inquirius

From what I've read, many terrorists and influential imams are actually aware of the history behind the relevant Western imperialism, particularly the Sykes-Picot Agreement, but they choose to primarily blame the US...which makes sense if you're aware that Israel has been the biggest benefactor of US military "aid." However, the SPA was a plan carried via the UK and France (Sykes = British diplomat, Picot = French diplomat) to divide up Palestine, so the original blame lies with with the British and French. Given that the US, France, and the UK have been arguably the main recipients of mainland terrorist attacks (Russia too), I think muslim terrorists are more aware of what their grievances are than the West gives them credit for. The problem with citing the evils of Western empires, however, is that Islam itself was the original aggressor against the West. Muslims invaded as far as France and enslaved whites from Anatolia. The Mongol Khans were mostly muslim as well and extorted Russian rulers for tribute for about five-hundred years, to mention nothing of the Chinese or Africa. Stefan I think has a video called the Truth about the Crusades which covers this in more detail, but suffice to say, Islam has always been a religion of aggression and Islamic theocracies only ever submit other countries which are more powerful than they are, and even then begrudgingly. Non-muslim nations need to recognize that Islam and its followers are a very serious threat. The Islamic doctrine of taqiya and its imperial history, which predates the West's, demand that non-muslims cannot trust muslims in any way, and should be vigilant against immigration of muslims and the possibility of war. And what Islam cannot accomplish through brute force, taqiya demands it accomplish through manipulation. The West, especially Germany and its traitorous excuse for a chancellor, need to wake up. Now.

A reasonable person acknowledges that rape is bad/wrong, so there is no moral debate here. The real question is whether a woman who dresses in a provocative manner increases her risk of being raped. The obvious answer is, yes. She chose to dress in a manner that she knows could increase her risk of rape. A woman owns her actions/choices unless she is severely mentally handicapped. Assuming that a woman is not severely mentally handicapped: Is it right to rape a woman (or anyone) ever? No. Is she responsible for the way she dresses? Yes. Is she then responsible for the increased risk of rape? Yes.

Address my exact arguments, or I will not have a discussion with you. I do not answer to strawmen.

Ultimately, you as a single mother have no reason to care whether or not a conflict of interest exists between your values and your actions, if you accept any government benefits for your position. In that case, you are the aggressor and use the threat of violence of the state to take what you need from other working citizens, like myself. I think I've said my piece; single mothers are low status, they lower the status of the men they date, they use the might and violence of the state to subsidize their terrible decisions, and they form the foundation for a society that is more violent and callous than before. Add in the potential for poor sex, and I don't see any redeeming factors as to why a single man with no children can, in informed conscience, date a single mom. Thinking with the big head instead of the little head is not very hard in this case.

Uh, sex can last pretty long with tight women, assuming you exercise some self control, and it's satisfying all the time. Do I really need to get into the visceral reasons of why tight women are more sexually satisfying than loose women? I mean, unless you're hung like a fire hose and literally can't have sex with normal birth canals, I don't see the appeal of loose vaginas. Who knows, maybe you're the next Jonah Falcon. Even if I accept your notion that there's value in attraction outside of reproduction, there's certainly none in being a single mom. Single moms in particular are immaturity, emotional sickness, and sexual negativity in action, because a woman with those reverse qualities would not put herself at risk for pregnancy with someone she either doesn't know well enough, or knows is unreliable. And Mahayana, part of the problem with this single mother based society is the exact fact that people are so easily forgiven for their past mistakes. Forgiveness means nothing to women in particular, because even making a massive, permanent screw up like being a single mom is forgivable in their mind, and that is because they do not empathize with the plight of their own child. Imagine that you are your child and consider if he or she would want to be in a single parent "family" or a real family. You say she's "very well provided for," but that's bullshit unless you are living with the father and the father is doing the job of being a father. And by the definition of being a single mother, that is not happening, and your child is not well provided for in that extremely important way. This isn't even touching upon the fact that single mothers are huge recipients of welfare and benefits, which is an act of aggression towards the citizens of whatever nation you happen to live in. Yet another evil that single mothers disproportionately commit, among so many others, and you all wonder why Stefan, I, and rational people view single mothers with such disdain.

If you want to know why being good is better than being bad, read the beginning of Plato's The Republic. I don't agree with everything Socrates says, but I think it's a solid, basic argument for good over bad.

No, it IS the case in your situation, and here's why: 1. You had sex with a man that your subconscious instincts lusted after, as most women do. 2. You had his child and he left. 3. Any man that fills that role is not only the wrong man for the job, but is demeaned and insulted to be supporting, in any way, a child that is not his own. Whether or not you were aware of the term I use is irrelevant, because it's the reality of your situation. ALL single mothers who date inherently lower the value of whoever they date because of the new man's relationship to the mother's child and because of the quality of sex. That is, even if you're dating just for sex, the common perception is that women who have given birth have looser vaginas than those who have not (exercises and age of motherhood determines how true that is). Be it a casual or long-term relationship, single mothers are lower value than women who are not single mothers. The only roughly fair deal would be the exact situation you say you aren't "thrilled about," i.e., "dating a man with kids." The fact that you say, "I am not thrilled at the thought of dating a man with kids," really proves to me that you consider yourself higher value than a man of the exact same circumstances, and that's misandry whether you intended it to be or not. The reality is that you are lower value than a single man with no children, which is why you are having a hard time finding single men with no children; you are about the same value as a single father, which is who you should really consider dating. And that is only if that single father proves himself to be a good person.

The problem is that even in an imagination land scenario where you have somehow attained perfect self-knowledge and virtue, the child you erroneously made with a now absent father still exists. You put yourself into an impossible situation where the male authority, empathy, and influence you need is the one you can't have and that's very destructive to your child. Frankly, you chose the "alpha f*cks, beta bucks" model of reproduction and came up snake eyes, so assuming you're honest to men (which is not the case if you're receiving any kind of government benefit for your situation), you should be invisible and untouchable to single men with dignity and self-knowledge. Maybe you consider that a rather harsh statement, but I'm a guy who has lacked a father my entire life, so I figure you should know exactly the kind of mental anguish women like yourself often bring upon your children. When I think about my dad, I feel like I'm being suffocated under a blanket of numbness that I can't claw out of. I don't think single moms need any more kid gloves than the ones the media uses to make them out to be superheroes, when the reality is that the vast majority are villains.

Upon further consideration of what actually constitutes a bad parent, I'll revise my position; I would accept complete social rejection of a bad parent, because a bad parent would have to be pretty heinous to be met with complete ostracism. This idea is a borderline tautology without elaboration, though, so I guess my real problem would be in the setting and implementation of a given standard of behavior. Standards already exist with regard to government CPS (child protection services) to a certain extent, but "soft" abuse like neglect and emotional abuse is often much harder to prove in court, especially given corruption (the UK in particular has this problem IIRC). Yes, experts agree on certain indicators of abuse, such as how certain drawings a child makes can indicate sexual abuse, but the field of child psychology is still rather new and arguably as much science as art in difficult cases. Stefan and the experts he interviews provide a good foundation, I just don't know how a non-statist system of child protection would exactly work, and I think we're too deep into the statist rabbit hole to make an effective transition until it collapses.

Alright, so here we come to the crux of my issue with ostracism; when you take ostracism to the extreme, such as a whole society banding together to deny rent to a bad parent, you come to a choice of moral sacrifice: 1. You can push the bad parent out of civilized society completely and risk them dying due to starvation, exposure, etc. or 2. You can accept the bad parent into society and risk the progeny posing a violent risk in the future, becoming a bad parent themself and the cycle continues Historically, society has chosen a gray area between these two choices, and I would defer to that choice. You can't guarantee that the child is going to be a certain way, and while a child might statistically be at risk of being violent, if you take away the moral agency of the child by forcing that child into a no shelter, no food, etc situation, aren't you a tyrant? Aren't you saying that the bad parent and its child has no right to live? Wouldn't that kind of desperation produce an even greater risk of violence? I can understand denying a bad parent the purchase of a weapon which serves no common non-violent purpose, but I would not want to live in a society in which you deny even bad parents the basic ability to survive.

Ok, I can understand that argument if you're an arms dealership and you're aware that a potential customer is a bad parent; that transaction carries a risk of violence that is largely assuaged through a good reputation. I do not agree with that argument outside of deals that have a risk of violence, however. Selling someone a candy bar does not carry the same moral consideration as selling someone a gun.

Why would a person refuse to do business with another person because the latter person is a bad parent?

The gynocentricism of society has certainly done a wonderful job of manipulating the brains of men to accept an otherwise totally unacceptable situation such as young man dating a middle age single mom. No man in his right mind would ever subject himself to such a position of cuckoldry. Disgusting.

I am a law student and currently I'm interested in government schools and the impact of integration of the races. After reading the majority opinion of Chief Justice Warren, I was surprised to find that the argument (for the desegregation of races) is not very compelling for such a landmark case, and that current data does not support Warren's argument. I'd like to share some of my thoughts and I encourage others to share theirs as well. I'd like to remind everyone who does not already know, that Brown v. Board of Education is a reversal of previous case law established in Plessy v. Ferguson, which essentially states that segregating the races in the public schools is constitutional. I believe Stefan covers some of the history of racial integration in his videos, and they are a great source for general information as well. To begin, I'd like to provide the following source for Warren's opinion itself; https://www.princeton.edu/~ereading/Brown1.pdf My analysis of the opinion: 1. Warren first establishes the compelling government interest in maintaining a standard of equality in government schools. He states that, “education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments,” and that an individual’s success and good citizenship depend upon a good education. My response: I fully agree that a government should ensure the efficacy of its tax livestock. 2. Warren quickly moves to his primary argument that even with equal amenities, separating the races within public schools results in inequality for the black student. He states, "to separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." To complete his point, he furthermore wrties, “segregation of white and colored children in the public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system.” My response: So, Warren's argument boils down to three essential points; 1. Segregated schools cause a feeling of inferiority in specifically the black student. 2. This feeling of inferiority negatively affects the motivation of the black student. 3. This lack of motivation permanently impedes a black student's ability to succeed. While I doubt that C.J. Warren intends his argument to be inherently racist, I would argue that, ironically, it is. Given that his argument mentions specifically that segregation negatively affects a black student and makes no mention that a white student is negatively affected, there must be an inherently better standard, given the same quality of amenities, of white schools over black schools. That's a rather damning judgment of the ability of black education to compete with white education. Furthermore, what about the interests of the white student? The implication of Warren's statement is that, as white schools are better than black schools given the same opportunity to compete, to force the association of whites with blacks would result in a disadvantage for whites in the same manner as it would result in the advantage to blacks. As Warren gives no voice to the whites in this equation, he completely discards the freedom of association established via the First Amendment that allows the people to peaceably assemble with whoever they choose. Warren's argument is not only racist (against both races), it's unconstitutional. Finally, if the unconstitutionality of his opinion is not convincing, maybe the some current data about achievement and race is. Sources: https://www.russellsage.org/sites/all/files/Fischer_Hout_Tables%20Figures.pdf , http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/amid-affirmative-action-ruling-some-data-on-race-and-college-enrollment-1328/ If Warren's opinion was at least correct in that black students would benefit in achievement to the level of whites given racially integrated schools, maybe the trampling on of the First Amendment rights of whites could be in some way justified...but it's completely wrong, and that data (as well as others) proves that. You would expect generations of blacks to have an equal level of achievement following the implementation of integrated schools and it's simply not there. Simply put, at best, a persistent gap between black achievement and white achievement exists regardless of civil rights legislation and judicial opinion. As a white man and student, I therefore see absolutely no benefit to the integration of the races and in fact, given the extremely anti-white sentiment in academia today, I see only a psychological disadvantage to myself in a way not entirely dissimilar to the feelings of inferiority that Judge Warren assumed plagued blacks during segregation. Modern violent black riots, police assassinations, the BLM movement, the calling of white academic heads to step down, and the overall terrible relations between the races today serve as a stunning indictment that a supposed black inferiority complex still exists, and despite educational favoritism towards blacks via quotas. In summation, the great irony is that this landmark case was established to give psychological relief and equal educational attainment to blacks, and not only achieved neither by any measure, but in fact laid the foundation for poor race relations and significant psychological distress for whites. I welcome debate and discussion, thanks.

Well right, just in the context of video games I mean.

Video games are fine, as long as they aren't being used to replace parenting. For as bad as some parents say video games are, they're perfectly willing to put their kids in front of video games for indeterminate amounts of time, go do something they actually want to do and neglect the kid, and then blame or harass their kid about playing too many video games when they return from their night out or whatever. Parents using video games as electronic babysitters is the real problem. The reality is, if they were doing any kind of decent job as a parent, their kid wouldn't want to play video games so much.

I recently tried doing this and it turned extremely nasty pretty quickly. My mother either explodes into abusive nonsense or runs away and retreats into her magical world of Christianity where she can rationalize everything she does, can do no wrong and pretend that some nameless entity loves her for no reason. Or even better, she puts a knife to her stomach and/or threatens to kill herself in various ways, which of course allows her to reassert power over the conversation immediately. Unfortunately, if you're dealing with a truly sick mind, I don't there can be closure outside of completely cutting off all communication. Especially for people who believe they serve a "higher power," reason is the enemy.