Post: #1

I recently got some negative responses when I posted the following on the "Drug Policy" thread:

(01-14-2017 10:01 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  ...
Like I said earlier, premarital sex (and the lack of suitable wives) is far more destructive to society than drug use. Does that mean we should send young women to prison for engaging in premarital sex and "ruining" themselves? I don't think so.

I support the right of someone like Duterte to execute drug dealers in his country if he feels it is necessary. I also support the right of Muslims to perform "honor killings" if a woman engages in premarital sex, if they feel it is necessary to discourage their women from becoming sluts. But I sure as hell don't want any of these things being done in the U.S.
...

here is the link to the entire post

That got me thinking about how the political right reacts to the way Muslims treat women.

I understand that we are in a war against parts of the Muslim world, and that for that reason, many people are not sympathetic towards them. I think there are a lot of valid criticisms of Islam and the Muslim world, and I hate Islamic terrorist savages as much as anyone else.

However, when it comes to the Muslims' treatment of women, I don't see it as a big problem that we should be worried about. I think "honor killings" are wrong, but I think that in general, Muslims seem to keep their women in line better than Westerners do. In the Muslim world, women don't ride the cock carousel the way Western women do, and virginity is taken seriously.

Even in Eastern Europe, which is more traditional than the West, feminism is starting to influence the culture. In the Muslim world, this doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, one of the reasons they hate us so much is because of our promiscuous liberal culture. They are afraid Western culture will influence their countries the way it has influenced the rest of the world.

I sometimes watch Sean Hannity, and I usually agree with what he says. However, I can't stand it when he talks about how "Islam oppresses women." He goes on and on about how "women can't drive in Saudi Arabia," "there are no laws against 'marital rape' in Muslim countries" etc., as if these were terrible things.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that I want the West to adopt Sharia law and for us to start forcing our women to cover their faces in public. However, I don't think we have a right to criticize how they handle their women when our women are out there behaving like whores. All else being equal, I would rather live in a culture that restricts women's sexual choices than a society that gives women "sexual freedom."

There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize Islam, but in my opinion, their "treatment of women" is not one of them. I believe the media exaggerates the frequency of things like "honor killings" and young girls being sold into sex slavery. Women in the Muslim world are not treated like "chattel" as is often claimed (by both the left and right). If they were treated like chattel, they would be allowed to have sex with whoever they wanted. In my opinion, the fact that their sexual behavior is so tightly controlled is evidence that their men care about them, not the opposite.

Post: #2

This thread will (probably) not end well.

That said: let's talk about honour killings first as a subset of this debate, because a lot of what's said on the subject is a load of shit.

According to the main advocacy website on the subject, there's about 5,000 per year, worldwide, 1,000 each for India and Pakistan.

However, if you go by A Voice For Men's research, it would appear that at least in Iran, vastly more men are subjected to honour killings than women. The reason the numbers are skewed is because the bodies that collect the data -- UN and feminist organisations -- vastly downplay or outright do not count the male victims, using a variety of tactics not limited to calling male victims of honour killings simply "husband murder victims" or similar. Part of it also includes translation issues, as the AVfM article points out.

Honour killings, based on those numbers, are retarded controls on men and women alike, not controls on women.

But then honour killings are not actually about honour at all - not the way the West understands it. Even that IHBA site has some trouble actually defining what an honour killing is or what its defining characteristics are. There is, however, a site that does identify what's at hand in an honour killing.

Quote:First Law of Media: offer the reader the opportunity to debate the conclusions, but force him to accept the form of the argument.

You get to argue about whether Islam allows honor killings: "religion of peace!" "No, religion of hatred!" or whether this is generalizable to all Muslims, as long as you accept their premise that she did something that deeply offended her father and Islam. Put it in the article with an apologetic cop-out:

"Although honor crimes aren't officially sanctioned by Islam, they're associated with predominantly Muslim countries"

They're not associated with Muslim countries, that's what they're called when they are associated with Muslim countries. When they're associated with rich black guys, they're called OJ Simpson.

...

V.

If you need cognitive anchor for interpreting this article, here it is: people routinely scrutinize every word of a New York or Washington Times article for bias, yet an article in Marie Claire is taken to be the whole story.

VI.

The moment you say, "wait a second, this is for Marie Claire readers?" you start to see the sentences differently. They are phrased in such matter of fact, Marie Claire simplicity that you miss that they are asinine. You buy into them immediately.

"The final blowup came that summer. In June 2009, longtime family friend Amal Khalaf awoke to find Noor sleeping in the family's van, parked in the driveway. Noor said her parents had hit her; Amal, a mother of four, took her in. To Noor's family, this was the ultimate indignity: Their daughter had chosen to live with another Iraqi family instead of her own."

Why would living with another Iraqi family be the ultimate indignity? I'm not even clear why it would be an indignity at all, but the ultimate? Worse than moving in with a Jewish boyfriend? But on passive reading "living with a different Iraqi family" somehow makes sense and you stop there. You don't think to ask if there was not something else that was enraging about it, you go along with the Marie Claire, "she offended her father and his values of Islam" theory. And there was something else but the article barely mentions it, let alone explores the intricacies of it. 6 pages, 5000 words long, and this is all they say:

"It's unclear whether a wedding actually took place. Some friends say she only attended an engagement ceremony; others tell me they believe she did get married, albeit against her will. Still others say Noor was given a choice of five brothers, but her parents didn't like the one she chose, so the wedding was called off. Noor's parents, in police documents, maintain that a marriage did, in fact, occur. Whatever the case, Noor returned to Arizona a few months later without a husband, and moved back in with her family. She missed her younger siblings, friends say, and her parents needed help caring for them."

Why didn't he kill her when she when she first started talking to boys? Why didn't he kill her when she started wearing American clothes at age 4?

The answer is: they lived in America for 16 years, where that behavior doesn't shame him. He may not like it, but there is no one who would look down on him here. Shame is exposure, and as long as all these behaviors stay in Phoenix, no one knows what "s/he's" done.

It all fell apart because he sent her to Iraq. When he committed to the all-in, hail mary plan of sending his daughter to Iraq to get married, where she either rejected five men as unsuitable(!) or worse, got married to one of them and then went on cavorting with men in the U.S. (!!!!)...

... never mind what Allah thinks, now everyone in Iraq knows what kind of a man he is.

VII.

The article doesn't mention any such communications; it barely references the marriage. The article wants it to be about a woman finding herself, and struggling to separate from her father. In other words, it's a domestic abuse story that they package as a honor killing story.

If you are an immigrant or of immigrant parents then you'll know: that man was in daily communication with people in Iraq thanks to the stupid internet and mobiles. He was better connected to some Iraqi 3rd uncle than he was to his next door neighbor. And, especially after his daughter returned, those communications were torture. Explaining what went wrong with his daughter, why she wasn't being honorable, why he couldn't control her, how it was his wife's fault, his sons' faults-- in short, constantly on the defensive about how he couldn't keep his house in order, constantly subject to the criticisms and patronizing responses of an extended family that is so much a part of his identity and so little a part of hers.

Not only was he ashamed, but worse, she was not ashamed at all. She didn't even care what they thought! How could this animal not understand that how relatives In Iraq she never met viewed her was far more important than any internal sense of self-worth?

And more practically, how do you explain to her "husband" and his family, back in Iraq, that his daughter is an adulteress?

That's got to be frustrating.

IX.

Go back to the asinine statement of living with another Iraqi family being the ultimate indignity. In fact, that statement was dead on though I doubt intentionally so. If she had moved in with a Jewish boyfriend he would have been horrified and enraged, but moving in with the Iraqi Muslim family was immediately worse because-- and this is the entire point-- now everyone in Iraq is going to know. And since those people are his whole identity, he's screwed.

This is why discussions about honor killings get mired in a nonsensical theory debate about whether Islam promotes this. Even if it did, the part that requires the violence isn't some internal sense of right and wrong or "against Islam", but exposure to other human beings who will look down on them.

He doesn't care that she's Americanized or even an adulteress. He cares that people are laughing at him.

This is narcissism, and here I do not hesitate to spell it out explicitly. The obvious is that he sees her only as an extension of himself, only as she impacts his own existence and not as an independent entity. He's not better than her, she's just not a fully formed character, she's an extra. But the more telling and scary part of the narcissism is that he thinks that by killing her, he has not merely stopped her but fixed things, erased his shame, as if it never happened. As if the people back in Iraq aren't still snickering, as if human nature and reality are subservient to the magical thinking of a man who believes a Jeep can alter what God already saw.

X.

Two constants in stories about honor killings. First, some ridiculous multicultural idiocy that honor is extremely important in such societies. The word is incorrectly used, because it means different things to West and East. Honor in a western sense something earned (even by dynasty), like a hero might have. It is internal, and while honor can be tarnished it had to be acquired first. No one would say that the Chrysler mechanic downtown is honorable, you'd just say he's a good guy, etc. But the word "honor" as it applies in "honor killings" denotes an absence of shame. Honor in that sense is a baseline, under constant threat of exposure and entirely at the discretion of everyone else.

Partly this is a function of education, partly of culture, partly of religion, but inevitably the result of shaky identity that draws its strength in the way other people see them.

The second constant is the shocked surprise that the mother or brothers helped the man get away with it (or commit it.) Why would that be surprising? If his family didn't understand, if his family would be shocked and horrified and appalled at what kind of a man would murder his own daughter, then he wouldn't be doing it. Again, he's not doing it out of internal sense of justice, he's doing it to alter how he is viewed by others around him.

If you needed (unintentional, and therefore hilarious) support for this analysis, try the FAQ from the IHBA website above, as in, their own definitions of what constitutes an honour killing:

Quote:What is Honour-Based Violence?
Honour-based violence is a phenomenon where a person (most often a woman) is subjected to violence by her collective family or community in order to restore ‘honour’, presumed to have been lost by her behaviour, most often through expressions of sexual autonomy.

What is an honour killing?
An ‘honour’ killing is the most extreme form of HBV where the supposed offender against family ‘honour’ is killed to restore the ‘honour’ which has supposedly been lost through her behaviour. An ‘honour’ killing is the most extreme form of violence which may be expressed as a final resort; however there are other lesser responses, such as forcing marriage or other forms of violence which may also be expressed.

Expressions of personal autonomy, particularly where this is in the realm of relationships and sexuality, are the usual triggers for ‘honour’-related abuse. Those cultures in which ‘honour’ crimes occur are considered ‘high-context’ where the family predominates over the individual, and therefore any individualistic choice which challenges the collective identity and aims of the family may be considered selfish and a violation of that family’s honour.
Potential sites of conflict between the individual and the family may include:
Choice of sexual/marital partner
Education and employment
Dress
Behaviour and contact with the opposite sex
Sexuality
General conformity to the family and community’s culture and expectations.

We have seen on this site that Islamic cultures are particularly prey to narcissism because an individual in that culture is completely focused on what other people think of them. CIA assessments dating back to the nineties bear this out. Islam, being a religion of fourteen hundred years' vintage unblemished by progress, has any number of triggers or justifications which make it easier to link an honour killing to religion, but that's misidentifying the source: the culture and the narcissism that is its product.

Per this old quote from an old thread right here:

Quote:A similar surrogate within the individual is the outside mask or face to which the self or ego is transferred by the Arab, along with all his pride and self-esteem. This face presented to society at large then assumes more importance than his real self. The finding of defects or faults in it constitutes an attack on his very being, for there is no alternative surrogate to which the ego can be transferred. Hence the Arab whose integrity or face is challenged and in danger of being found imperfect is in quite a delicate position. He has to go to extremes to keep his social mask intact, thus taking actions completely contrary to the Western ethic and bewildering to the Westerner.

The constant effort to keep up face seems almost paranoiac by Western standards.

In short: honour killings are not societal controls, and they are not sexual controls on your women. They are one and all manifestations of narcissism by the person who carries them out, evidencing that you see your wife/daughter/(offending concavity owner here) an extension of yourself or an extension of your will. That is probably the most anti-libertarian concept I can think of, and it is not a Western concept. This is something entirely different from telling daughters not to ride the cock carousel.

And it's not Western patriarchy, either: Western patriarchs do not regard their daughters as extensions of themselves, Western men are not worried about saving face 24-7, Western men are content in themselves and their own masculinity that they don't prioritise the rest of the family snorting in amusement because their daughter's run off with a [Insert Objectionable Race/Job/Religion/Social Class Here]. That is one of the better fruits that individualism and Christianity gave us; Islam requires external transformation, i.e. change that is only visible to others, i.e.e. the foundation of shame and narcissism -- Christianity requires an internal transformation.

On the other hand, given the West is turning into a shame-based paradise thanks to Gen Y and millennials being addicted to social validation like never before, I'd actually suggest the frequency of honour killings -- really, narcissism killings -- is going to rise. In Arabic cultures, it's the poor opinion of the family that prompts the murder. In the West, it's the poor opinion of your fans on Facebook.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #3

I can't imagine a patriarch of a western family in the fifties sitting down with a muslim of the same era and shooting the shit about how one grounded his daughter and the other slit the throat of his.

If the muslims were the greater threat to the globalists and the Christians the lesser then it would be islam suffering under 50 years of radical progressive propaganda, with some of them asking if the staunch, traditionalist Christians "had it right."

What's more, islam is a social movement and while the father figure might murder the wayward daughter to save face, everyone is well aware that there will be no shortage of other bloodthirsty incels willing to do the deed if he's not. In western society this would be the equivalent of some priest deciding your daughter's skirt was a bit too short, dragging her into church by her hair and lashing her with his belt.

Our problems in the west have nothing to do with an unwillingness to make examples of women by beating them mercilessly or killing them to protect our reputation. They are entirely enabled by the welfare state and government work "equality' protocols and as soon as we do away with those things they will fall in line.

Post: #4

This is the kind of mentality and reasoning I completely disassociated from when I stopped hanging out with any Islamist even though I come partly from the background. Paracelsus actually diagnosed it to a T better then I could explain.

Anyways Rob your comment is that of a N-th level aspie because the last thing I expected was to find these cancerous beliefs on RVF. Some of my family members and former associates maybe, but not here.

So I'm going to pass out because I'm tired and then wake up to tear your post apart even though Para did it eloquently just by providing baseline facts. There will be lots of GIFs and I'm gonna have a good time while sipping on hot cocoa.

Good night

Post: #5

Paracelsus,

I agree with you about honor killings. The media definitely misrepresents the issue. The quotes you posted were interesting reads. I agree that honor killings are more about saving face within the community than it is about what God (or Allah) thinks.

That being said, I don't want this to be a thread about honor killings. I have stated from the very beginning that I believe honor killings are wrong. When I said "I also support the right of Muslims to perform 'honor killings,'" all I meant was that I believe Muslims have a right to do whatever they want in their countries, and the U.S. shouldn't send troops in to stop them from performing honor killings.

This thread was supposed to be more about the topic of Islam and women in general. Aside from the honor killings, the media always talks about how women are treated like "chattel" in the Muslim world, how they are "repressed" and "have no rights," etc. You even hear this from people on the right. The right loves to talk about how "the real "war on women" is in the Middle East."

Sean Hannity once had a (liberal) Muslim woman on his show. Hannity was going on and on about how women in the Middle East lack "freedom," and at one point the woman says "if 'freedom' means wearing a bikini, then I don't want that." At that point Hannity got this confused look on his face like he couldn't understand why this supposedly liberal Muslim woman would make a comment like that.

It is hard for me to understand why the right is so critical of Muslims' rejection of "female sexual freedom."

It may be true that the Muslims care too much about saving face, and what others think of them. It may be true that Muslims don't share our values and are incompatible with Western civilization. However, it is also true that Muslims keep their women in line and don't tolerate sluttiness or adultery. They don't believe in the idea of "sexual freedom" for women.

It is not all due to narcissism and saving face. Saving face within the community is definitely a part of it, but I also think that a lot of Muslim men genuinely care about their daughters and don't want them to become sluts. This is partly due to the fact that many Muslim men will not marry sluts. A father knows that if his daughter engages in premarital sex, there is a good chance no man will want to marry her.

There is a lot to dislike about Islam, but you have to admit that Muslim men have not fallen for the lie of feminism like (most) Western men have.

Post: #6

If western countries didn't evolve into social welfare pyramid schemes that discourage reproduction among natives and rely upon continuous immigration from third world shit holes, then no one would give a flying fuck about Islam or the dick heads that inhabit those lands, just like our grandparents did. I'm ok with banning female drivers though

Post: #7

(01-19-2017 01:57 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  So I'm going to pass out because I'm tired and then wake up to tear your post apart even though Para did it eloquently just by providing baseline facts. There will be lots of GIFs and I'm gonna have a good time while sipping on hot cocoa.

Good night

Para didn't "tear my post apart." I actually agree with almost everything he said.

This thread was not supposed to be about honor killings. I do not support honor killings.

I think Muslims should be able to do whatever they want (including honor killings) without the U.S. sending in troops to stop them, but I personally believe honor killings are bad. There is nothing "honorable" whatsoever about an honor killing. You're killing your own child; your own flesh and blood.

The left always seems to talk about how Muslims are mean to women, and the right always seems to go along with this narrative in order to score brownie points with the left without upsetting their base.

That is the topic of this thread.

I will not be responding to comments about how "honor killings are bad and I can't believe Rob supports them" or "Muslims are bloodthirsty savages and Rob is an asshole for defending them."

I never supported honor killings and I never even defended Islam. I could care less if the entire Muslim world vanished off the face of the earth. I merely said that Muslims keep their women in line, and I don't think that in itself is a bad thing. That's it.

Post: #8

What a bunch of garbage.

Quote:This thread was not supposed to be about honor killings. I do not support honor killings.
...
I also support the right of Muslims to perform "honor killings" if a woman engages in premarital sex, if they feel it is necessary to discourage their women from becoming sluts.

So you don't support them, but you support the "right" of Muslims to do them. Ok then.

Quote:However, I don't think we have a right to criticize how they handle their women when our women are out there behaving like whores.

But WE don't have a right to criticize them for doing it. Ok again.

As much as we may agree as a forum that women are a bit out of control, I don't think many of us think that Islam is the answer.

Repeat after me: Some Cultures Are Better Than Others.

Post: #9

(01-19-2017 02:24 AM)Malone Wrote:  What a bunch of garbage.

Quote:This thread was not supposed to be about honor killings. I do not support honor killings.
...
I also support the right of Muslims to perform "honor killings" if a woman engages in premarital sex, if they feel it is necessary to discourage their women from becoming sluts.

So you don't support them, but you support the "right" of Muslims to do them. Ok then.

See my previous post. I just explained this.

(01-19-2017 02:24 AM)Malone Wrote:  As much as we may agree as a forum that women are a bit out of control, I don't think many of us think that Islam is the answer.

I never even remotely came close to suggesting that "Islam is the answer."

Post: #10

You have to be on some drugs to think taking over anything from islam is a good idea. Especially honor killings. Jesus Christ.

Are you a Muslim troll?

Post: #11

(01-19-2017 02:13 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  ...

The left always seems to talk about how Muslims are mean to women, and the right always seems to go along with this narrative in order to score brownie points with the left without upsetting their base.
...

I don't know why you bold-fonted the weakest part of that post.

The left never speaks against Islam. In fact the silence from feminists about the treatment of women by their pet muslims is deafening.

And when someone in the right brings it up they're shouted down by the left as being racists and bigots.

Post: #12

(01-19-2017 02:27 AM)Glaucon Wrote:  You have to be on some drugs to think taking over anything from islam is a good idea. Especially honor killings. Jesus Christ.

Are you a Muslim troll?

(01-19-2017 02:13 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I will not be responding to comments about how "honor killings are bad and I can't believe Rob supports them" or "Muslims are bloodthirsty savages and Rob is an asshole for defending them."

I never supported honor killings and I never even defended Islam. I could care less if the entire Muslim world vanished off the face of the earth. I merely said that Muslims keep their women in line, and I don't think that in itself is a bad thing. That's it.

Post: #13

Rob, I wasn't trying to turn it into a thread about honour killings - I just wanted to add some Useful Notes ™ on that aspect of the subject.

That aside, I cannot think of a period in the West over the past three hundred years when restrictions on women's sexual freedoms ever went as rigid or as heavily-enforced as they are in Muslim culture.

The essential reason for that difference is Christianity, summed up in John's Gospel: when Jesus is asked by a rabid mob of Jews to approve their stoning an adulterous woman to death, his response is "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," not "Line up and throw straight."

EDIT: There is a longer and much more boring post I did want to add on the issue, which I promise will not be a full-on attack, but I'll get back to it at another stage. The basic TL;DR of that would be in essence - yes, women's sexual freedom is rampant in the West, but a large part of that has to do with the West inheriting a shit generation of fathers and a generation of fatherless children, less so than blue laws or regulations. Islam's not the solution to that, any more than shaming your kids really works to change their behaviour other than convincing them that the external appearance is all that matters. Indeed Islam's blue laws are what happens when all that matters is external appearances.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #14

delete

Post: #15

(01-19-2017 02:30 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Rob, I wasn't trying to turn it into a thread about honour killings - I just wanted to add some Useful Notes ™ on that aspect of the subject.

Well, everyone else seems to be trying to turn it into a thread about honor killings.

I appreciate your earlier post and I agree with most of what you said.

(01-19-2017 02:30 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  That aside, I cannot think of a period in the West over the past three hundred years when restrictions on women's sexual freedoms ever went as rigid or as heavily-enforced as they are in Muslim culture.

The essential reason for that difference is Christianity, summed up in John's Gospel: when Jesus is asked by a rabid mob of Jews to approve their stoning an adulterous woman to death, his response is "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," not "Line up and throw straight."

EDIT: There is a longer and much more boring post I did want to add on the issue, which I promise will not be a full-on attack, but I'll get back to it at another stage. The basic TL;DR of that would be in essence - yes, women's sexual freedom is rampant in the West, but a large part of that has to do with the West inheriting a shit generation of fathers and a generation of fatherless children, less so than blue laws or regulations.

I agree with all of this.

I do believe that sexual morality was "rigid" in the West as well. There was always less violence towards adulteresses and promiscuous women in the West than there was in Islam. Like you said, this is because of Christianity. However, many Christian men from 300 years ago would refuse to marry non-virgins. Christianity says you shouldn't stone the slut to death, but it doesn't say you have to marry her.

The concepts of Christian "forgiveness" and being "non-judgmental" are concepts that have been heavily twisted by modern "Christianity," but that is topic for another time.

(01-19-2017 02:30 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Islam's not the solution to that, any more than shaming your kids really works to change their behaviour other than convincing them that the external appearance is all that matters. Indeed Islam's blue laws are what happens when all that matters is external appearances.

I don't think Islam is the solution to anything in the West, and I never suggested that it was.

Post: #16

(01-19-2017 02:28 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 02:13 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  ...

The left always seems to talk about how Muslims are mean to women, and the right always seems to go along with this narrative in order to score brownie points with the left without upsetting their base.
...

I don't know why you bold-fonted the weakest part of that post.

The left never speaks against Islam. In fact the silence from feminists about the treatment of women by their pet muslims is deafening.

And when someone in the right brings it up they're shouted down by the left as being racists and bigots.

The left doesn't explicitly speak against Islam, but they support the idea of "women's rights" (i.e. feminism) in the Middle East.

Remember when that young girl (Malala Yousafzai) was shot in the head in Pakistan? She was supposedly shot for promoting "women's education." She then went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize at age 17, and was featured in Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential People" 3 years in a row.

Why do you think the left made such a big deal about her? Was it because they actually give a shit about her? I don't think so. I think it was because they want to promote feminism in the Middle East while not explicitly denouncing Islam. This girl was the perfect tool for the left to use.

PS: I misspoke when I said that the right supports the idea that Islam oppresses women in order to score brownie points with the left. They're not doing it to score brownie points with the left. They're doing it because they believe it is the only way they can openly criticize Islam without being called racists.

Also, they (the mainstream right) want people to believe that "leftists are the real misogynists because they refuse to openly criticize Islam."

Post: #17

(01-19-2017 03:39 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  ...

The left doesn't explicitly speak against Islam, but they support the idea of "women's rights" (i.e. feminism) in the Middle East.

Never heard them waste a single breath on it.

Quote:Remember when that young girl (Malala Yousafzai) was shot in the head in Pakistan? She was supposedly shot for promoting "women's education." She then went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize at age 17, and was featured in Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential People" 3 years in a row.

Why do you think the left made such a big deal about her? Was it because they actually give a shit about her? I don't think so. I think it was because they want to promote feminism in the Middle East while not explicitly denouncing Islam. This girl was the perfect tool for the left to use.

Empty virtue signalling of no relevance to M.E. culture. Never made a dent on her homeland.

Quote:PS: I misspoke when I said that the right supports the idea that Islam oppresses women in order to score brownie points with the left. They're not doing it to score brownie points with the left. They're doing it because they believe it is the only way they can openly criticize Islam without being called racists.

Also, they (the mainstream right) want people to believe that "leftists are the real misogynists because they refuse to openly criticize Islam."

Same as usual. You don't get it wrong. You never get it wrong. You just misspoke.

Post: #18

You are about to get in an endless debate. Honor killings has nothing to do with keeping women in check. I grow up in a small, closed and conservative community. All the women were in check because the small, closed and conservative community made them in check. No we don't do honor killings or beat women.

It has nothing to do with religion and threatening women of be-heading them will not remove the idea or fantasy of getting gang-banged by some hot alpha male.

A small, closed community doesn't remove these fantasies. It simply make them impossible to do and also keep women (or men) acting in accordance to that community.

Ever wondered why women coming to study 4,000miles from their home countries (in a place where they have no one they know or relate to) slut it the hardest? I'm pretty sure they convert back as soon as they step back to their countries community.

Post: #19

Well, there is the death penalty in some jurisdictions for murder yet murder still happens. It doesn't discourage murders......does it.

Showing hair or fingers in some Islamic hotbeds lead to consequences.

Messing around with human nature and urges leads to this....honour killings.women want to bang too. Depriving them of this leads to men seeking pleasure elsewhere as well causing social deviances. For example, gay sex, having sex with little boys ala Afghanistan, never mind being promised a harem of women if they do terrorist stuff.

Yes it is true that many social problems in those countries don't exist for fear of shaming their families. Yes it does decrease promiscuity. However, to support this method of keeping them in check is only one way of many. There are better ways of frowning upon sluthood etc.

Milton Friedman the economist did a video lecture on YouTube titled the freedom to choose. You can take his lecture and put it in this context. A woman should have the right to choose without bring killed. Any social repercussions are hers to bear.

Post: #20

(01-19-2017 06:57 AM)tomtud Wrote:  Milton Friedman the economist did a video lecture on YouTube titled the freedom to choose. You can take his lecture and put it in this context. A woman should have the right to choose without bring killed. Any social repercussions are hers to bear.

Hers and her entire society's, if she has a kid, because most normal men aren't up for paying for a child that doesn't have their DNA, and generally speaking, a kid with a single mother is set up for non-greatness from before s/he is born. Families and the survival of a society don't fit neatly into economic boxes, sadly.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #21

(01-19-2017 04:38 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(01-19-2017 03:39 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  ...

The left doesn't explicitly speak against Islam, but they support the idea of "women's rights" (i.e. feminism) in the Middle East.

Never heard them waste a single breath on it.

Quote:Remember when that young girl (Malala Yousafzai) was shot in the head in Pakistan? She was supposedly shot for promoting "women's education." She then went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize at age 17, and was featured in Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential People" 3 years in a row.

Why do you think the left made such a big deal about her? Was it because they actually give a shit about her? I don't think so. I think it was because they want to promote feminism in the Middle East while not explicitly denouncing Islam. This girl was the perfect tool for the left to use.

Empty virtue signalling of no relevance to M.E. culture. Never made a dent on her homeland.

Quote:PS: I misspoke when I said that the right supports the idea that Islam oppresses women in order to score brownie points with the left. They're not doing it to score brownie points with the left. They're doing it because they believe it is the only way they can openly criticize Islam without being called racists.

Also, they (the mainstream right) want people to believe that "leftists are the real misogynists because they refuse to openly criticize Islam."

Same as usual. You don't get it wrong. You never get it wrong. You just misspoke.

OK, I got it wrong.

You're really splitting hairs here.

You also didn't address the rest of what I wrote.

Post: #22

OP here.

I think I'm done with this thread.

I explicitly stated over and over again that I do not support honor killings and this was not supposed to be a thread about honor killings, but rather about women and Islam in general.

And yet, I wake up this morning and all the responses are about honor killings.

For the last time, I do not support honor killings. I think they are bad and there is nothing honorable about them. In my opinion, any man who kills his own child is a savage (with rare exceptions).

I am also not saying that we need Islam in the West. We most definitely don't need Islam in the West.

I will not be responding to comments about honor killings, or about Islam being bad for the Western world. I pretty much agree with what everybody has said about those topics.

Does anyone have anything to say about the rest of what I wrote (about Islam and women in general, not honor killings)?

Post: #23

I don't think you quite understand a forum, or better yet, this forum.

Just because you say "end of discussion lalala fingers in ears" doesn't mean you're safe and counter to what you have said about not supporting honour killings, the following quotes make it look like you are not only indifferent on the matter, but you can agree with it if given an explanation.

Which is what Muslim apologists do.

(01-18-2017 11:20 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I recently got some negative responses when I posted the following on the "Drug Policy" thread:

(01-14-2017 10:01 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I support the right of someone like Duterte to execute drug dealers in his country if he feels it is necessary. I also support the right of Muslims to perform "honor killings" if a woman engages in premarital sex, if they feel it is necessary to discourage their women from becoming sluts. But I sure as hell don't want any of these things being done in the U.S.
...

However, when it comes to the Muslims' treatment of women, I don't see it as a big problem that we should be worried about. I think "honor killings" are wrong, but I think that in general, Muslims seem to keep their women in line better than Westerners do. In the Muslim world, women don't ride the cock carousel the way Western women do, and virginity is taken seriously.

I'm not going to discuss this with you because quite frankly I cannot be arsed. However you might have opened up a tin of hurt on this subject and there are many men on here, more eloquent and intelligent than me who will.

If I were to say to you that if you fucked and chucked another woman you'd end up dead 100% or on a hit list of her family, would you agree its fair?

Men and women suffer honour killings in the UK, usually along tribal and religious lines. Mainly Pakistani women get murdered back home and the men too by being tricked by family.

They are devious and evil. The honour they describe is the honour of their tribe, community or family. Fuck them and their barbarism. I don't give a fuck if it keeps them in line, its evil and should be met with lifetime punishment for the perpetrators.

Post: #24

(01-19-2017 09:05 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  I don't think you quite understand a forum, or better yet, this forum.

Just because you say "end of discussion lalala fingers in ears" doesn't mean you're safe and counter to what you have said about not supporting honour killings, the following quotes make it look like you are not only indifferent on the matter, but you can agree with it if given an explanation.

Except that I just said in my previous post that I mostly agreed with everyone else on the subject of honor killings. Here is what I said:

(01-19-2017 08:50 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  For the last time, I do not support honor killings. I think they are bad and there is nothing honorable about them. In my opinion, any man who kills his own child is a savage (with rare exceptions).

(01-19-2017 09:05 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Which is what Muslim apologists do.

Allow me to quote myself again:

(01-19-2017 08:50 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I am also not saying that we need Islam in the West. We most definitely don't need Islam in the West.

I have stated over and over again that I do not support honor killings and I do not want Islam in the West.

I wouldn't be saying that if it wasn't what I truly believe. I'm not someone who says things I don't believe just to make other people happy.

(01-19-2017 09:05 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 11:20 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I recently got some negative responses when I posted the following on the "Drug Policy" thread:

(01-14-2017 10:01 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I support the right of someone like Duterte to execute drug dealers in his country if he feels it is necessary. I also support the right of Muslims to perform "honor killings" if a woman engages in premarital sex, if they feel it is necessary to discourage their women from becoming sluts. But I sure as hell don't want any of these things being done in the U.S.
...

However, when it comes to the Muslims' treatment of women, I don't see it as a big problem that we should be worried about. I think "honor killings" are wrong, but I think that in general, Muslims seem to keep their women in line better than Westerners do. In the Muslim world, women don't ride the cock carousel the way Western women do, and virginity is taken seriously.

I'm not going to discuss this with you because quite frankly I cannot be arsed. However you might have opened up a tin of hurt on this subject and there are many men on here, more eloquent and intelligent than me who will.

You did not quote all the times I said I don't support honor killings, I don't want Islam in the West, etc.

I am "indifferent" to the inner dealings of Muslim society in the sense that I don't think the U.S. (or the U.K. or any other Western country) should be sending troops into the Middle East to prevent them from performing honor killings. Why should we care about what they are doing in their own countries?

Are you seriously going to argue that Western countries should send troops into the Middle East to stop them from performing honor killings? Why do you think that we should care about their private lives at all? It is not our job to civilize the entire world.

Like I said, I think honor killings are wrong, but I don't think the West needs to intervene. It's the Muslims' problem, not ours. If that's too "indifferent" for you, then so be it.

(01-19-2017 09:05 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  If I were to say to you that if you fucked and chucked another woman you'd end up dead 100% or on a hit list of her family, would you agree its fair?

No, I don't think it would be fair.

(01-19-2017 09:05 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Men and women suffer honour killings in the UK, usually along tribal and religious lines. Mainly Pakistani women get murdered back home and the men too by being tricked by family.

They are devious and evil. The honour they describe is the honour of their tribe, community or family. Fuck them and their barbarism. I don't give a fuck if it keeps them in line, its evil and should be met with lifetime punishment for the perpetrators.

Agreed. If honor killings are performed in the U.K., the perpetrators should be tried in court and then sent to jail. I am not suggesting that we allow Muslims to perform honor killings within the U.K. (or any other Western country).

Post: #25

It was your first post I was quoting, not the one you made after others laid into you.

The brutal thing about text and posts you cannot edit after the fact and its there for all to see. The Op was pretty clear and I accept you don't agree with it but your language made it look as if you were accepting of the practice.