So the police and the governments in Europe are just trying to keep Muslim violence quiet. Otherwise the backlash will be likely real, and t… morehe last thing a lot of European leaders want are far right wing groups gaining political power again.
So what you say is hide Muslim crimes, and bleach the record and pretend it never happened so the right wing don't come into power again? Are you aware that's exactly what is empowering far right radicals right now? The fact that the government is so desperately trying to protect the rapists, murderers and thieves while at the same time arresting a guy for wearing a pig's hat is the very fuel for their narrative. What goverment should do is to put a halt to those things and put the guilty ones in jail regardless of who they are. That way the so scary right wing radicals would lost the support of the common people because they would see that the goverment is not playing favors with the migrants.
B… [view original content]
Ever since the collation of crime statistics was initiated by the Council of Europe, Sweden has had the highest number of registered rape offences in Europe by a considerable extent. In 1996, Sweden registered almost three times the average number of rape offences registered in 35 European countries.
Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States.
So covering up the problem for years only made problem worse
Ok now this is freaking me out this is my last comment on this
Which caused a Dominantly SA organized Riot against Jewish Business and homes within Germany that became known as the Night of the Broken Glass.
"Caused"? You must be joking, Kamerad. I'm not sure if you're quite aware of the situation of Jews in in 1938. Here, let me help you with that.
Meanwhile, the position of the Grynszpan family in Hanover was becoming increasingly precarious. Sendel's business was declining, and Herschel's siblings both lost their jobs. In August 1938 the German authorities announced that all residence permits for foreigners were being cancelled and would have to be renewed. This was in reaction to a Polish decree which was to take away the Polish citizenship of Jews living outside the country, including those in Germany. A few days before that decree was to come into force, on 26 October, the Gestapo was ordered to arrest and deport all Polish Jews residing in Germany immediately. The Grynszpan family was among the estimated 12,000 Polish Jews arrested, stripped of their property, and herded aboard trains headed for Poland. At the trial of Adolf Eichmann, Sendel Grynszpan recounted the events of their deportation on the night of 27 October 1938: "Then they took us in police trucks, in prisoners’ lorries, about 20 men in each truck, and they took us to the railway station. The streets were full of people shouting: "Juden raus! Aus nach Palästina!" ("Out with the Jews! Off to Palestine!").
When they reached the border, they were forced to walk 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) to the Polish border town of Zbąszyń (Bentschen, in German). Poland refused to admit them at first as the Sanation regime had no desire to receive the Jews whom it had just stripped of their Polish citizenship. The expulsions only stopped when the Polish government threatened to start expelling members of Poland's Volksdeutsche (ethnic German) minority into Germany. The Grynszpans and thousands of other Polish-Jewish deportees stranded at the border were fed by the Polish Red Cross. Conditions for the hapless refugees trapped out in the open on the German-Polish frontier were extremely bad. A British woman who went to work with the Red Cross in providing help reported: "I found thousands crowded together in pigsties. The old, the sick and children herded together in the most inhumane conditions."[13] Life there was so bad, she continued "that some actually tried to escape back to Germany and were shot". It was from Zbąszyn that his sister Berta sent a postcard to Herschel in Paris, recounting what had happened and, in a line that was crossed out, apparently pleading for help. The postcard was dated 31 October and reached Herschel on Thursday, 3 November.
On the evening of Sunday, 6 November 1938, Grynszpan asked his uncle Abraham to send money to his family. Abraham said he had little to spare, and that he was incurring both financial cost and legal risks by harbouring his nephew, an undocumented alien and unemployed youth. There was a furious scene, and Herschel walked out of his uncle's house carrying only about 300 francs. He spent the night in a cheap hotel. On the morning of 7 November, Grynszpan wrote a farewell postcard to his parents, which he put in a pocket. He went to a gunshop in the Rue du Faubourg St Martin, where he bought a 6.35mm revolver and a box of 25 bullets for 235 francs. He caught the metro to the Solférino station and walked to the German Embassy at 78 Rue de Lille. It is generally believed that Grynszpan wanted to assassinate Count Johannes von Welczeck, the German ambassador to France. While entering the embassy, Grynszpan walked by the exiting Count von Welczeck, who went out for a walk on the Paris streets every morning. At 09:45 am at the Embassy reception desk, Grynszpan represented himself as a German resident and asked to see an Embassy official; he did not ask for anyone by name (an important point in the light of later events). Grynszpan claimed to be some sort of spy who had very important intelligence, which he had to hand over to the most senior diplomat available, preferably the ambassador. Unaware that he had just walked past Count von Welczeck, Grynszpan asked if he could see "His Excellency, the ambassador", to hand over the "most important document" he claimed to have. The clerk on duty asked Ernst vom Rath, the more junior of the two Embassy officials available, to see him. When Grynszpan entered vom Rath's office, Rath asked to see the "most important document". Instead, Grynszpan pulled out his gun and shot vom Rath, five times in the abdomen. According to the French police account, he shouted "You're a filthy boche" and that he acted in the name of 12,000 persecuted Jews.
Grynszpan made no attempt to resist or escape, and identified himself correctly to the French police. He confessed to shooting vom Rath (who was in critical condition in a hospital), and again said that his motive for doing so was to avenge the persecuted Jews. In his pocket was the postcard to his parents. It said: "With God's help. My dear parents, I could not do otherwise, may God forgive me, the heart bleeds when I hear of your tragedy and that of the 12,000 Jews. I must protest so that the whole world hears my protest, and that I will do. Forgive me. Hermann [his German name]"
This murder was just a pretext, an excuse for the Nazis to do what they had wanted to do for a long time anyway.
Something like that was bound to happen, it was deliberately provoked. Surely you'd go quietly when all your folks are systematically wiped out?
The US certainly didn't help out much. They didn't want to take any Jews in because they were afraid there could be German terrorists among them.
I think people are afraid to become Nazi stereotypes. Being the Nazis used such events to arrest and lock up millions of people though. De… morespite contrary belief there were some Jews who took the Nazi movement on, violently. A Great irony to history a Jewish Extremist for example assassinated a German Diplomat in Paris in 1938. Which caused a Dominantly SA organized Riot against Jewish Business and homes within Germany that became known as the Night of the Broken Glass. Not surprisingly Jewish historians leave the Assassination part out often when talking about the Nazi's crimes against the Jewish people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_vom_Rath
That being said, there is a reason I'm glad some people try to remember those little things that get left out of the history books. Because you can run parallels with current events. Extremist who act out violently against Muslims, the fear mongering that exist within Western World towards… [view original content]
The German governments cover up of the sexual assaults in cologne because not PC to ever highlight anything bad about the recent influx immigrants I remember reading somewhere Merkel german PM her getting re-elected would be in serious doubt if anything bad about the immigrants she let in came out so it was covered up
No governmental hand was in the police's cover up of the Cologne incidents and Merkel's re-election is mainly in doubt because her governing style is based on having no plan at all.
We don't have a problem with journalists chosing to not report on immigrant crime; we have a problem with journalists and others reporting complete bullshit about it.
(Website collects and disproves rumors/reports about refugee and immigrant crime. There's quite a bit of that crap. Evidently some people think the media isn't reporting enough crimes of foreigners, so they're making something up.)
Getting criticism for unpopular opinion is normal I heard quote recently I can't remember who said it but stuck with me. If a belief can't t… moreake criticism it's not a belief but an opinion who cares if you get hate the world is not a safe space for everyone.
For me real danger is trying to censor and cover up views and opinions not letting people have a voice
Like what really grinds my gears recently
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12085182/Cover-up-over-Cologne-sex-assaults-blamed-on-migration-sensitivities.html
The German governments cover up of the sexual assaults in cologne because not PC to ever highlight anything bad about the recent influx immigrants I remember reading somewhere Merkel german PM her getting re-elected would be in serious doubt if anything bad about the immigrants she let in came out so it was covered up
… [view original content]
Which caused a Dominantly SA organized Riot against Jewish Business and homes within Germany that became known as the Night of the Broken Gl… moreass.
"Caused"? You must be joking, Kamerad. I'm not sure if you're quite aware of the situation of Jews in in 1938. Here, let me help you with that.
Meanwhile, the position of the Grynszpan family in Hanover was becoming increasingly precarious. Sendel's business was declining, and Herschel's siblings both lost their jobs. In August 1938 the German authorities announced that all residence permits for foreigners were being cancelled and would have to be renewed. This was in reaction to a Polish decree which was to take away the Polish citizenship of Jews living outside the country, including those in Germany. A few days before that decree was to come into force, on 26 October, the Gestapo was ordered to arrest and deport all Polish Jews residing in Germany immediately. The Grynszpan family wa… [view original content]
Sounds like "reporters" being reporters. Take what juicy information you can and sell news papers before you know whether it is true or not. That can land you in jail in some countries. Called "False" reporting. But when so many collectively do it at once, it's kind of hard to punish people for false reporting.
Personally such reports are not a big deal as long as the reporters and news papers hosting the articles make it clear that it isn't fact, but rumors, and hear say, and make sure the readers "Know" that it likely is rather than fact. Tragically, that often doesn't happen. If you believe the local police and government are covering it up, make sure you let the viewer/readers know the writer's opinion is that an "Opinion."
The German governments cover up of the sexual assaults in cologne because not PC to ever highlight anything bad about the recent influx immi… moregrants I remember reading somewhere Merkel german PM her getting re-elected would be in serious doubt if anything bad about the immigrants she let in came out so it was covered up
No governmental hand was in the police's cover up of the Cologne incidents and Merkel's re-election is mainly in doubt because her governing style is based on having no plan at all.
We don't have a problem with journalists chosing to not report on immigrant crime; we have a problem with journalists and others reporting complete bullshit about it.
http://hoaxmap.org/
(Website collects and disproves rumors/reports about refugee and immigrant crime. There's quite a bit of that crap. Evidently some people think the media isn't reporting enough crimes of foreigners, so they're making something up.)
Sweden
I just googled them to find out latest news
http://www.thelocal.se/20160227/daily-mail-runs-campaign-against-sweden
Now… more attempting to censor other countries criticism of them
http://www.thelocal.se/20160227/im-going-to-die-swedish-girl-tells-of-life-under-isis
One of their citizens gets impregnated and kidnapped by isis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden
Ever since the collation of crime statistics was initiated by the Council of Europe, Sweden has had the highest number of registered rape offences in Europe by a considerable extent. In 1996, Sweden registered almost three times the average number of rape offences registered in 35 European countries.
http://www.dailystormer.com/immigration-has-made-sweden-the-rape-capital-of-the-world/
Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United Stat… [view original content]
I didn't say that I agree with everything those Youtubers say. I simply pointed out that they address the specific points of the people they're critiquing. Go back and look at Sargon's older videos, and you'll see that he'll play a clip from the video he's responding to, and then address what was said in that particular clip. And Mundane Matt will usually show the article he's talking about on screen and read out certain segments of it. You can't make a meaningful critique if you don't address the point.
Which caused a Dominantly SA organized Riot against Jewish Business and homes within Germany that became known as the Night of the Broken Gl… moreass.
"Caused"? You must be joking, Kamerad. I'm not sure if you're quite aware of the situation of Jews in in 1938. Here, let me help you with that.
Meanwhile, the position of the Grynszpan family in Hanover was becoming increasingly precarious. Sendel's business was declining, and Herschel's siblings both lost their jobs. In August 1938 the German authorities announced that all residence permits for foreigners were being cancelled and would have to be renewed. This was in reaction to a Polish decree which was to take away the Polish citizenship of Jews living outside the country, including those in Germany. A few days before that decree was to come into force, on 26 October, the Gestapo was ordered to arrest and deport all Polish Jews residing in Germany immediately. The Grynszpan family wa… [view original content]
That's fine I guess. Just seems like you're parroting their views a bit. Can't speak on the other two, but Sargon of Akkad is a big-time quote miner and scammed his fans on Kickstarter. He gets paid to be sensationalist and clickbaity.
No offense, but getting your political philosophy from YouTube pundits is little better than getting it from the back of a cereal box.
I didn't say that I agree with everything those Youtubers say. I simply pointed out that they address the specific points of the people they… more're critiquing. Go back and look at Sargon's older videos, and you'll see that he'll play a clip from the video he's responding to, and then address what was said in that particular clip. And Mundane Matt will usually show the article he's talking about on screen and read out certain segments of it. You can't make a meaningful critique if you don't address the point.
American society has greater morals than the ones presented in the bible. We don't kill people for working on the sabbath, where is the outcry from the zealots over that?
That's fine I guess. Just seems like you're parroting their views a bit. Can't speak on the other two, but Sargon of Akkad is a big-time q… moreuote miner and scammed his fans on Kickstarter. He gets paid to be sensationalist and clickbaity.
No offense, but getting your political philosophy from YouTube pundits is little better than getting it from the back of a cereal box.
Well, while it's true that some ''internet progressives'' (aka SJW) don't know where to draw the line, most religious conservatives (if not all) want to force their own beliefs on other people, such as homosexuals. It's okay if you don't support the act of two men/women getting married, you don't have to, but if you try to deny their RIGHT of doing so, then I don't see why you shouldn't be considered a ''bigot''. You CAN be morally against gay marriage and still be in favor of the legalization. Otherwise, you're just shoving your own beliefs down their throaths.
You don't necessarily even have to be for it, you can just shrug it off as an inevitability. There were a lot of prominent conservative celebrities who were against gay marriage, but stopped talking out against it after the Supreme Court ruling legalizing it. They still didn't support it, but they figured what's done is done, and they were able to move on.
As long as there is still freedom of religion, the legalization of gay marriage won't affect you if you're not gay or bisexual, as you are still free to attend a church that interprets its religious texts to not allow the marriage of gay couples. Just as Orthodox Jewish churches can still refuse to marry a Christian person to a Jewish person, a church can refuse to marry gay couples. This legislation isn't going to change any of that.
Freedom of religion isn't going anywhere in the United States. Despite what some pundits say, there is no "slippery slope" that is going to force churches to perform ceremonies they don't believe in. If there was such a thing, the Orthodox Jewish churches would have been forced to marry Christian people to Jewish people when the civil rights laws were put into place in the 1960s.
Well, while it's true that some ''internet progressives'' (aka SJW) don't know where to draw the line, most religious conservatives (if not … moreall) want to force their own beliefs on other people, such as homosexuals. It's okay if you don't support the act of two men/women getting married, you don't have to, but if you try to deny their RIGHT of doing so, then I don't see why you shouldn't be considered a ''bigot''. You CAN be morally against gay marriage and still be in favor of the legalization. Otherwise, you're just shoving your own beliefs down their throaths.
It doesn't make sense to me either but I personally think it's a horrible attitude to dislike people based on visual interpretation rather than substance but I don't want to sound like I'm telling people who have opposing opinions as me as being wrong. I personally don't think it's okay to dislike something on the basis of 'just because' but I can't really force an opinion on someone, especially if they keep it to themselves. It would be a nicer world in my opinion if people didn't dislike others based on things they can't change about themselves.
Well said. But it just doesn't make sense to me those that don't like women/dark skinned people/etc 'just because'. There's no real reason and I just see ignorance, but I get you and mostly agree.
Should people who don't want others to have basic human rights based on beliefs be called 'Social Justice Warriors'? Because I personally don't see any kind of Social Justice, it's more so Religious Justice.
Well, while it's true that some ''internet progressives'' (aka SJW) don't know where to draw the line, most religious conservatives (if not … moreall) want to force their own beliefs on other people, such as homosexuals. It's okay if you don't support the act of two men/women getting married, you don't have to, but if you try to deny their RIGHT of doing so, then I don't see why you shouldn't be considered a ''bigot''. You CAN be morally against gay marriage and still be in favor of the legalization. Otherwise, you're just shoving your own beliefs down their throaths.
And even if we're not dealing with the local clerk refusing marriage certificates, it is still the principles people vote on. So yes, those kinds of positions do hurt people.
That's just the price of being able to vote freely.
That's pretty much the context the OP is referring to, namely being against gay marriage. And even if we're not dealing with the local clerk… more refusing marriage certificates, it is still the principles people vote on. So yes, those kinds of positions do hurt people.
To reference your post above - there is a difference between strongly advocating against a position and forcing it out. You're not using law or coercion, but reason, and perhaps even ridicule (which honestly, is pointing out inconsistencies of logic).
Freedom of speech is not about believing what you want, it's about people being able to hold those thoughts and beliefs without fear of legal (and I would advocate economic) repercussion, the whole point of which is based on the Enlightenment ideal that free speech is the cornerstone of free debate, and through that debate the truth will ultimately come out, even if there is a temporary setback. It's not a relativist 'oh gee, wha… [view original content]
I know what you mean about people having no respect for tradition, because when I was doing human sacrifices to the Allfather at a blót I was holding, some people got really bent out of shape.
You are referencing a 2000 year old text. No sane religious person uses the Bible as their entire moral compass. You should read it and you may get a better understanding. The Bible never once states it's morally okay to kill.
Quote me wrong, because even if you can, you are still using a 2000 year old text as a basis for your point on a modern society.
American society has greater morals than the ones presented in the bible. We don't kill people for working on the sabbath, where is the outcry from the zealots over that?
I don't believe in going to heaven when you die. I've just never believed in it! I believe that when we die, that's it.
And as far as going to hell I don't believe in that either. My reason for not believing in Hells because I've always heard it said that human beings are God's children, and I've always asked myself: "What kind of loving father, (and God is all loving), would stick his son or daughter's hand in a fire to punish them for something they did wrong? If a loving human father wouldn't do so, than why would God, who is the creator of man?"
Wow, that was... unexpected. Pardon me for mischaracterizing your views.
My advice, never read The Bible, it will completely screw with your idea of God.
Though that leaves a good number of questions, namely the question of Evil, and perhaps more importantly, a sort of modified Pascal's Wager - if there is no damnation, and therefore now salvation, but only the human world, why should we follow God's laws, supposing for the sake of argument that God does exist?
I don't believe in going to heaven when you die. I've just never believed in it! I believe that when we die, that's it.
And as far as goi… moreng to hell I don't believe in that either. My reason for not believing in Hells because I've always heard it said that human beings are God's children, and I've always asked myself: "What kind of loving father, (and God is all loving), would stick his son or daughter's hand in a fire to punish them for something they did wrong? If a loving human father wouldn't do so, than why would God, who is the creator of man?"
You are referencing a 2000 year old text. No sane religious person uses the Bible as their entire moral compass. You should read it and you … moremay get a better understanding. The Bible never once states it's morally okay to kill.
Quote me wrong, because even if you can, you are still using a 2000 year old text as a basis for your point on a modern society.
Should people who don't want others to have basic human rights based on beliefs be called 'Social Justice Warriors'? Because I personally don't see any kind of Social Justice, it's more so Religious Justice.
I think the problem with Tradition is people much rather live with an "American" tradition which is easily up for debate on what is "American." Personally the USA's concept of Tradition is actually the adoption of traditions of all the varied cultures/people who have come here over our nations entire history. So those who's families have lived here for a few generations automatically say this is the American way of life, and anyone new who comes here must adapt to it. But the issue being the US has had a tradition to adapting to the people who move here, not the other way around. The only reason it worked so well for so long was because people and immigrants had the ability to build their own communities, but now the available land is drying up and it's considerably harder for a large immigrant group to move to the USA without moving into areas already occupied by another group of people. Which causes scorn.
I mean I live an a dominantly Irish and German area of Illinois and we celebrate a lot of local festivals and holidays not celebrated by the rest of the country. If I drive far enough north I will run into area which was prominently settled by Scandinavians for example. List goes on and on.
That being said. As an American I'm all for new cultures coming to the USA, because that is part of our tradition, part of our history to do so. I personally would hate to see it ruin ancient parts of the world however which have long deep histories spanning thousands of Years. I do not like the idea of Europeans moving to Asia, or Arabs moving to Europe. etc etc etc.
I know what you mean about people having no respect for tradition, because when I was doing human sacrifices to the Allfather at a blót I was holding, some people got really bent out of shape.
I was referencing exodus, which is from an even older book, but thank you for actually getting my point. Why are people using millenia-old books to justify their social and political views and just outright ignoring the parts of the same books they don't like?
You are referencing a 2000 year old text. No sane religious person uses the Bible as their entire moral compass. You should read it and you … moremay get a better understanding. The Bible never once states it's morally okay to kill.
Quote me wrong, because even if you can, you are still using a 2000 year old text as a basis for your point on a modern society.
I was referencing exodus, which is from an even older book, but thank you for actually getting my point. Why are people using millenia-old … morebooks to justify their social and political views and just outright ignoring the parts of the same books they don't like?
Wait no...the point is that a lot of morals don't apply to a modern society whereas others do. Basic ones such as 'kindness' are present in the Bible and of course are expected in society, things like murder isn't 'ignored' because people don't like it, it's because it's not used in the context of what God is trying to teach Christians. It's simply used because the Bible was written by over 20 different people and the history was vastly different. I hope that makes sense.
Can you provide some examples? Only if you want to discuss haha.
You can believe what you want, but if your belief involves any form of discrimination against people who can't control who they are, then no, I'm not going to respect your belief.
I know someone who shared a picture on Facebook of a gay person in Russia getting kicked in public because he was holding a LGBT flag. He posted a caption saying that he approves that Russia "doesn't accept fags" and "this is what happens to faggots in Russia." I commented my surprise and disapproval of such a close-minded and hateful comment and someone called me a hypocrite because I didn't respect his "beliefs". If you believe something like that is okay, then I'm not going to respect you, case closed.
I know someone who shared a picture on Facebook of a gay person in Russia getting kicked in public because he was holding a LGBT flag. He po… morested a caption saying that he approves that Russia "doesn't accept fags" and "this is what happens to faggots in Russia." I commented my surprise and disapproval of such a close-minded and hateful comment and someone called me a hypocrite because I didn't respect his "beliefs". If you believe something like that is okay, then I'm not going to respect you, case closed.
I know someone who shared a picture on Facebook of a gay person in Russia getting kicked in public because he was holding a LGBT flag. He po… morested a caption saying that he approves that Russia "doesn't accept fags" and "this is what happens to faggots in Russia." I commented my surprise and disapproval of such a close-minded and hateful comment and someone called me a hypocrite because I didn't respect his "beliefs". If you believe something like that is okay, then I'm not going to respect you, case closed.
Sure, if that's how you wanna look at it. I'm not going to respect those kinds of beliefs, and neither will a lot of people. If you support the physical hurting of someone or something that doesn't affect you in any way, like homosexuals, then no, I'm not gonna be okay with that. And yes, that does make me a better person than them because I'm not the one supporting physical violence.
Wait no...the point is that a lot of morals don't apply to a modern society whereas others do. Basic ones such as 'kindness' are present in … morethe Bible and of course are expected in society, things like murder isn't 'ignored' because people don't like it, it's because it's not used in the context of what God is trying to teach Christians. It's simply used because the Bible was written by over 20 different people and the history was vastly different. I hope that makes sense.
Can you provide some examples? Only if you want to discuss haha.
You sound like you're for the Bible as well as being against it, on one hand, you agree with me. But then you say "just outright ignoring the parts of the same books they don't like?", like you don't like the fact people 'pick and choose' what they believe in it (which isn't true if you read it). That's what it sounds like anyway, I have no idea if you are with or against me haha. Maybe i'm just confused. I'll narrow it down, are you Christian? Or other? That will most likely make me understand instantly.
Okay I see the problem, and I'm not having a theology debate with you. No one ever gains anything from those. I will jusy say I disagree with you in regards to people picking and choosing what parts of the bible the will and will not follow. But this is likely due to it being written and/or translated in a way that makes it difficult to know if a certain passage is to be taken literally. I think you already touched on it being written thousands of years ago by multiple people so I hope this comment won't cause further confusion.
You sound like you're for the Bible as well as being against it, on one hand, you agree with me. But then you say "just outright ignoring th… moree parts of the same books they don't like?", like you don't like the fact people 'pick and choose' what they believe in it (which isn't true if you read it). That's what it sounds like anyway, I have no idea if you are with or against me haha. Maybe i'm just confused. I'll narrow it down, are you Christian? Or other? That will most likely make me understand instantly.
Comments
Don't worry, the progressive feminist left will never lose it's grip on Sweden.
You're probably right Sweden is lost anyways... Ragnar must roll in his grave...
I just googled them to find out latest news
http://www.thelocal.se/20160227/daily-mail-runs-campaign-against-sweden
Now attempting to censor other countries criticism of them
http://www.thelocal.se/20160227/im-going-to-die-swedish-girl-tells-of-life-under-isis
One of their citizens gets impregnated and kidnapped by isis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden
http://www.dailystormer.com/immigration-has-made-sweden-the-rape-capital-of-the-world/
So covering up the problem for years only made problem worse
Ok now this is freaking me out this is my last comment on this
"Caused"? You must be joking, Kamerad. I'm not sure if you're quite aware of the situation of Jews in in 1938. Here, let me help you with that.
This murder was just a pretext, an excuse for the Nazis to do what they had wanted to do for a long time anyway.
Something like that was bound to happen, it was deliberately provoked. Surely you'd go quietly when all your folks are systematically wiped out?
The US certainly didn't help out much. They didn't want to take any Jews in because they were afraid there could be German terrorists among them.
History repeats.
I guess the fun ends when you deny a large group of people rather elementary rights for no other reason than "it's always been this way".
No governmental hand was in the police's cover up of the Cologne incidents and Merkel's re-election is mainly in doubt because her governing style is based on having no plan at all.
We don't have a problem with journalists chosing to not report on immigrant crime; we have a problem with journalists and others reporting complete bullshit about it.
http://hoaxmap.org/
(Website collects and disproves rumors/reports about refugee and immigrant crime. There's quite a bit of that crap. Evidently some people think the media isn't reporting enough crimes of foreigners, so they're making something up.)
I think you got the point exactly but missed my saying it completely.
Sounds like "reporters" being reporters. Take what juicy information you can and sell news papers before you know whether it is true or not. That can land you in jail in some countries. Called "False" reporting. But when so many collectively do it at once, it's kind of hard to punish people for false reporting.
Personally such reports are not a big deal as long as the reporters and news papers hosting the articles make it clear that it isn't fact, but rumors, and hear say, and make sure the readers "Know" that it likely is rather than fact. Tragically, that often doesn't happen. If you believe the local police and government are covering it up, make sure you let the viewer/readers know the writer's opinion is that an "Opinion."
Yay for multikulti and tolerance, I hope they are happy in their culture rich paradise!
I didn't say that I agree with everything those Youtubers say. I simply pointed out that they address the specific points of the people they're critiquing. Go back and look at Sargon's older videos, and you'll see that he'll play a clip from the video he's responding to, and then address what was said in that particular clip. And Mundane Matt will usually show the article he's talking about on screen and read out certain segments of it. You can't make a meaningful critique if you don't address the point.
Zbaszyn
That's fine I guess. Just seems like you're parroting their views a bit. Can't speak on the other two, but Sargon of Akkad is a big-time quote miner and scammed his fans on Kickstarter. He gets paid to be sensationalist and clickbaity.
No offense, but getting your political philosophy from YouTube pundits is little better than getting it from the back of a cereal box.
But doesn't that group in itself denies the rights of people within it's own group?
American society has greater morals than the ones presented in the bible. We don't kill people for working on the sabbath, where is the outcry from the zealots over that?
I don't get it from them. I watch them because I agree with quite a bit of what they say.
Well, while it's true that some ''internet progressives'' (aka SJW) don't know where to draw the line, most religious conservatives (if not all) want to force their own beliefs on other people, such as homosexuals. It's okay if you don't support the act of two men/women getting married, you don't have to, but if you try to deny their RIGHT of doing so, then I don't see why you shouldn't be considered a ''bigot''. You CAN be morally against gay marriage and still be in favor of the legalization. Otherwise, you're just shoving your own beliefs down their throaths.
You don't necessarily even have to be for it, you can just shrug it off as an inevitability. There were a lot of prominent conservative celebrities who were against gay marriage, but stopped talking out against it after the Supreme Court ruling legalizing it. They still didn't support it, but they figured what's done is done, and they were able to move on.
As long as there is still freedom of religion, the legalization of gay marriage won't affect you if you're not gay or bisexual, as you are still free to attend a church that interprets its religious texts to not allow the marriage of gay couples. Just as Orthodox Jewish churches can still refuse to marry a Christian person to a Jewish person, a church can refuse to marry gay couples. This legislation isn't going to change any of that.
Freedom of religion isn't going anywhere in the United States. Despite what some pundits say, there is no "slippery slope" that is going to force churches to perform ceremonies they don't believe in. If there was such a thing, the Orthodox Jewish churches would have been forced to marry Christian people to Jewish people when the civil rights laws were put into place in the 1960s.
It doesn't make sense to me either but I personally think it's a horrible attitude to dislike people based on visual interpretation rather than substance but I don't want to sound like I'm telling people who have opposing opinions as me as being wrong. I personally don't think it's okay to dislike something on the basis of 'just because' but I can't really force an opinion on someone, especially if they keep it to themselves. It would be a nicer world in my opinion if people didn't dislike others based on things they can't change about themselves.
Should people who don't want others to have basic human rights based on beliefs be called 'Social Justice Warriors'? Because I personally don't see any kind of Social Justice, it's more so Religious Justice.
That's just the price of being able to vote freely.
I know what you mean about people having no respect for tradition, because when I was doing human sacrifices to the Allfather at a blót I was holding, some people got really bent out of shape.
You are referencing a 2000 year old text. No sane religious person uses the Bible as their entire moral compass. You should read it and you may get a better understanding. The Bible never once states it's morally okay to kill.
Quote me wrong, because even if you can, you are still using a 2000 year old text as a basis for your point on a modern society.
I don't believe in going to heaven when you die. I've just never believed in it! I believe that when we die, that's it.
And as far as going to hell I don't believe in that either. My reason for not believing in Hells because I've always heard it said that human beings are God's children, and I've always asked myself: "What kind of loving father, (and God is all loving), would stick his son or daughter's hand in a fire to punish them for something they did wrong? If a loving human father wouldn't do so, than why would God, who is the creator of man?"
Wow, that was... unexpected. Pardon me for mischaracterizing your views.
My advice, never read The Bible, it will completely screw with your idea of God.
Though that leaves a good number of questions, namely the question of Evil, and perhaps more importantly, a sort of modified Pascal's Wager - if there is no damnation, and therefore now salvation, but only the human world, why should we follow God's laws, supposing for the sake of argument that God does exist?
I think Chewy was being sarcastic.
Uh, what? I think you misunderstood what I said.
I think the problem with Tradition is people much rather live with an "American" tradition which is easily up for debate on what is "American." Personally the USA's concept of Tradition is actually the adoption of traditions of all the varied cultures/people who have come here over our nations entire history. So those who's families have lived here for a few generations automatically say this is the American way of life, and anyone new who comes here must adapt to it. But the issue being the US has had a tradition to adapting to the people who move here, not the other way around. The only reason it worked so well for so long was because people and immigrants had the ability to build their own communities, but now the available land is drying up and it's considerably harder for a large immigrant group to move to the USA without moving into areas already occupied by another group of people. Which causes scorn.
I mean I live an a dominantly Irish and German area of Illinois and we celebrate a lot of local festivals and holidays not celebrated by the rest of the country. If I drive far enough north I will run into area which was prominently settled by Scandinavians for example. List goes on and on.
That being said. As an American I'm all for new cultures coming to the USA, because that is part of our tradition, part of our history to do so. I personally would hate to see it ruin ancient parts of the world however which have long deep histories spanning thousands of Years. I do not like the idea of Europeans moving to Asia, or Arabs moving to Europe. etc etc etc.
I was referencing exodus, which is from an even older book, but thank you for actually getting my point. Why are people using millenia-old books to justify their social and political views and just outright ignoring the parts of the same books they don't like?
My stupid mistake haha. I agree then
Wait no...the point is that a lot of morals don't apply to a modern society whereas others do. Basic ones such as 'kindness' are present in the Bible and of course are expected in society, things like murder isn't 'ignored' because people don't like it, it's because it's not used in the context of what God is trying to teach Christians. It's simply used because the Bible was written by over 20 different people and the history was vastly different. I hope that makes sense.
Can you provide some examples? Only if you want to discuss haha.
You can believe what you want, but if your belief involves any form of discrimination against people who can't control who they are, then no, I'm not going to respect your belief.
I know someone who shared a picture on Facebook of a gay person in Russia getting kicked in public because he was holding a LGBT flag. He posted a caption saying that he approves that Russia "doesn't accept fags" and "this is what happens to faggots in Russia." I commented my surprise and disapproval of such a close-minded and hateful comment and someone called me a hypocrite because I didn't respect his "beliefs". If you believe something like that is okay, then I'm not going to respect you, case closed.
Clarification to OP: I'm not saying you support anything of the sort, I'm just stating in general how I feel about these kinds of arguments.
"I'm intolerant of intolerance."
Sure, if that's how you wanna look at it. I'm not going to respect those kinds of beliefs, and neither will a lot of people. If you support the physical hurting of someone or something that doesn't affect you in any way, like homosexuals, then no, I'm not gonna be okay with that. And yes, that does make me a better person than them because I'm not the one supporting physical violence.
No respect or quarter for bigots.
I mean, you're saying exactly what I've been saying and asking me for examples of what?
You sound like you're for the Bible as well as being against it, on one hand, you agree with me. But then you say "just outright ignoring the parts of the same books they don't like?", like you don't like the fact people 'pick and choose' what they believe in it (which isn't true if you read it). That's what it sounds like anyway, I have no idea if you are with or against me haha. Maybe i'm just confused. I'll narrow it down, are you Christian? Or other? That will most likely make me understand instantly.
Okay I see the problem, and I'm not having a theology debate with you. No one ever gains anything from those. I will jusy say I disagree with you in regards to people picking and choosing what parts of the bible the will and will not follow. But this is likely due to it being written and/or translated in a way that makes it difficult to know if a certain passage is to be taken literally. I think you already touched on it being written thousands of years ago by multiple people so I hope this comment won't cause further confusion.
Ruin the lives of and kill those that want to ruin lives and kill.