Flamberge said:
Sure, but you'll have to give me some time im kinda busy with stuff and winning internet clout isnt at the top of my bucket list.
No hurry, I won't see those people in a week or two.
Posted under General
ZombiBoi said:
Are they trying to ban walking your dog in England? Didn't they arrest a Christian man for praying in silence across the street from an abortion clinic in England? Are they pro abortion in England, but pro life in their homeland countries? (Generally asking)
This one about arresting praying person is real.
Can't spoke for the rest but yeah UK sucks now
HitlersTopcoomer said:
Frankly, considering the current political climate and state of UK, I think I'd be best for everyone if these guys were all Deported
Honestly yeah but that ain't gonna happen - even though I have muslim friends I hold out that the only hope that in a few generations they'll chill the fuck out or their descendants will LEAVE the religion since a lot of the more hyper conservative muslim friends tend to be from 1st or 2nd gen immigrant families where the other ones that will bend and break the rules are 3rd gen or later.
If not the united kingdom is fucked - whites aren't breeding enough and muslims take " go fourth and multiply " extremely seriously normally having a family of at LEAST 4 children , white british in comparison do not make large families or support themselves with multi generational houses so unless there's a second baby boom our only hope is arabs becoming less conservative and leaving Islam as a whole.
Aakord said:
Some religions, like Islam and Christianity, expect parents to enroll their children in their religion. A newborn can't express belonging to a particular faith or understand the concept of God or divinity.
If a religion asks parents to influence their children based on religious rather than their own logical principles, it's for several reasons. Now, I'm not saying all religions do this, but those that do have a specific political purpose.
1) Spiritual manipulation from childhood can lead to behavioral issues in adulthood. When the child grows up and can be spiritually honest with themselves, they may find themselves in conflict with their parents. This conflict can be suppressed by pretending to belong to the imposed religion or openly rejecting it, which can cause a painful but honest conflict with their parents.
2) A politician supporting Islam in Islamic countries or Christianity in Christian countries likely seeks religious power over that population. Such a politician doesn't need to demonstrate real skills or competencies in human society (like an internationally renowned scientist or researcher); they only need to protect the dominant religion and accuse others of being atheists or followers of opposing religions. Examples include politicians subservient to the imam in Iran or servant president Trump in the US. Politicians controlled by religions are often ridiculed internationally and only find religious support nationally; unsurprisingly, they are typically nationalists.
3) Pathetic and insignificant trolls supporting Putin might promote Christianity while denouncing Islam here, then go to Islamic forums to insult Christianity and resist the West. The truth is that human religion or spirituality belongs to no one; it's up to humanity to evolve and develop its own spirituality. You can copy/paste this in forums that follows any religion, and the value of this will be the same all across aboard (contrary to Putin's trash trolls, that need to adap their text in order to provoke emotive reactions)
I know this is unrelated but i messaged you on matrix for an invite
IvoryFutaIII said:
Honestly yeah but that ain't gonna happen - even though I have muslim friends I hold out that the only hope that in a few generations they'll chill the fuck out or their descendants will LEAVE the religion since a lot of the more hyper conservative muslim friends tend to be from 1st or 2nd gen immigrant families where the other ones that will bend and break the rules are 3rd gen or later.
If not the united kingdom is fucked - whites aren't breeding enough and muslims take " go fourth and multiply " extremely seriously normally having a family of at LEAST 4 children , white british in comparison do not make large families or support themselves with multi generational houses so unless there's a second baby boom our only hope is arabs becoming less conservative and leaving Islam as a whole.
Muslims wont get less radical because the muslims that keep their radical beliefs are the ones that have the children. The Muslims that liberalize end up having the same low birth rates as the rest of the city liberals.
Marcal91 said:
I've posted this before, but here it goes again: https://i.imgur.com/vGjKXKX.png
Anyone who thinks "defending Islam" is a leftist point of view has completely misunderstood the assignment. If you're a leftie, Islam is a religion that stands against everything you stand for, take the most conservative christian nutjob in Texas and you don't even begin to come close to the levels of bigotry some muslim men can showcase on their sleep.
I defend freedom of religion, but that doesn't mean you can use your religion as an excuse to your backwards views. I will not attack you because you pray facing Mecca, and if that's all you do, I will defend you from anyone who attacks you for it, but if you start spewing bigotry, I will treat you like any other bigot, be it muslim, christian, atheist, white, black, brown, man, woman, straight, gay, or whatever else.
And if you're one of the more liberal muslims and do like christians have been doing for centuries ignoring the most icky parts of your sacred texts (and I know you do exist out there, some of my friends are the same), I fucking respect you. I know your culture, and I know it's not easy to go against it, specially since it's common you're threatened with violence for expressing different views, and I commend you for having the balls to stand up for what you know is right.
Defending Islam is defo a leftist POV in the West, specially in France with people we call islamo-gauchistes (LFI in particular). There is a big portion of the left that is compliant with the implantation of the sharia in our countries and submit to islamists because "freedom". And they repeat the propaganda from the Hamas of course.
EVerde said:
Defending Islam is defo a leftist POV in the West, specially in France with people we call islamo-gauchistes (LFI in particular). There is a big portion of the left that is compliant with the implantation of the sharia in our countries and submit to islamists because "freedom". And they repeat the propaganda from the Hamas of course.
They might say they don't, but leftism is all about self-flagellation and defeatism and islam is a bloodthirsty barbaric conquering religion, they're a perfect match.
Leftists will say: "Uh, but what about Christianity?". Christians only went on the offensive when they were being invaded by all sides. Arabs in Spain and southern France, arabs in southern Italy, turks in Asia Minor and you can even count the mongols in Eastern Europe who converted to islam in the 1300's. Also a big reason why the colonization of Africa started was because the arabs kept kidnapping white people, castrating the men and using the women as sex slaves.
TallWhiteAndHung said:
They might say they don't, but leftism is all about self-flagellation and defeatism and islam is a bloodthirsty barbaric conquering religion, they're a perfect match.
Leftists will say: "Uh, but what about Christianity?". Christians only went on the offensive when they were being invaded by all sides. Arabs in Spain and southern France, arabs in southern Italy, turks in Asia Minor and you can even count the mongols in Eastern Europe who converted to islam in the 1300's. Also a big reason why the colonization of Africa started was because the arabs kept kidnapping white people, castrating the men and using the women as sex slaves.
I've said this before but the problem is that you literally can't have an honest conversation about it, the minute you have anything bad to say about Islam people write you off as an "Islamaphobe" or a racist and then shut down the whole conversation before it can get anywhere - leftists are ESPECIALLY guilty of this.
When you actually look into Islam you'll find that their most holy prophet owned multiple sex slaves, married a child, their religion permits slavery and their religion has strict blasphemy laws that permit killing someone for leaving the religion , their heaven promises them a harem of 72 " full breasted " virgins and is deeply anti-semetic (They fucking H A T E Jews and want to exterminate them) this also barely scratches the surface - the fact of the matter is too that Islam despite being the self proclaimed " religion of peace " has only ever been spread through conquest usually by mass enslavement and then promising to let their slaves go if they convert to Islam (this is how they spread the religion across Africa) and has extremely low conversion rates compared to christanity or judasim.
TallWhiteAndHung said:
They might say they don't, but leftism is all about self-flagellation and defeatism and islam is a bloodthirsty barbaric conquering religion, they're a perfect match.
Leftists will say: "Uh, but what about Christianity?". Christians only went on the offensive when they were being invaded by all sides. Arabs in Spain and southern France, arabs in southern Italy, turks in Asia Minor and you can even count the mongols in Eastern Europe who converted to islam in the 1300's. Also a big reason why the colonization of Africa started was because the arabs kept kidnapping white people, castrating the men and using the women as sex slaves.
It wasn’t just the Arabs, it was the moors and Berbers (North Africans who constantly raided and attacked along Western Europe), and Turks who are technically not Arabic, but a mix between asiatic and middle eastern/persian.
And yes the first crusades were all a response to outside aggression. Idk about like the 58th or however many crusades but I know the first 4 or so were like that.
AryanSuperSoldier said:
It wasn’t just the Arabs, it was the moors and Berbers (North Africans who constantly raided and attacked along Western Europe), and Turks who are technically not Arabic, but a mix between asiatic and middle eastern/persian.
And yes the first crusades were all a response to outside aggression. Idk about like the 58th or however many crusades but I know the first 4 or so were like that.
While anyone who thinks the crusades were christian aggression is dumb, i still think you can call the crusades dumb because of how incompetent they were and just lead to a bunch of randos sacking places. the only one that was anything worthwhile was the first crusade.
fkiblaze said:
While anyone who thinks the crusades were christian aggression is dumb, i still think you can call the crusades dumb because of how incompetent they were and just lead to a bunch of randos sacking places. the only one that was anything worthwhile was the first crusade.
Yeah, like Viet Nam. Golf of Tonkin happened, and the idea it was an inside job is Ho Chi Minh's propagandists still at work.
Also the crusades were, especially the non-retarded ones, less incompetent and more ill-conceived. Why did the moslem world find itself willing to attack Christendom?
Because the Christians were, as a whole, weaker than ever. And the Moslems, as a whole, were at their highest point. Something like that, anyway. I specialize in Uralic cultures.
But basically it was a bad idea executed (usually) as well as sketchy circumstances that generally buried the crusades from my understanding.
When it comes to morality, with or without religion, the UN offers a clear guide: universal human rights and dignity. This framework is straightforward, and universally anti-moronic.
Radicalised groups often mirror each other's behaviour, with one faith's extremists condemning those from another with some ad-hoc shit for their own dimwit. The UN consistently calls such extremism on both sides for their BS.
If one personal beliefs don't align with what UN tolerate, that's the clue that guy being manipulated by some dipshit that think they are alike: if he's right about the crap he say, why doesn't he take his fucking brilliant idea straight to the UN and enlighten the fucking world?
When someone come with religious belief that just make you happy... it's because he think you're a lesser one at his disposal.
Aakord said:
When it comes to morality, with or without religion, the UN offers a clear guide: universal human rights and dignity. This framework is straightforward, and universally anti-moronic.
Radicalised groups often mirror each other's behaviour, with one faith's extremists condemning those from another with some ad-hoc shit for their own dimwit. The UN consistently calls such extremism on both sides for their BS.
If one personal beliefs don't align with what UN tolerate, that's the clue that guy being manipulated by some dipshit that think they are alike: if he's right about the crap he say, why doesn't he take his fucking brilliant idea straight to the UN and enlighten the fucking world?
When someone come with religious belief that just make you happy... it's because he think you're a lesser one at his disposal.
my question to the UN and anyone who agrees with them is, why should we or I care about what sand people do in deserts and dirt? If they want to abuse their women and practice slavery and all kinds of retardation, then they can enjoy their barbarity and lack of progress economically, socially, culturally, etc to themselves. It is not and should not be morally grandstanded to westerners to 'liberate' peoples that by all accounts DONT want to be liberated.
Often what this really amounts too is power grabs, land grabs, resource acquiescence all for the cost of western mens lives on a scale that is not to our benefit and generally 'liberation' of these peoples never even lasts. For everyone but the most wealthy, powerful and influential, it is a waste of time effort, man power and brainpower. Perhaps it is best to let people rule themselves how they see fit, that also applies likewise to us.
AryanSuperSoldier said:
my question to the UN and anyone who agrees with them is, why should we or I care about what sand people do in deserts and dirt? If they want to abuse their women and practice slavery and all kinds of retardation, then they can enjoy their barbarity and lack of progress economically, socially, culturally, etc to themselves. It is not and should not be morally grandstanded to westerners to 'liberate' peoples that by all accounts DONT want to be liberated.
Often what this really amounts too is power grabs, land grabs, resource acquiescence all for the cost of western mens lives on a scale that is not to our benefit and generally 'liberation' of these peoples never even lasts. For everyone but the most wealthy, powerful and influential, it is a waste of time effort, man power and brainpower. Perhaps it is best to let people rule themselves how they see fit, that also applies likewise to us.
This chud gets it
Aakord said:
When it comes to morality, with or without religion, the UN offers a clear guide: universal human rights and dignity. This framework is straightforward, and universally anti-moronic.
Radicalised groups often mirror each other's behaviour, with one faith's extremists condemning those from another with some ad-hoc shit for their own dimwit. The UN consistently calls such extremism on both sides for their BS.
If one personal beliefs don't align with what UN tolerate, that's the clue that guy being manipulated by some dipshit that think they are alike: if he's right about the crap he say, why doesn't he take his fucking brilliant idea straight to the UN and enlighten the fucking world?
When someone come with religious belief that just make you happy... it's because he think you're a lesser one at his disposal.
A lot of the UN points are incredibly moronic and goes against the US constitution, which makes sense since they were made by the sides who started ww2.
AryanSuperSoldier said:
my question to the UN and anyone who agrees with them is, why should we or I care about what sand people do in deserts and dirt? If they want to abuse their women and practice slavery and all kinds of retardation, then they can enjoy their barbarity and lack of progress economically, socially, culturally, etc to themselves. It is not and should not be morally grandstanded to westerners to 'liberate' peoples that by all accounts DONT want to be liberated.
Often what this really amounts too is power grabs, land grabs, resource acquiescence all for the cost of western mens lives on a scale that is not to our benefit and generally 'liberation' of these peoples never even lasts. For everyone but the most wealthy, powerful and influential, it is a waste of time effort, man power and brainpower. Perhaps it is best to let people rule themselves how they see fit, that also applies likewise to us.
yes but also it would be fine if it was land, but we get nothing for it.
