriarchal powers.

 

[sweep_shot]

It doesn't matter what misogynistic / incel websites say, like the two videos that you uploaded.

There were two trials, one in the UK and one in the USA.

The British trial ruled that Depp assaulted Heard on multiple occasions. That is now a finding, a fact in law.

The American trial did not consider whether one party assaulted the other, although it heard lots of evidence - including recordings - that that happened. It was a trial to determine whether the actions of either party negatively impacted the other one's ability to earn a living - and it found that BOTH did.

If you think that you watched a trial which found Amber Heard guilty and cleared Johnny Depp, then you basically did not understand what you were watching.

All of us saw two pretty disgraceful human beings. And we saw Depp found in the British courts to have definitely assaulted Heard, while in the American court they were BOTH found to have defamed one another.

If your interpretation was that Depp was innocent and Heard was guilty, you have proved yet again that you are incapable of processing information accurately, and will generally side with an abusive male.

More facts for you:

These trials also have proved how faulty British courts are.

 

[sweep_shot]

You really are exposing your double standards here. And your excuses for abusive men really make you completely unqualified to hold any patriarchal powers.

Depp is an innocent man. Amber is a psycho who should be in jail for perjury. The fact you are defending her tells a lot about you.

 

[sweep_shot]

And frankly, his behaviour which was shown on video - assault, vandalism and threatening behaviour - is much worse than a woman lying.

Disagree.

Amber's lies had damaged Depp's career. It was not just white lie.

It seems like you do not visit social media much. Majority of the people were cheering for Mr. Depp. Only clueless and misinformed feminists were defending Amber.

 

[Junaids]

Depp is an innocent man. Amber is a psycho who should be in jail for perjury. The fact you are defending her tells a lot about you.

OK, let's get this right.

1. You argue that women should be controlled by men in a patriarchal society.

2. You are aware that a British court found that Johnny Depp had assaulted Amber Heard on multiple occasions.

3. You know that an American court found them BOTH responsible for defaming once another, but did not consider whether those assaults actually took place because it was outside their jurisdiction.

4. You are aware that Amber Heard has been accused of being dishonest, by saying that her dog trod on a bee.

5. You are aware that BOTH Heard AND Depp were found guilty of lying on Australian customs forms about not having brought their two dogs into the country.

6. You have seen video evidence played in the court case in which Depp consumed both large amounts of alcohol and illegal drugs.

7. You have seen video evidence played in the court case in which Depp said of Heard that he would murder her and then "I will **** (have sex with) her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she's dead".

8. You have seen video evidence in court of Depp intoxicated by illegal drugs, smashing glass cabinets in a rented house and throwing a glass at Heard.

9. You know that the court did not uphold Depp's claim that he severed the end of his finger when Heard allegedly threw a bottle at him, because a surgeon gave evidence that the injuries were inconsistent with Depp's claims.

10. You have seen me write that BOTH Heard and Depp are "two pretty disgraceful human beings".

Yet such is your misogynistic anti-female bias that you see me siding with Heard - I didn't, I called them both disgraceful - and you have the temerity to write that "Depp is an innocent man. Amber is a psycho who should be in jail for perjury".

In your world a man who commits multiple drug offences and who has been found by a British court to have been physically abusive to a woman is "innocent".

But a woman who lied about a dog treading on a bee should be in jail for perjury.

And then you claim to be a fit and proper person to be the self-appointed guardian of women's safety?

 

[Robert]

Amber Heard was caught lying. This is what people online think also. Looks like you didn't watch the trial and just got your information from feminist websites.

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is right. It doesn’t matter what “people online” think. The judges’ rulings are what matters. Heard was ruled to have defamed Depp, but that was after the British judge’s ruling and does not cancel it out.

Your comments about “evil women” are highly revealing. You want men to be in charge so “evil women” cannot ensnare men in their evil.

This is fundamental misogyny. It’s the same motivation for burning women at the stake as witches.

Women cannot be trusted to share power because they might work evil. So men have to be in charge of women to contain that evil. But when they work evil on women, and women unite to protest, that’s somehow a threat to society. So this fallacy of “benevolent patriarchy” is exposed.

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is right. It doesn’t matter what “people online” think. The judges’ rulings are what matters. Heard was ruled to have defamed Depp, but that was after the British judge’s ruling and does not cancel it out.

Your comments about “evil women” are highly revealing. You want men to be in charge so “evil women” cannot ensnare men in their evil.

This is fundamental misogyny. It’s the same motivation for burning women at the stake as witches.

Women cannot be trusted to share power because they might work evil. So men have to be in charge of women to contain that evil. But when they work evil on women, and women unite to protest, that’s somehow a threat to society. So this fallacy of “benevolent patriarchy” is exposed.

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION], he's a lost cause.

He calls a battered woman a psycho who should be in jail, and he calls the drug-addled abuser an innocent man.

And his intellectual basis for this is a hobby of watching misogynistic videos uploaded by angry white male virgins. Those are the people in North America whom he identifies with!

At the start of this thread I found myself thinking "I guess some kindly unintrusive, non-controlling males are decent patriarchs in countries like Saudi Arabia where patriarchy is the law."

Sadly the OP is not one of them. He's a man in a western country who is angry with women and thinks he is entitled to control them, even though he is incapable of understanding let alone managing simple matters of good versus bad.

When you champion a drug-addled violent bully of a man over a woman who tells some lies like the male also demonstrably does, you have a serious problem with understanding right and wrong.

 

[sweep_shot]

Okay. Let's forget about Amber-Depp saga.

Amber got what she deserved (i.e. penalty of $10+ millions). Depp's reputation has been salvaged despite the alleged assaults.

It doesn't change the fact patriarchy (if done correctly) is the only method that works in the long run. Everything else is just short term fad.

 

[sweep_shot]

[MENTION=7774]
At the start of this thread I found myself thinking "I guess some kindly unintrusive, non-controlling males are decent patriarchs in countries like Saudi Arabia where patriarchy is the law."

We finally agree to something.

This is what I was referring to when I meant benevolent patriarchy. This should be the model for society.

I am not talking about Saudi Arabia. I am saying in general.

 

[Junaids]

It doesn't change the fact patriarchy (if done correctly) is the only method that works in the long run. Everything else is just short term fad.

You say that patriarchy produces the best outcomes.

But in another thread, challenged about Pakistan killing 3 million civilians in Bangladesh and raping 400,000 women, you replied that “If anything, Pakistani army perhaps did a great service to Bangladesh for getting rid of many problematic seculars.”

So you clearly believe that people who don’t share your beliefs:

1. Are not entitled to live,
2. Are not entitled to not be raped.

So you award yourself the right to control women, even though you clearly have no respect for the rights of women in general or for the lives of people who don’t share your beliefs.

It’s men with beliefs like you who are probably the least suitable to influence a woman’s life, let alone control it.

 

[sweep_shot]

You say that patriarchy produces the best outcomes.

But in another thread, challenged about Pakistan killing 3 million civilians in Bangladesh and raping 400,000 women, you replied that “If anything, Pakistani army perhaps did a great service to Bangladesh for getting rid of many problematic seculars.”

So you clearly believe that people who don’t share your beliefs:

1. Are not entitled to live,
2. Are not entitled to not be raped.

So you award yourself the right to control women, even though you clearly have no respect for the rights of women in general or for the lives of people who don’t share your beliefs.

It’s men with beliefs like you who are probably the least suitable to influence a woman’s life, let alone control it.

Why are you assuming those figures are accurate?

Bangladeshi textbooks say 3-million died. I don't believe in that figure. Neutral source says 300,000 died.

Just because you see a figure doesn't mean it is true. History is written by the victors, as they say.

I wasn't referring to myself. I was saying in general.

Benevolent patriarchy is the only thing that can work in the long run. Everything else is like ponzi scheme.

 

[sweep_shot]

Benevolent patriarchy is the only thing that can work in the long run. Everything else is like ponzi scheme.

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

When I mean long run, I mean hundreds of years (not a few decades).

 

[SalimBhai]

Benevolent patriarchy at workhttps://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudi-arabia-police-chasing-beating-women-orphanage-video

 

[SalimBhai]

https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/...age-to-punish-striking-female-employees-video

 

[SalimBhai]

I am surprised no reaction from the supporters of "Benevolent patriarchy "

 

[Champ_Pal]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

When I mean long run, I mean hundreds of years (not a few decades).

None of us will be there to verify it.

 

[sweep_shot]

This topic has been discussed to death. People are still bumping up this thread. Funny.

Just to reiterate, here are my views again:

- There is nothing wrong if a man is the leader. It is not automatically an evil thing like some radical liberals make it out to be.

- Women's rights are important and they should get their due rights. But, things need to be done naturally and gradually; no need to shove things down everyone's throat (i.e. gender quota).

- Men and women are different not just biologically/physically but also psychologically/emotionally. This reality shouldn't be overlooked.

 

[SalimBhai]

This topic has been discussed to death. People are still bumping up this thread. Funny.

Just to reiterate, here are my views again:

- There is nothing wrong if a man is the leader. It is not automatically an evil thing like some radical liberals make it out to be.

- Women's rights are important and they should get their due rights. But, things need to be done naturally and gradually; no need to shove things down everyone's throat (i.e. gender quota).

- Men and women are different not just biologically/physically but also psychologically/emotionally. This reality shouldn't be overlooked.

Dude with all due respect. You kept of bragging about Saudi Arabia. We showed you an example of it and you now changed the whole topic.

 

[sweep_shot]

Dude with all due respect. You kept of bragging about Saudi Arabia. We showed you an example of it and you now changed the whole topic.

I didn't brag about Saudi Arabia. I gave an example. I don't agree with everything Saudis do (for example, I don't agree with their invasion of Yemen).

However, I appreciate the fact they have low crimes there and women seem much more well-behaved there compared to many immature western women.

They have patriarchy there and things are working just fine. Women can work, study, drive, and go outside. What else is missing?

Again, I was giving an example.

 

[Champ_Pal]

This topic has been discussed to death. People are still bumping up this thread. Funny.

Just to reiterate, here are my views again:

- There is nothing wrong if a man is the leader. It is not automatically an evil thing like some radical liberals make it out to be.

- Women's rights are important and they should get their due rights. But, things need to be done naturally and gradually; no need to shove things down everyone's throat (i.e. gender quota).

- Men and women are different not just biologically/physically but also psychologically/emotionally. This reality shouldn't be overlooked.

I completely agree that there is nothing wrong in a Man leading just like there is nothing wrong in woman leading the family and nation.

There should not be any gender or racial quota. Agree with you again.

Completely agree that Men and Women are different physically, biologically and psychologically. But they are not different intellectually.

I agree with everything you said and if you agree that Women should also get equal opportunity to lead the family and nation based on their intellectual ability, then you and I have nothing to argue.

But your premise from the beginning was that there is nothing wrong with patriarchy. That in itself will not let women their due rights as they cannot take any leadership role both politically and financially. A great injustice to 50% of the population.

 

[Technics 1210]

This thread has proven one fact - Liberalism is a greater threat and far more dangerous than Patriarchy.

Might explain why Liberalism is filled with a littany of failures in humanity, whereas Patriarchy, success.

 

[Champ_Pal]

This thread has proven one fact - Liberalism is a greater threat and far more dangerous than Patriarchy.

Might explain why Liberalism is filled with a littany of failures in humanity, whereas Patriarchy, success.

Liberalism and Woke Liberalism are 2 different beasts. The Western Liberals have bowed down to Woke mob and their principles are totally hijacked. The failure of liberalism is not due to being liberal. But their romance with social justice warriors and Socialism.

 

[Junaids]

This thread has proven one fact - Liberalism is a greater threat and far more dangerous than Patriarchy.

Might explain why Liberalism is filled with a littany of failures in humanity, whereas Patriarchy, success.

And yet......

Liberal countries are the ones where women live the longest.

Liberal countries are the ones where women are the most educated.

Liberal countries are the ones where women have equal employment rights.

Liberal countries are the ones where women are least likely to die of sexually transmitted infections or in childbirth.

Liberal countries are the ones where men don't determine the freedom of women.

So it strikes me that what this thread has done is illustrate why patriarchy is outdated, dangerous, stupid and destructive.

 

[Robert]

I am surprised no reaction from the supporters of "Benevolent patriarchy "

They ignore all evidence.

 

[Robert]

Liberalism and Woke Liberalism are 2 different beasts. The Western Liberals have bowed down to Woke mob and their principles are totally hijacked. The failure of liberalism is not due to being liberal. But their romance with social justice warriors and Socialism.

Unsure what you mean by Woke Mob. Surely you believe being aware of racial injustice and doing something about it is a good thing? As far as I can make out, being anti-Woke means the freedom to be a horrible racist misogynistic homophobe.

If liberalism has failed it is because of neoliberalism, the transfer of public assets into private hands - which has given rise to populists such as Trump and Johnson who offer three or four word slogans to fix highly complex problems.

 

[sweep_shot]

And yet......

Liberal countries are the ones where women live the longest.

If you check the longevity list for women, you can see many non-western countries (where patriarchy is high) have high female longevity. Check here: https://www.worlddata.info/life-expectancy.php.

Liberal countries are the ones where women are the most educated.

Useless majors like gender studies do not count.

Liberal countries are the ones where women have equal employment rights.

Rights should be based on outputs/results.

Liberal countries are the ones where women are least likely to die of sexually transmitted infections or in childbirth.

It is better to have a sexually transmitted infection in a legitimate marriage than to have it outside of marriage.

Sleeping around is a despicable and highly immoral act.

Liberal countries are the ones where men don't determine the freedom of women.

There is nothing wrong with it if male guardians determine how women should proceed. It is quite natural.

So it strikes me that what this thread has done is illustrate why patriarchy is outdated, dangerous, stupid and destructive.

Benevolent patriarchy is the only thing that can ensure a stable and robust society. Everything else is a fad like Dogecoin.

 

[sweep_shot]

Also, I see liberals brag about greatness of west.

West is great not because of modern day liberals. West is great because of their conservative forefathers. Current Marxist liberals are reversing the good works done by their forefathers.

 

[Technics 1210]

Also, I see liberals brag about greatness of west.

West is great not because of modern day liberals. West is great because of their conservative forefathers. Current Marxist liberals are reversing the good works done by their forefathers.

Athiests promoting Liberalism in the West dare not address the fact that the conservative values in the West stem from the Bible.

 

[Robert]

Also, I see liberals brag about greatness of west.

West is great not because of modern day liberals. West is great because of their conservative forefathers. Current Marxist liberals are reversing the good works done by their forefathers.

Another oxymoron. Please read some books on political science and try to learn basic definitions.

USA culture is based on liberalism. All the Founding Fathers were liberals. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are liberal.

French Fourth and Fifth Republic - based on the liberal values of Voltaire.

UK culture - based on Magna Carta, John Locke and John Start Mill. All liberal.

 

[sweep_shot]

Athiests promoting Liberalism in the West dare not address the fact that the conservative values in the West stem from the Bible.

Right.

West is going downhill and it is because they are allowing gender studies/social studies radicals to dictate things.

In many other countries, these people could be in mental hospitals. But, in west, they are treated as celebrities.

 

[Technics 1210]

Right.

West is going downhill and it is because they are allowing gender studies/social studies radicals to dictate things.

In many other countries, these people could be in mental hospitals. But, in west, they are treated as celebrities.

The West is in decline because its fashionable to reject God and his guidance. Yet the same Athiests will defend divine rights (Isreal), this is why any debate with said group is pointless as their position is one from rejection, denial, and hypocrisy.

The evidence is empirical - liberalism is a disaster, heck, fascim is a more successful ideology in terms of achieving goals, but no, the best Liberals have is, is sexual relationships.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Basically what some posters are saying is to keep women under their chappal and the benevolent Patriarchy will give them just enough oxygen to survive.

 

[sweep_shot]

Basically what some posters are saying is to keep women under their chappal and the benevolent Patriarchy will give them just enough oxygen to survive.

That's not what was implied anywhere in this thread.

If a woman can work, study, vote, and drive, what else is missing?

Do you want them to sleep around and cause marital/family issues? Do you want them to do as they please? No law and order? No accountability?

We are not like other animals. We should do things in orderly and moral manners.

 

[Technics 1210]

That's not what was implied anywhere in this thread.

If a woman can work, study, vote, and drive, what else is missing?

Do you want them to sleep around and cause marital/family issues? Do you want them to do as they please? No law and order? No accountability?

We are not like other animals. We should do things in orderly and moral manners.

I wouldn't play into Liberal insecurity.

If liberals believe acting like animals is a mark of progression, then their entire ideology falls flat on their face, including Darwinism, since there is no progression if humans have not 'evolved'.

 

[Robert]

Right.

West is going downhill and it is because they are allowing gender studies/social studies radicals to dictate things.

In many other countries, these people could be in mental hospitals. But, in west, they are treated as celebrities.

Liberalism and Conservatism weren't political systems until the 1800s in UK. Whereas Christianity reached what became UK in the fourth century. It was propagated by the Roman Emperor and then the Pope.

There's no equivalence between religion and the political parties in UK. Plenty of modern British Methodists and other Nonconformist Christians identify as liberals - the clue is in the name Nonconformism, refusing to bow to Rome or Canterbury, just as liberals question existing power structures. While I know a few atheist Conservatives.

I would argue that Jesus was the biggest liberal of all - breaking up structures which subjugated the people:
- elevating "fallen women" to Discipleship
- throwing the moneychangers out of the temple
- preaching that foreigners are to be taken care of

Unfortunately the patriarchs took over His cult after he died and threw the women out or power, which is why the West is so warlike.

 

[sweep_shot]

I would argue that Jesus was the biggest liberal of all - breaking up structures which subjugated the people:
- elevating "fallen women" to Discipleship
- throwing the moneychangers out of the temple
- preaching that foreigners are to be taken care of

Unfortunately the patriarchs took over His cult after he died and threw the women out or power, which is why the West is so warlike.

Did Jesus (PBUH) approve of these:

- Women sleeping around like animals?
- Women not covering their hairs?
- Homosexuality?
- Folks changing genders? 100 genders?

Don't mix uncivilized radical liberalism with robust Abrahamic religions.

 

[sweep_shot]

Liberalism and Conservatism weren't political systems until the 1800s in UK. Whereas Christianity reached what became UK in the fourth century. It was propagated by the Roman Emperor and then the Pope.

There's no equivalence between religion and the political parties in UK. Plenty of modern British Methodists and other Nonconformist Christians identify as liberals - the clue is in the name Nonconformism, refusing to bow to Rome or Canterbury, just as liberals question existing power structures. While I know a few atheist Conservatives.

Okay. I was referring to modern times.

Compare UK from 20th century to modern day UK.

It shows what happens when Marxists take over a country. A country can go downhill and that's what's happening in UK and west in general.

 

[Robert]

Okay. I was referring to modern times.

Compare UK from 20th century to modern day UK.

It shows what happens when Marxists take over a country. A country can go downhill and that's what's happening in UK and west in general.

Marxists haven't take over UK. We're arguably the most right wing society in Europe. We were far more left wing forty years ago.

 

[sweep_shot]

Marxists haven't take over UK. We're arguably the most right wing society in Europe. We were far more left wing forty years ago.

Marxists are taking over not just UK but also many other countries. Cancel culture mob, radical feminists, anarchists, gender studies freaks, social justice warriors etc.

Let's see how things pan out in 50 years.

 

[Champ_Pal]

That's not what was implied anywhere in this thread.

If a woman can work, study, vote, and drive, what else is missing?
Can they choose without a Man telling what they have to study and where to drive and who to vote?

Do you want them to sleep around and cause marital/family issues? Do you want them to do as they please? No law and order? No accountability?
If she is an adult and capable of making her own decisions, you should not stop her whom she wants to date or marry or sleep around?

We are not like other animals. We should do things in orderly and moral manners.
Who set the order and morality? Its the men. Hence it is called patriarchy and it is tyrannical for women where they have to look upto a man for every step in their life. This makes women weak and subservient.

In bold.

 

[sweep_shot]

In bold.

Your answers are faulty.

We all should know what moral behavior looks like. If a woman is sleeping around with multiple men, that's not a normal behavior. It is the job of the father to correct her course of action; otherwise, he has failed as a father.

 

[Robert]

Marxists are taking over not just UK but also many other countries. Cancel culture mob, radical feminists, anarchists, gender studies freaks, social justice warriors etc.

Let's see how things pan out in 50 years.

I won’t see 2072.

 

[Pakpak]

I am glad we found out who the incel(s) are on PP!

 

[Robert]

Your answers are faulty.

We all should know what moral behavior looks like. If a woman is sleeping around with multiple men, that's not a normal behavior. It is the job of the father to correct her course of action; otherwise, he has failed as a father.

What's normal? It's up to her. As long as all the sex is consensual, it's fine.

I notice you are not criticising all these men she is with for doing exactly what she is doing.

 

[Junaids]

Your answers are faulty.

We all should know what moral behavior looks like. If a woman is sleeping around with multiple men, that's not a normal behavior. It is the job of the father to correct her course of action; otherwise, he has failed as a father.

You defended Ibn Saud having children with dozens of women. Make your mind up. Or, maybe it's OK for men but not women?

 

[Junaids]

I wouldn't play into Liberal insecurity.

If liberals believe acting like animals is a mark of progression, then their entire ideology falls flat on their face, including Darwinism, since there is no progression if humans have not 'evolved'.

And this is the main problem for both [MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION] and yourself.

As [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] could tell you, the unquestioning literal adherence to religions given out to primitive illiterate, unwashed humans thousands of years ago is insane.

Rene Descartes really disproved that with Rationalism in the early 1600s, just after Francis Bacon did the same with Empricism at much the same time. And, predictably, people like Charles and Claude Perrault resorted to the pathetic desperate acts of men who have lost the argument, getting Boileau charged with "Blasphemy".

In modern western countries - so I am not including the USA - there has been a sharp shift in the last 60 years, with almost everyone recognising their own religion (mainstream Christianity, but also Reform Jews) as having been worded in a way comprehensible to primitive humans 2000 years ago.

It makes sense in a world without contraception and without Gardasil and without universal free medicine to have social taboos preventing women from having sex with several men over time, or preventing people from eating pork when pigs were widely infected with tapeworm.

But those taboos make no sense in the modern world.

David Baddiel tells a funny story - people know that he is not just Jewish but also a national treasure. So when his local (Reform) rabbi rang him up and asked him to attend a function as the celebrity guest, he trotted out his usual reply: "I'd love to, but while I'm Jewish by birth, I don't actually believe in G-d or any of the scriptures." The rabbi replied "That's ok, neither do I".

We saw the Irish and Italian Catholics hold out an extra half-century before they abandoned the literal interpretation of their religion, and many Americans still haven't.

But it seems that the crux of the matter is this.

People like you argue that humans must behave differently to animals due to our "evolution", but then you refuse to progress beyond ancient scriptures which clearly applied to a different, more primitive, world!

 

[sweep_shot]

You defended Ibn Saud having children with dozens of women. Make your mind up. Or, maybe it's OK for men but not women?

If those were legitimate children (from legitimate marriages), I see no issue.

I only oppose fornication and adultery.

 

[Technics 1210]

People like you argue that humans must behave differently to animals due to our "evolution", but then you refuse to progress beyond ancient scriptures which clearly applied to a different, more primitive, world!

Says the guy who supports the divine right that is Isreal but hails himself an Athiest.

 

[Junaids]

Did Jesus (PBUH) approve of these:

- Women sleeping around like animals?
- Women not covering their hairs?
- Homosexuality?
- Folks changing genders? 100 genders?

Don't mix uncivilized radical liberalism with robust Abrahamic religions.

Jesus married a prostitute. So it doesn't look like he objected to women with a history of having sex with different men, does it?

Women not covering their hair? Are you for real? Seriously?

As for folks changing genders, this is just red meat for brainless Conservatives. It's about as relevant to nomal life as the changing price of kangaroo meat.

 

[sweep_shot]

What's normal? It's up to her. As long as all the sex is consensual, it's fine.

I notice you are not criticising all these men she is with for doing exactly what she is doing.

This is the issue with modern day liberals. They are confused about what is normal and what is not.

No. That's not fine. Most cultures would have a serious problem with this.

If men do the same, they deserve to be condemned too. However, women can get pregnant while men can't. So, women need to be more careful.

 

[Junaids]

Says the guy who supports the divine right that is Isreal but hails himself an Athiest.

There is abslutely no "divine right" in terms of Israel.

Israel's legitimacy comes from UN Resolution 181 which approved the partition of Palestine into Israel and Palestine. Exactly like the partition of All India into India and Pakistan a few months earlier.

You can't have it both ways. Either Israel and Pakistan both have the right to exist, or neither of them does.

 

[Technics 1210]

There is abslutely no "divine right" in terms of Israel.

)

Go say that to the Jews and Zionists.

 

[sweep_shot]

Jesus married a prostitute.

Any source for this? Provide a source.

We can verify your misinformed posts. Do not make up facts out of thin air.

 

[Junaids]

In response to [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] saying that single women are entitled to have consensual sex with whomever they want

This is the issue with modern day liberals. They are confused about what is normal and what is not.

No. That's not fine. Most cultures would have a serious problem with this.

Do I take advice about driving a car from a tribesman who has never driven a car?

Do I take medical advice from someone who is illiterate?

No offence, but the only people whose opinions are valid or worthwhile about the rights of women are the people in whose countries they live longer, get more highly educated and obtain good jobs. Opinions from places where those indicators have terrible outcomes I will just disregard as being from Failed States.

If ask someone in Yemen they are likely to tell me that she needs to cover her hair, be a virgin until she marries and only get educated or work if her father approves. So I literally couldn't care less what those people from Failed States think.

 

[sweep_shot]

In response to [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] saying that single women are entitled to have consensual sex with whomever they want


Do I take advice about driving a car from a tribesman who has never driven a car?

Do I take medical advice from someone who is illiterate?

No offence, but the only people whose opinions are valid or worthwhile about the rights of women are the people in whose countries they live longer, get more highly educated and obtain good jobs. Opinions from places where those indicators have terrible outcomes I will just disregard as being from Failed States.

If ask someone in Yemen they are likely to tell me that she needs to cover her hair, be a virgin until she marries and only get educated or work if her father approves. So I literally couldn't care less what those people from Failed States think.

It goes both ways.

Apart from some radical liberals, I doubt many care about what you have to say. You have a track record of making up facts. You are as bright as Kim Kardashian.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

There is abslutely no "divine right" in terms of Israel.

Israel's legitimacy comes from UN Resolution 181 which approved the partition of Palestine into Israel and Palestine. Exactly like the partition of All India into India and Pakistan a few months earlier.

You can't have it both ways. Either Israel and Pakistan both have the right to exist, or neither of them does.

How are they in any way comparable?. Pakistanis sought secession based upon a lack of rights. Israel is the creation of state for foreign people on natives land!.

 

[sweep_shot]

How are they in any way comparable?. Pakistanis sought secession based upon a lack of rights. Israel is the creation of state for foreign people on natives land!.

He makes up and distorts facts. He is completely clueless.

He supports women sleeping around. I guess that tells a lot about him.

 

[sweep_shot]

Jesus married a prostitute.

So, I looked it up. You are referring to Mary Magdalene if I am not wrong.

There is no mention of this in Islamic literature.

Things are not clear in Christian literature also. There are many different theories.

Do not make up facts. We can check.

 

[Junaids]

How are they in any way comparable?. Pakistanis sought secession based upon a lack of rights. Israel is the creation of state for foreign people on natives land!.

Muslims were 42.3% of the population of Karachi in 1941, and its population was 350,000.

Now there are 16 million and 96% are Muslim. I put it to you that what you described with Israel is exactly what has happened with Pakistan.

 

[Junaids]

He makes up and distorts facts. He is completely clueless.

He supports women sleeping around. I guess that tells a lot about him.

You support men sleeping around. You wrote exactly that in Post 451.

 

[sweep_shot]

You support men sleeping around. You wrote exactly that in Post 451.

My post #451:

If those were legitimate children (from legitimate marriages), I see no issue.

I only oppose fornication and adultery.

I support traditional marriage and legitimate children. That's right.

I don't support fornication and adultery. I hope you know what those mean.

This is what you always do. You twist facts and take things out of contexts. But, we see through you thankfully.

 

[Junaids]

He makes up and distorts facts. He is completely clueless.

He supports women sleeping around. I guess that tells a lot about him.

I don't know why you are so obsessed with primitive ideals of female sexual chastity long after the rest of the advanced world rejected it.

In the 16th century, 25% of British brides were pregnant. By Victorian times it had risen to 40%.

The bottom line is this. Human females start having sex at a similar age in most countries. The median marriage age is 18.6 years in Pakistan and 15.8 years in Afghanistan and 16.2 years in Saudi Arabia.

Really, the only difference between those countries and western countries is that in those societies girls are expected to marry before they have sex, whereas in our societies in the west we see no more connection between sex and marriage than between watching TV and marriage.

I'm sure that the median 35 year old Dutch woman and the median 35 year old Saudi woman have had sex the same number of times. The only difference from my end is that the Dutch woman wasn't required to do it when she didn't feel like it - she got to choose.

 

[sweep_shot]

Muslims were 42.3% of the population of Karachi in 1941, and its population was 350,000.

Now there are 16 million and 96% are Muslim. I put it to you that what you described with Israel is exactly what has happened with Pakistan.

You are throwing around numbers without contexts. We can verify these numbers and we can also verify the contexts.

For your information:

Before the partition, according to the 1941 census, Hindus constituted 14% of the population in West Pakistan (now Pakistan) and 28% of the population in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).[10][11][12] After Pakistan gained independence from the British Raj, 4.7 million of West Pakistan's Hindus and Sikhs moved to India as refugees.[13] And in the first census afterwards in 1951, Hindus made up 1.6% of the total population of West Pakistan (now Pakistan), and 22% of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).[14][15][16]

You are conveniently ignoring the facts Hindus have migrated to India and creation of Bangladesh also naturally lowered the Hindu population.

 

[sweep_shot]

Really, the only difference between those countries and western countries is that in those societies girls are expected to marry before they have sex, whereas in our societies in the west we see no more connection between sex and marriage than between watching TV and marriage.

I'm sure that the median 35 year old Dutch woman and the median 35 year old Saudi woman have had sex the same number of times. The only difference from my end is that the Dutch woman wasn't required to do it when she didn't feel like it - she got to choose.

So, you are saying premarital sex is okay. You are basically saying marriage is not required.

We are human beings. Not animals. Marriage separates humans from animals.

 

[Junaids]

My post #451:

If those were legitimate children (from legitimate marriages), I see no issue.

I only oppose fornication and adultery.

I support traditional marriage and legitimate children. That's right.

I don't support fornication and adultery. I hope you know what those mean.

This is what you always do. You twist facts and take things out of contexts. But, we see through you thankfully.

Again, really what this entire thread boils down to is whether a person is an old-school fundamentalist (Islamic or Christian or Jewish) who takes his religion literally, or whether he or she does not.

Like 90% of western people I don't. I think religion has always been a way of teaching people to make the best choices in their context at that time, but that its tenets obviously change with science, medicine and education and social development.

The irony, of course, is that Jinnah liked bacon and drank wine. Pakistan was founded by a man whose attitude towards religion was clearly pretty much exactly the same as any modern western man.

Of course that is not surprising. Jinnah was an English-speaker who could barely speak Urdu and was so highly educated that he essentially was what modern western men are now.

But it's strange that we get a thread like this which is clearly anchored in taking a far more literal view towards Islam than the founding father of Pakistan did eight decades ago.

Just how far backwards is it possible for a country to evolve in less than a century?

 

[sweep_shot]

Again, really what this entire thread boils down to is whether a person is an old-school fundamentalist (Islamic or Christian or Jewish) who takes his religion literally, or whether he or she does not.

Like 90% of western people I don't. I think religion has always been a way of teaching people to make the best choices in their context at that time, but that its tenets obviously change with science, medicine and education and social development.

The irony, of course, is that Jinnah liked bacon and drank wine. Pakistan was founded by a man whose attitude towards religion was clearly pretty much exactly the same as any modern western man.

Of course that is not surprising. Jinnah was an English-speaker who could barely speak Urdu and was so highly educated that he essentially was what modern western men are now.

But it's strange that we get a thread like this which is clearly anchored in taking a far more literal view towards Islam than the founding father of Pakistan did eight decades ago.

Just how far backwards is it possible for a country to evolve in less than a century?

So, supporting traditional marriage and opposing fornication/adultery is backward according to you.

Your posts are like memes.

What's next? Relationship with objects? Where does this "progress" stop?

 

[Junaids]

So, you are saying premarital sex is okay. You are basically saying marriage is not required.

We are human beings. Not animals. Marriage separates humans from animals.

Not at all. I am married.

I am saying that sex is nothing to do with marriage. It happens within a marriage, like eating, like kissing, like going for drives or going out to dinner. But it's not in any way restricted to marriage.

Marriage for me is about companionship, a shared life and bringing up kids together (although you don't have to be married to do that).

I don't approve of anybody under 28 or so getting married, because nobody has completed their own personal evolution before that age and you are likely to end up incompatible with whomever you were compatible with aged 20.

But I know that everyone will be sexually active in their teens - even Afghans and Yemenis.

So to me it is expected and unremarkable that whoever my son ends up marrying in a decade when he is 30 was sleeping with somebody now. All humans do when they are 20.

Religious rules about pork were invented due to the risk of tapeworm infection.

Religious rules about sex were invented to prevent women from getting pregnant to men they didn't want to be with forever, and to protect them from sexually transmitted diseases and death in childbirth.

But Saudi and Pakistani women who have only ever had sex with their husband are much more likely to die of sexually-transmitted cervical cancer than western women who have had ten lovers but were protected by Gardasil.

So clearly those religious rules are no longer fit for purpose, and indeed women who are subjected to them are less sexually safe than western women who have had a lot more partners.

 

[sweep_shot]

Not at all. I am married.

I am saying that sex is nothing to do with marriage. It happens within a marriage, like eating, like kissing, like going for drives or going out to dinner. But it's not in any way restricted to marriage.

Marriage for me is about companionship, a shared life and bringing up kids together (although you don't have to be married to do that).

I don't approve of anybody under 28 or so getting married, because nobody has completed their own personal evolution before that age and you are likely to end up incompatible with whomever you were compatible with aged 20.

But I know that everyone will be sexually active in their teens - even Afghans and Yemenis.

So to me it is expected and unremarkable that whoever my son ends up marrying in a decade when he is 30 was sleeping with somebody now. All humans do when they are 20.

Religious rules about pork were invented due to the risk of tapeworm infection.

Religious rules about sex were invented to prevent women from getting pregnant to men they didn't want to be with forever, and to protect them from sexually transmitted diseases and death in childbirth.

But Saudi and Pakistani women who have only ever had sex with their husband are much more likely to die of sexually-transmitted cervical cancer than western women who have had ten lovers but were protected by Gardasil.

So clearly those religious rules are no longer fit for purpose, and indeed women who are subjected to them are less sexually safe than western women who have had a lot more partners.

These are your own personal views. Doesn't mean these are true.

Most of your views seem factually inaccurate anyway.

 

[sweep_shot]

Of course that is not surprising. Jinnah was an English-speaker who could barely speak Urdu and was so highly educated that he essentially was what modern western men are now.

This education part cracks me up.

As someone who has earned two degrees in Canada, I can say western education system is highly overrated. Depending on what your major is, you can probably learn more from YouTube/Udemy/online resources than actual schools. Schools just give you papers; if you really want to learn, you have to learn by yourself.

Also, just because someone is "educated" doesn't mean he is expected to behave in a certain way. People have different ideologies and interests. Anwar Al-Awlaki was a civil engineer, for example.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Your answers are faulty.

We all should know what moral behavior looks like. If a woman is sleeping around with multiple men, that's not a normal behavior. It is the job of the father to correct her course of action; otherwise, he has failed as a father.

So you think without Patriarchy, women will sleep around? What a twisted view you have of women man. But in the same Patriarchy a man can marry multiple women and sleep around with prostitutes too. We see it around us.

 

[Junaids]

These are your own personal views. Doesn't mean these are true.

Most of your views seem factually inaccurate anyway.

isn't that the entire point of contention?

You, as an eastern man, choose to take your religion literally, and believe that prophets did not word their speeches for the audience that they had but rather for all eternity. That's your choice.

I, as a western man, believe that religion has progressively less significance as science and education advance, and that any acceptance of it must be strictly within the context of understanding its context and critically appraising which elements have modern relevance and which ones do not.

I could have written a guide book to cookery or building in 10 BC. Neither would be very relevant now.

To me, religion is just the same. Advice to my great, great grandfather 150 years ago would not be relevant now.

 

[Champ_Pal]

[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION], you seem to be very worried about women sleeping around without Patriarchy. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[sweep_shot]

isn't that the entire point of contention?

You, as an eastern man, choose to take your religion literally, and believe that prophets did not word their speeches for the audience that they had but rather for all eternity. That's your choice.

I, as a western man, believe that religion has progressively less significance as science and education advance, and that any acceptance of it must be strictly within the context of understanding its context and critically appraising which elements have modern relevance and which ones do not.

I could have written a guide book to cookery or building in 10 BC. Neither would be very relevant now.

To me, religion is just the same. Advice to my great, great grandfather 150 years ago would not be relevant now.

60% of my life was spent in Canada. I grew up in Canada. But, it doesn't mean I need to support problematic behaviors.

There are many native Canadians who believe in traditional family values. There are also Amish, orthodox Jews etc. They seem to believe in what I believe in.

 

[Junaids]

This education part cracks me up.

As someone who has earned two degrees in Canada, I can say western education system is highly overrated. Depending on what your major is, you can probably learn more from YouTube/Udemy/online resources than actual schools. Schools just give you papers; if you really want to learn, you have to learn by yourself.

Also, just because someone is "educated" doesn't mean he is expected to behave in a certain way. People have different ideologies and interests. Anwar Al-Awlaki was a civil engineer, for example.

Seriously, I think you should be a little more respectful to the country which has taken you in. I saw your comments about Hamas murdering people in a different thread, and I think you might be over-confident about your long-term residence. If the government there sees that you could get into a lot of trouble. There's a line you shouldn't cross.

But just as I wouldn't emigrate to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, I don't know how you can live in a country in which you disrespect its values so totally. Your views on patriarchy are completely unCanadian.

 

[sweep_shot]

[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION], you seem to be very worried about women sleeping around without Patriarchy. Am I understanding you correctly?

No. I am not worried. LOL. I was giving an example.

I oppose fornication/adultery. I support traditional and nuclear marriage. That's all.

 

[sweep_shot]

Seriously, I think you should be a little more respectful to the country which has taken you in. I saw your comments about Hamas murdering people in a different thread, and I think you might be over-confident about your long-term residence. If the government there sees that you could get into a lot of trouble. There's a line you shouldn't cross.

But just as I wouldn't emigrate to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, I don't know how you can live in a country in which you disrespect its values so totally. Your views on patriarchy are completely unCanadian.

I am a citizen of Canada. Not on visa. Also, I didn't support Hamas. My post wasn't about Hamas.

I said traitors should be penalized (Palestinians who work for Israel as spies).