• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

DTA said:
How can Muslims be Anti women’s rights, when in many *bacon dodger* countries women were given more rights sooner then women that lived in the west, up to and including the right to vote?

How can such a misogynistic culture have directly elected women heads of state before most of the countries in the west have, including most notably the US of A
Click to expand...
I have already answered these claims.

As I have already stated, when you look at how many Islamic countries as pointed out before, and the way they treat women...

It's an easy claim to make that you give women rights... right up until they break one of many backwards and outdated laws, like not wearing the hijab, then it's back to beating, imprisoning, punching girls in the face, or stoning them to death.

I am not discounting that Islam may have given women rights, all those rights mean nothing if across many Islamic countries they still end up being treated like 2nd class citizens.
 
DTA said:
In fact let me help you out by asking you a direct question:

How can Muslims be Anti women’s rights, when in many Muslim countries women were given more rights sooner then women that lived in the west, up to and including the right to vote?

How can such a misogynistic culture have directly elected women heads of state before most of the countries in the west have, including most notably the US of A
Click to expand...
The fact that Christianity has a huge issue with interpretation in Africa still. Even here by definition there are blurred lines on oppressive and obstructive beliefs. If you went to 10 different churches on Sunday I'm sure you will get 10 different levels of acceptance on issues such as same sex marriage and homosexuality despite official rewrites of the bible and readings. But many countries don't adhere to the rewrites and as with the issues in Islam, christianity and its teaching are massively open for interpretation and extremist views and actions. It's also a large driving factor to misogyny and apartheid in Africa.....

Anyone that's actually studied religion and read the bible knows its not exactly a nice and accepting book or set of guidelines for life, infact in makes G0d out to be abit of cnut if truth be told.

Anyway as per earlier posts, good and bad in all walks of life, the idea that everyone in islam and the Muslim faith is an extremist and a threat to our freedoms is just a lie.
 
Grays_1890 said:
The fact that Christianity has a huge issue with interpretation in Africa still. Even here by definition there are blurred lines on oppressive and obstructive beliefs. If you went to 10 different churches on Sunday I'm sure you will get 10 different levels of acceptance on issues such as same sex marriage and homosexuality despite official rewrites of the bible and readings. But many countries don't adhere to the rewrites and as with the issues in Islam, christianity and its teaching are massively open for interpretation and extremist views and actions. It's also a large driving factor to misogyny and apartheid in Africa.....

Anyone that's actually stupid religion and read the bible knows its not exactly a nice and accepting book or set of guidelines for life, infact in makes G0d out to be abit of cnut if truth be told.

Anyway as per earlier posts, good and bad in all walks of life, the idea that everyone in islam and the *bacon dodger* faith is an extremist and a threat to our freedoms is just a lie.
Click to expand...
No one has said this on this forum whilst I have been a member.

 
SkipRat said:
I have already answered these claims.

As I have already stated, when you look at how many Islamic countries as pointed out before, and the way they treat women...

It's an easy claim to make that you give women rights... right up until they break one of many backwards and outdated laws, like not wearing the hijab, then it's back to beating, imprisoning, punching girls in the face, or stoning them to death.

I am not discounting that Islam may have given women rights, all those rights mean nothing if across many Islamic countries they still end up being treated like 2nd class citizens.
Click to expand...

You are not actually answering the questions there you are making some points that I will happily address after we have clarified your answers to my questions. Especially if you put them in the form of questions yourself.

Let me try to interpret your answer:

You are basically saying it doesn’t matter if women were given rights sooner in some Muslim countries including the right to vote as in some Muslim countries women are still being stoned to death.

Is that a correct assessment?

If yes, could you please go on to this question which you haven’t even attempted to answer.

“How can such a misogynistic culture have directly elected women heads of state before most of the countries in the west have, including most notably the US of A”
 
DTA said:
You are not actually answering the questions there you are making some points that I will happily address after we have clarified your answers to my questions. Especially if you put them in the form of questions yourself.

Let me try to interpret your answer:

You are basically saying it doesn’t matter if women were given rights sooner in some *bacon dodger* countries including the right to vote as in some *bacon dodger* countries women are still being stoned to death.

Is that a correct assessment?

If yes, could you please go on to this question which you haven’t even attempted to answer.

“How can such a misogynistic culture have directly elected women heads of state before most of the countries in the west have, including most notably the US of A”
Click to expand...
So you gave women rights and put them in positions earlier in some areas than other countries, doesn't mean that many Islamic countries are not misogynistic towards women, like Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Pakistan etc.

The UK has had female rulers, like Queen Victoria, whilst at the same time females not having the right to vote... Coincidently many men didn't have the right to vote either at this time. So despite a women being in power, many women still didn't have the same rights as many men, such as voting.

Going back before the Islamic faith was founded, Boudica was queen of the Iceni tribe. And there have been many since before and after Islam was a thing.

Just because you had women in positions of power in the past, just as Britain did, doesn't mean that the women in general weren't treated as second class citizens.
 
Last edited:
SkipRat said:
Just because a women hasn't been a president, doesn't mean the nation in inherently misogynistic. It just mean their hasn't been a female president.

Just as, because you gave women rights earlier in some areas than other countries, doesn't mean that many Islamic countries are not misogynistic towards women, like Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Pakistan etc.

Your argument is just nonsense.

The UK has had female rulers, like Queen Victoria, whilst at the same time females not having the right to vote... Coincidently many men didn't have the right to vote either at this time.

Going back before the Islamic faith was founded, Boudica was queen of the Iceni tribe. And there have been many since before and after Islam was a thing.

Still, it doesn't hide the fact what many Islamic countries are doing today.
Click to expand...

You are not answering the question. Try again.

Like I said I thought you wanted to have a ‘proper debate’ if so parameters are essential

So again if you want a “proper debate answer the question:

“How can such a misogynistic culture have directly elected women heads of state before most of the countries in the west have, including most notably the US of A“

Where did I say that a country is inherently misogynistic because they haven’t had a female president?

It’s you that have made certain claims and I am trying to find out if there is any validity to it.
 
SkipRat said:
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Amongst historians, its been argued the reaon Britain colonised so much was to ensure slaver trade never happened again.

And as for the machetes, just goes to show how little the general population is showed.

During the recent riots, mobs of *bacon dodger* men were walking the streets, many with machetes and other tools.

Yet nothing was said, by police, media, and government.

Hilarious.
Click to expand...
Yeah, which historians? You do write some drivel. You just make stuff up! Although by 'historian' you may be referring to someone like that bloke who reckons the holocaust never happened, David Irving.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Yeah, which historians? You do write some drivel. You just make stuff up! Although by 'historian' you may be referring to someone like that bloke who reckons the holocaust never happened, David Irving.
Click to expand...
I told you, I got it, from a BBC Documentary that went through the history the British involvement of the slave trade and the lengths we went to end it. Very interesting, I recommend it, if you can find it. I watched it about 5 years ago, but it was older than that. It was called something like Britain's involvement in the slave trade, or something similar.

:tearsofjoy: :tearsofjoy: :tearsofjoy: :tearsofjoy:

Why are the left so brainwashed and narrow minded... No historian as historian, as in scholars not nut job like David Irving, if that is what he believes.

You can't handle the fact that I am correct and that it maybe you that might be wrong. And the desperate attempt to insinuate where I get my information from.

:tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:

Hilarious. Utterly Hilarious.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Yeah, which historians? You do write some drivel. You just make stuff up! Although by 'historian' you may be referring to someone like that bloke who reckons the holocaust never happened, David Irving.
Click to expand...

Especially as its largely reported from the times that colonisation and imperialism was about the ideology justified Britain's right to rule over other peoples, on the grounds that they were 'racially inferior'. British society believing their morals were way more superior and that our social system was better than anywhere, therefore they should adapt British culture (ironic given the crying about social integration on these pages). Exploitation, underdevelopment and high taxation of those we colonised, I don't think we need to be bashed over that history daily but I don't think we should be lying about its intentions on here as others are because of this "why always us" inferiority complex.
 
Here is the documentary I was referring to regarding geohectres. A Horizon Special, by Sir David Attenborough. Full episode on website.

I wonder if you hilariously wrong lefties are gonna call David a far right winger for having concerns of population size, water and food security. And the impact that we are having on the rest world... Adding to the problems many of the poorest countries in the world are facing.

 
Last edited:
Gilzeantoscore said:
I wonder what this guy thought of the Tory's environmental record, with the trashing of Brititsh rivers and beaches? He is an 'ecologist' after all. Surely he would have cast a vote for Labour on that basis, being an 'ecologist' and all?
Click to expand...
What special kind of departed this post is.

I know more than what you do :tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:

Oh and as interesting fact, Maggie Thatcher for all her faults was bang on the money in regards to climate change, as she was a trained scientist and understood the scientific method and science as a whole.

Just a shame the rest of the party are as thick as shyte when it come to science and didn't follow her lead in this subject.
 
Yaxley guide to being a less than subtle online racist, responses and statements could include but not exclusively to:

- "if that was the Brits/whites....it wouldn't be......."

- "the brits are always expected to apologise for......."

- "I don't like him but......"

- "maybe if it wasn't for x they wouldn't be attacked"

- "so called religion of peace"

- When all else fails, hit them with whataboutism

- offer absolutely no solutions, just scream about problems....

The quad pots been hit on here in recent days
 
Last edited:
DTA said:
You are not answering the question. Try again.

Like I said I thought you wanted to have a ‘proper debate’ if so parameters are essential

So again if you want a “proper debate answer the question:

“How can such a misogynistic culture have directly elected women heads of state before most of the countries in the west have, including most notably the US of A“

Where did I say that a country is inherently misogynistic because they haven’t had a female president?

It’s you that have made certain claims and I am trying to find out if there is any validity to it.
Click to expand...
But I have answered that question.

Just because you had women in power, it doesn't stop women from being treated as 2nd class citizens in general.

And "today," women are being beaten, imprisoned (and for being raped), stoned to death, lashed, and publicly humiliated.

You can point all you want to what you did in the past about your claims regarding women, but the truth is the opposite for many women, especially today, is entirely different. And we live in today.

You can't ignore what is going on and pretending that it is not happening.

And just America because hasn't had a women president means nothing, so what? The UK has had three and they have all been fecking vile and evil creatures.

The reason why Clinton didn't get voted in, wasn't because she was a woman, she didn't get voted in because she just represented corporate America and no change, when America was crying out for change after the 2008 crash. And despite America not having a female president, you don't see American's stoning women today in public, or sending them to prison for being raped and lashing them

www.nytimes.com

Ruling Jolts Even Saudis: 200 Lashes for Rape Victim (Published 2007)

A Saudi court on Tuesday more than doubled the number of lashes that a female *struggle cuddle* victim was sentenced to last year after her lawyer appealed the original sentence.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

You don't see America refusing education to women.

And yes, despite America going full insanely stupid on, abortion laws, in general, the women in America are so much better off than most women in many Islamic countries today.

It's not my fault, I don't make the laws in many Islamic countries, and it's not my fault those countries are the way they are.
 
Last edited:
Grays_1890 said:
Yaxley guide to being a less than subtle online racist, responses and statements could include but not exclusively to:

- "if that was the Brits/whites....it wouldn't be......."

- "the brits are always expected to apologise for......."

- "I don't like him but......"

- "maybe if it wasn't for x they wouldn't be attacked"

- "so called religion of peace"

- When all else fails, hit them with whataboutism

The quad pots been hit on here in recent days
Click to expand...
Left wing response to having ass handed to him on plate and being proven wrong time and time again.

Please continue, this is very entertaining.
 
SkipRat said:
Here is the documentary I was referring to regarding geohectres. A Horizon Special, by Sir David Attenborough. Full episode on website.

I wonder if you hilariously wrong lefties are gonna call David a far right winger for having concerns of population size, water and food security. And the impact that we are having on the rest world... Adding to the problems many of the poorest countries in the world are facing.

Click to expand...

With regards to population control, what have the Catholics ever done for us? Furthermore, what are the swathes of Christian fundamentalists doing for population control right now (with abortion bans spreading in the US anyway state by state)?

This is NOT a single-solution problem. I am perplexed as to why there is this laser focus on one specific area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back