Post: #26

(01-19-2017 09:44 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  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.

The original quote was from a post I made 5 days ago on a different thread. It reads as follows:

(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.
...

If you read that quote by itself, I can see why you might think I supported honor killings.

However, I then went on to explain that what I meant was simply that the West should not intervene in the internal affairs of the Muslim world, and that frankly, I don't really give a shit if Muslims feel the need to perform honor killings. It's not my problem.

I also explained that I don't support honor killings, I don't want Islam in the West, etc.

I explained all of that in my original post, before others "laid into me."

Post: #27

I actually wanted to open a thread to discuss this topic as it is quite interesting to observe these behaviours ("honor killings") and how they relate to patriarchy in certain cultures.

Now, I think it is pretty clear looking at these threads that commenters dont really understand the cultural background that so called honor killings happen in. It is not so much Islam as it is North Indian, as far as I am concerned. I rarely hear of an honor killing reported in the news that is not perpetrated by a South/Central Asian. This region consists of all of Pakistan and adjoining areas in North-Western India and South-Eastern Afghanistan. We are talking about Punjabis (Muslim, Sikh and Hindu) and Pashtuns that commit most of these killings.

I was recently in the northern part of Pakistan where Malala comes from. A local there told me she was poor, dirty and had taken a train load of dicks and that she was a prostitute. This was not some taliban wannabe but a well travelled small business owner. I believe the reason they have such a low opinion of her is because she was rather selfish in courting the media, playing up her liberal credentials (education for women etc) and was going against the culture of the area for her own benefit. She did end being settled in the UK with her family with alot of western support so it seems she got what she wanted. Her people hate for it.

Now for some examples of "honor killings"

Five women and five men killed in Kohistan, Northern Pakistan. A mobile phone video was made of a wedding where two boys were dancing and five men where sitting around clapping which was then circulated around the community. People where unhappy about this and it was decided all the people in the video would be killed. The five women were killed along with the two men. The family of the women then killed three brothers of the two men because "We had to kill five women and therefore we are allowed to kill five men". Now this was all because of some video where women were simply sitting in the same as room with men and clapping as they danced.

Interestingly, the husband of one of the women killed, refused to have her killed until he was 'compensated' with another woman, and this is quite telling of the mindset of these people.






In another incident in Peshawar, a girl from a prominent family had run away with and married the family's driver, obviously someone from a much lower social background. A couple of years later the family began to communicate with the daughter again, who now had two children. They invited her home.

When she came to meet her family, they locked her up and tortured her for a few days. They took her to the roof of their house and threw each of her two children off the roof in front of her, after which they killed her too by throwing her off.

They could have just quickly killed her, but they tortured her and also killed her children. This may seem overly barbaric to people who have grown up in the west, but they did so to send out a message that this behaviour will not be tolerated. It is also noteworthy that such extreme violence was carried out by a prominent, educated and high-standing family in a urban environment. The conclusion being that you do not achieve and maintain such a high status by allowing your daughters to marry anyone they want, especially not a low-status driver and then not punishing such a trangression.

Unfortunately I don't have the news link for this story, it is a few years old.


At the end of the day, no one wants to kill their daughters, but this is a culture where it is important to maintain patriarchy. If your family is responsible for not maintaining cultural standards then you will lose status and you will find it harder to survive. It is not just 'honor' but it is survival. If you go and spend time in these places then you might understand.

The west is rather a tame place by comparison, we don't need to worry if our sister or daughter is a slut, but in these patriarchal societies people will punish any weakness in an instant.

It is not a religious thing at all but a cultural thing.

Violence is part of every human society and all laws are maintained though violence. It is no different for cultural laws. Patriarchy is just set of laws and they too need violence to be maintained.

Post: #28

This is not the first thread you've started that went full Little Dark and did not go the way you intended. Both this and another one have ended with you getting into long-winded arguments with forum membership, where you became emotional, and where you started to drift away from and contradict your earlier posts.

From the "Should I take the bonds?" thread. In chronological order.

Quote:This thread was supposed to be about what tactics I should use to ensure that the bonds are in my hands after it's all said and done.

Quote:I give up on this thread. Apparently, either I'm not explaining myself correctly, or there are assumptions being made about me that I'm not aware of.

Yet you kept typing away.

Quote:This thread was actually supposed to be about how to get the money in my hands, and what to do with it afterwards.

Quote:I am seriously regretting having started this thread. I think I'm just going to be done with this thread. I have stated certain things multiple times and it seems some people just don't believe me.

And yet you continued typing away.

Quote:This is really not what I intended when I started this thread.

Quote:After considering what everyone has told me here, and talking it over with friends, I am having serious doubts about whether or not to go through with my original plan.

Quote:One of my best friends was telling me I should keep the money, but the fact that he knows my dad personally and isn't too fond of him probably has something to do with it. Another one of my best friends initially supported the idea, but when I told him what people on the forum had told me, he seemed to agree that it would be extremely disrespectful towards my dad if I ran off with the money.

And now from this thread (in chronological order):

Quote:I don't want this to be a thread about honor killings.

Quote:This thread was supposed to be more about the topic of Islam and women in general.

Quote:This thread was not supposed to be about honor killings.

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

Quote: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.

You didn't misspeak, as Leonard said. You made a false statement, got called on it, then tried to change it to appease others.

Quote: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 you've continued typing anyway. I'm looking forward to several more long-winded responses.

Post: #29

This thread robbed me of time in the bank.

Post: #30

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

Yeah he did because he highlighted the very reasons Muslims are so defensive of their women. It's a gross narcissism in your very own post. And the left actually does cartwheels and handstands to defend them. And the right is no better actually. You'd have to be living under a rock to believe any of that.

Yeah and another thing you're tacitly supporting honor killings by supporting the very mentality that leads to them. "We should keep our women in line because Muslims are doing really well at that man O M G!!!!!". Completely despicable.

Anyways lets continue.

(01-14-2017 10:01 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I agree that we could greatly reduce (although not eliminate) drug use by adopting draconian policies like they have in countries like Indonesia (i.e. you get executed if you're caught dealing hard drugs, even as a first offense). I suppose you could also greatly reduce other types of harmful behavior, such as overeating and sexual promiscuity, by enacting draconian laws against these behaviors, punishable by long prison sentences and even execution. If you passed a law which mandated 20-year prison sentences for anyone weighing over a certain amount (relative to their height), you would greatly reduce obesity. If you passed a law mandating execution for any woman who engages in premarital sex (which is far more destructive to society than drug use), you would greatly increase the percentage of young women who would make suitable wives.

And you're wondering where I see that gross narcissism? Right here. I don't even need to get into the Muslim part of this discussion as I'll get to that a bit further down and why that very mentality never works in those areas as it is.

This is narcissism simply because it's a subconscious admittance that you can't control your woman. That you can't do your best in a relationship even with a virgin that she'll cheat on you. So to make up for that inadequacy you feel it's okay to kill women for behavior you can't control.

It doesn't get down to the root cause of the problem because there's a little thing called hymen restoration that can be done for a pretty penny and is very common in the shit holes you want to emulate. It doesn't punish bad behavior but encourages people to hide it. Sweeping unfit women under the rug and repackaging them as perfect little angels.


Call it megalomania on your part

Quote: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.

And to counteract any claim to the contrary. This little passage says enough about your true intent. You would sit back and let savages do this to their own women. Do business with these savages and just let it happen because it's not here. If it was the Middle East you would totally be down with it, but Western ethical standards prevent you from doing so.

Personally I'm an anti-interventionist and am down to let the Middle East stew in its own juices, but you're down to support these countries in their actions? Absolutely disgusting.

(01-18-2017 11:20 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  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.

"Guys look at me I don't support these hardcore Islamists, but I'm totally down with letting them do what they want hurr durr."

Quote: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 don't support these guys but look at me here saying that it's really cool what they're doing. We should keep our women in line because I'm too big of a pansy to learn any game and have to result to kicking the shit out of her if need be. I won't vocalize this of course because Western standards and shit."

Quote: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.

Yeah because I woman only needs to shut up there in Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. and stay in the kitchen/get fucked. And I agree they don't hate us for our freedoms, but that's why they're exporting their Wahhabi priests instead and trying to gain their religion followers in the lowest common denominator.

Are you yourself perhaps a devotee? A low class loser who thinks they need 17k to survive so to numb "the pain" you decided to convert and tow the party line.

Quote: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.

Translation: I'm such an ugly fuck that I need to force myself on my woman. That I'm such a gameless loser that I can't even turn her on.

Quote: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."

The only thing that separates you from a Muslim is your supposed belief in Western ethics that make you feel good. The second Sharia law hits you're going to be a zealous devotee. No need to repeat yourself.

You're so completely incapable of raising a woman that understands the shame behind sleeping around like a slut and you can't even keep your own wife in line 100% so instead you need laws to force them to do so. Got it.

Quote: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.

More cognitive dissonance. I don't feel the need to repeat myself, but this is textbook narcissism as Para outlined above. You're just unable to see it for yourself.

Corollary: I personally have no problem with the religious aspect of Islam and am very curious in the mystical Sufi and ascetic practices(self control, humbleness, and spirituality) that parts of the religion preach. It's actually quite interesting stuff with a scholarly and personal pursuit in mind.

Anyone defending the Middle East and its culture though sickens me to my stomach. Personal spirituality/morality and worldly topics are 2 different things for me. The former is to help myself grow, but the latter has consequences on those around me therefore I can't and won't advocate/call for the stupidity inherent in Rob's post. Not to mention the baseline fact that I don't approve of that mentality as it is and find it disgusting.

Cheers and have a good afternoon.

Post: #31

Islam and women:

Polygamy is allowed in Islam. If you are ruthless, violent and politically connected you get 10+ wives.

If you are lower class and unwilling to engage in horrific acts of violence regularly you get nothing. Then you strap explosives to your chest to get the 72 virgins the Iman promised.

There's really nothing better about male female relations in Islam.

Post: #32

Rob Banks you appear to lack knowledge on how deeply the poor treatment of women in these countries goes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mec...chool_fire

Quote:On March 11, 2002, a fire at a girls' school in Mecca, Saudi Arabia killed fifteen people, all young girls. The event was especially notable due to complaints that Saudi Arabia's "religious police" (aka the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice) stopped schoolgirls from leaving the burning building and hindered rescue workers because the girls were not wearing correct Islamic dress, and possibly for not being escorted by a male.

Granted it's from 2002 but would you be able to read about that in America or England in the past 150 years, nevermind 15? And I guarantee not much has changed, because development in Islam not advocated by Sharia or the Q'uran is Haram.

Post: #33

(01-19-2017 02:01 PM)Serious Sam Wrote:  

Quote: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 you've continued typing anyway. I'm looking forward to several more long-winded responses.

I said I was done with this thread, and then @Foolsgo1d said this to me:

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

I figured I would respond to what he wrote.

I only posted two more times after this, and they were both in response to things @Foolsgo1d had written.

I will not be giving any more "long-winded" responses. Sorry to disappoint you.

There are forum members who know way more about Islam and Muslim culture than I do, and I recognize that most of what people have said here (often contradicting what I had written) makes sense.

@Paracelsus's post (and the article he quoted from) were especially informative on the topic.

I had been wanting to start a thread on this topic for a while (well before my post referencing honor killings that I quoted from in the OP). The reason I wanted to discuss this topic is because it always baffled me why I seemed to agree with the manosphere/alt-right/alternative media on almost all political issues but my views on Muslim repression of women were so drastically opposed to theirs. I started to think that other might be seeing something that I was missing, and I wanted to see what other forum members had to say about it.

Reading through my posts, I realize I may have come off as argumentative or arrogant. I have a tendency to come off that way sometimes.

Anyway, thanks for the responses.

Post: #34

(01-19-2017 02:01 PM)Serious Sam Wrote:  This is not the first thread you've started that went full Little Dark and did not go the way you intended. Both this and another one have ended with you getting into long-winded arguments with forum membership, where you became emotional, and where you started to drift away from and contradict your earlier posts.

From the "Should I take the bonds?" thread. In chronological order.

You're right about the "bonds" thread that I started. However, you failed to quote this post near the end of the thread, where I said I ultimately took the advice of forum members regarding that specific personal issue.

I don't really think this Islam issue is the same as a personal issue. I guess I might have gotten somewhat "emotional" (which I shouldn't have done) because it seemed like people were accusing me of being a bad person for supposedly supporting or being "indifferent" towards honor killings.

Post: #35

Guys don't be so rough on Rob Banks. We all know Islam is the religion of peace. He clearly just misspoke and was misunderstood. Rob Banks would never make a mistake. He's still upset from having to rob 18k from his dad. Let this thread go.

Post: #36

(01-19-2017 05:52 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I don't really think this Islam issue is the same as a personal issue. I guess I might have gotten somewhat "emotional" (which I shouldn't have done) because it seemed like people were accusing me of being a bad person for supposedly supporting or being "indifferent" towards honor killings.

Post: #37

Yet another thread inextricably bound up with Leonard’s Libertarianism thread.

@ Comte De St. Germain

Did your “family members and former associates” agree with the concept of honor killings?

@ Kavi

Did most of your acquaintances agree with the concept of honor killings? Did the State in those places sanction them or do nothing, was there even a State in such places?

From the information I’ve seen, these crimes are treated as homicides by the State in Islamic countries (not to mention Western countries), though some seem to label them specifically as “honor killings” when it comes to sentencing, etc. If this is so strange, have you ever heard of “crimes of passion” in the West?

Then we have AntiMediocrity linking to the school fire that killed 15 young girls as “proof” of the standard treatment of women, framed by Wikipedia to make it appear that they were forced to stay in a blazing room and burn to death by your average Saudi chauvinist. Five minutes of researching the story shows that the tragic deaths of these girls was not from smoke inhalation or being burned alive, they were trampled to death trying to escape because the only door out was locked, as per usual, to keep the girls separated from men and the religious policeman ended up being “subdued” by the police and “Within a week, Al-Murshid (the guy in charge of the Presidency of Girls' Education) was fired and his ministry abolished. The new head of girls' education is a man, Qaidir Ibn Olayan Al-Quraishi, but he is a respected academic and a well-known secularist.”

http://www.newsweek.com/fire-wont-die-out-147083
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1867039.stm


The characterization of Muslim countries in this thread seems similar to articles that say “Saudis sentence rape victim to x for being raped” when the rape victim is being sentenced according to the Saudi law that a woman isn’t allowed out without a male guardian present (which is meant specifically as a means to stop crime like rape and adultery).

In Western terms, it would be similar to a person who is beaten and robbed during a period of imposed curfew calling the cops and then being charged with breaking the curfew. Maybe you think that’s bad, in which case you may as well be honest that the law is only enforceable if breaking it doesn’t lead to the larger crime it was intended to prevent. That seems very strange.

---

Quote: 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.

The alternative perspective would be that your “small, closed and conservative community” was living off inherited social capital that had everything to do with “religion and threatening women” and men with legal (since it seems you’ve all forgotten that the West had anti-adultery laws that gave legal force to those sexual mores in the very recent past) and social repercussions. That people like you seem to have forgotten this, yet continued to act it out for a while, is only evidence of how much stronger those social bonds and practices were during that prior period; further evidenced by the acceleration of decay in such communities over time and upon contact with “outsiders.”

---

The actual substance of the supposed disgust largely seems located in this quote:

Quote: 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?

There was recently an article that postulated abortion as the holy sacrament of the Liberal church. Think about that for a moment. How many women who’ve had an abortion would ever come to consider their act the way a traditional religious person does? What would such a change in perspective require such a woman to admit? I’ve read a single account of such a woman, and she could only cope by blaming everything on her college administrators and other authorities.

Regarding this topic, it’s all pretty funny when accusations of narcissism are being thrown around and considering “shot-gun” weddings (“on a hit list of her family”) seem to have been a real occurrence in the West in the not very distant past. The response that:

Quote: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.

Is pretty LOL when Classical Liberalism’s logically derived conception of “sexual freedom” not only denies any credibility to statements like:

Quote: 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.

But was the exact legal basis for removing all State enforcement on these issues (redefining them as arbitrary personal moral choices) and making any such sentiments illegal if used as the basis of public (including businesses’) decision making. We even have Comte St Germain [the guy throwing out the narcissism charges like a Saudi “religious policeman”] saying that the issue is so arbitrary it’s just a matter of “game.”

All of the Liberals in this thread want it both ways. And that shit ain’t gonna happen.

Post: #38

(01-19-2017 08:31 PM)Different T Wrote:  Yet another thread inextricably bound up with Leonard’s Libertarianism thread.

@ Comte De St. Germain

Did your “family members and former associates” agree with the concept of honor killings?

They didn't persay, but I know some of the heavily religious people on my father's side(essentially everyone but my grandfather whom sadly had to deal with his over religious wife brainwashing their kids). And the people that part of my family associated with besides him were more than likely of that mindset as well.

No one is flat out going to say they would partake in them, but they would have if it came down to it. Hence why I don't particularly like them or want to associate with them since my gramps died.

Quote:We even have Comte St Germain [the guy throwing out the narcissism charges like a Saudi “religious policeman”] saying that the issue is so arbitrary it’s just a matter of “game.”

All of the Liberals in this thread want it both ways. And that shit ain’t gonna happen.

I'm not going to address the rest of your drivel because arguing with you is going to be like arguing with someone who wants to deprive women of any agency.

But I'll address your charge. It is a matter of game. Learn to control your woman. There was no law on the books executing women for being unfaithful in the past century(or should I say a bit more than that). Sure public taboo and shaming, but no more than that.

Men knew how to keep their women in line without having to beat them or use the law. It was respect that was earned. If you're incapable of that without involving the law then that means you are a gameless loser who is more than likely an aspie with no social skills. Meaning you shouldn't be breeding as it is.

That's my two cents. If you find game meaningless then this forum might not be for you.

Post: #39

(01-19-2017 06:17 PM)realologist Wrote:  Guys don't be so rough on Rob Banks. We all know Islam is the religion of peace. He clearly just misspoke and was misunderstood. Rob Banks would never make a mistake. He's still upset from having to rob 18k from his dad. Let this thread go.

I would appreciate if you took the time to read this post before making claims like that.

Post: #40

Quote:I'm not going to address the rest of your drivel because arguing with you is going to be like arguing with someone who wants to deprive women of any agency.

Think about what your saying for just a moment. You think that prior to the past half century of "sexual liberation" women had no agency? Where have you heard that before?

Quote:There was no law on the books executing women for being unfaithful in the past century(or should I say a bit more than that). Sure public taboo and shaming, but no more than that.

Are you intentionally straw-manning as rhetorical tool, or does your brain not work correctly?

edit: (this statement is incorrect) Islamic countries, as far as I am aware, do not have a "law on the books executing women for being unfaithful."

And your knowledge of history is sorely lacking. Here's a place start if you even care about such trivial things as the history of the West: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?...id=2242473

edit: Just to make the link to Leonard's libertarianism thread explicit:

Quote:If you're incapable of that without involving the law then that means you are a gameless loser who is more than likely an aspie with no social skills. Meaning you shouldn't be breeding as it is.

Here we have Comte De St. Germain as an adherent to the NAP but in the specific instance of sexual relationships. Because, like, the free sexual marketplace totally produces the best goods.

Post: #41

(01-19-2017 10:39 PM)Different T Wrote:  

Quote:I'm not going to address the rest of your drivel because arguing with you is going to be like arguing with someone who wants to deprive women of any agency.

Think about what your saying for just a moment. You think that prior to the past half century of "sexual liberation" women had no agency? Where have you heard that before?

Quote:There was no law on the books executing women for being unfaithful in the past century(or should I say a bit more than that). Sure public taboo and shaming, but no more than that.

Are you intentionally straw-manning as rhetorical tool, or does your brain not work correctly?

Islamic countries, as far as I am aware, do not have a "law on the books executing women for being unfaithful."

And your knowledge of history is sorely lacking. Here's a place start if you even care about such trivial things as the history of the West: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?...id=2242473

edit: Just to make the link to Leonard's libertarianism thread explicit:

Quote:If you're incapable of that without involving the law then that means you are a gameless loser who is more than likely an aspie with no social skills. Meaning you shouldn't be breeding as it is.

Here we have Comte De St. Germain as an adherent to the NAP but in the specific instance of sexual relationships. Because, like, the free sexual marketplace totally produces the best goods.

Again more nonsensical drivel without a proper argument.

But I'll humor you on the adultery charge with just a quick google search:

Quote:In Pakistan, adultery is a crime under the Hudood Ordinance, promulgated in 1979. The Ordinance sets a maximum penalty of death. The Ordinance has been particularly controversial because it requires a woman making an accusation of rape to provide extremely strong evidence to avoid being charged with adultery herself. A conviction for rape is only possible with evidence from no fewer than four witnesses. In recent years high-profile rape cases in Pakistan have given the Ordinance more exposure than similar laws in other countries.[110] Similar laws exist in some other Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Brunei.
In Indian law, adultery is defined as sex between a man and a woman without the consent of the woman's husband.[111] The man is prosecutable and can be sentenced for up to five years (even if he himself was unmarried) whereas the married woman cannot be jailed.[112] Men have called the law gender discrimination in that women cannot be prosecuted for adultery[113] and the National Commission of Women has criticized the British era law of being anti-feminist as it treats women as the property of their husbands and has consequently recommended deletion of the law or reducing it to a civil offense. The Government is yet to act.[114] Extramarital sex without the consent of one's partner can be a valid grounds for monetary penalty on government employees, as ruled by the Central Administrative Tribunal.[115]
In Southwest Asia, adultery has attracted severe sanctions, including death penalty. In some places, such as Saudi Arabia, the method of punishment for adultery is stoning to death. Proving adultery under Muslim law can be a very difficult task as it requires the accuser to produce four eyewitnesses to the act of sexual intercourse, each of whom should have a good reputation for truthfulness and honesty. The criminal standards do not apply in the application of social and family consequences of adultery, where the standards of proof are not as exacting.[citation needed] Sandra Mackey, author of The Saudis: Inside the Desert Kingdom, stated in 1987 that in Saudi Arabia, "unlike the tribal rights of a father to put to death a daughter who has violated her chastity, death sentences under Koranic law [for adultery] are extremely rare."[116]

Death penalty is on the book for unfaithfulness. For all this history knowledge you have it seems sorely lacking. Anyways let me give you a cultural insider's look. If the government won't kill you by stoning or otherwise. Your family just might in certain backwaters or villages(or they'll just take you back to the home village to "take a break" then kill you). All dependant on how batshit religious they are. Fairly common in the lower classes. The upper class tends to be a bit more lenient in this regard and cover up the adultery or breaking of chastity(get the hymen restoration surgery and what not). Granted why the moderates are all upper class people who leave their home countries to go elsewhere.

Don't try to one up someone who has invested knowledge of the culture.

Anyways you're a game denialist so again I won't address the rest of your drivel without substance.

Edit: One last thing for the others reading that are intersted. They've never been deprived of their agency it's just guys like Different T think so. The Anatomy of Female Power is a great book on this topic for those that are interested in a Western context. They've never been denied it as it was their duty to run the home. Even in the Islamic countries it's not the men running the community persay. It's more of the old crones/grandmothers. Many of them gossip among themselves and press their sons into taking action.

In the social part of the community they have the most say besides the mullahs. Mainly because the elder men are too busy with their own retirement activities/teaching the grandchildren while the crones just have time to gossip and cook at their age and that's it. Granted your experience may vary with said crone and how religious she is. Less likely to be as toxic the wealthier they are but more toxic the more religious.

Post: #42

See, when Banks first arrived I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and did so for a long time. "Good grammar. Good punctuation. Proper sentence structure. There's obviously a brain there. Either we agree, or he can be reached, or he can convince me."

But the unfortunate reality is that his mind appears to be very cloistered. Nothing much gets in and instead he bounces back responses that seem almost pre-programmed. Like an automated message service telling you "press nine for a back-pedalling non-retraction".

On the other side of this firewall is understandably a lack of information to work with, to the point where much of the debate Rob is having is actually entirely imaginary. Key words slip through the firewall and he conjures up the rest out of thin air, occasionally opening the mail slot on the door to his psyche to toss out a missive that appears relevant at first glance but upon closer inspection is revealed to be a response to a debate that is being largely constructed on both sides in his imagination.

Case in point.

(01-19-2017 09:38 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  ...
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.
...

Nobody mentioned military intervention to fix shitty cultures. This was just conjured up out of sheer nothingness. A figment constructed from any number of other debates he'd had in the past. "Press five for random counterpoint".

This is why Rob so frequently ends up getting cornered before complaining that everyone is ganging up on him. In fairness everyone re-constructs other people's arguments to a degree, but while the rest of us take the content to be 95% and inject 5% of personal assumption, Rob appears to do the opposite.

That's why certain threads he involves himself in end up becoming meandering fuckfests where everybody wonders why he doesn't get it when in reality he's not even reading what you write, he's creating a whole other thread in his head, typing up rebuttals and hitting "post reply".

What's worse, the more negative feedback he gets the thinner that mail slit in the door gets. Less of the real world gets in and after about 3 thread pages all you'll get is "press one to hear these options again, or hang up to do something more useful with your life".

And, Rob, I'm not saying this to throw shit on you. I'm saying this because now that I've taken the time to look at your modus operandi, having given you the benefit of the doubt for a while, I now stand by what I've said above 100% because it's obviously not just me that you're rubbing the wrong way.

Take some advice (press seven, for "I hear what you're saying, but..."). You've got to seriously alter the way you approach not just the internet but (I'm guessing) the world. Assumption is the mother of all fuckups and you appear to have created most of your world out of assumption.

You need to go back to basics. Clear your head. Look. Listen. Hear. Smell. Touch. No preconditions. No assumptions. No ego.

Raw data.

Because the longer you maintain this idea that everyone is going out of their way to misinterpret you the longer you will suffer and in the worst case, the uglier your delusional self protection will get.

That is all.

Post: #43

Quote:Don't try to one up someone who has invested knowledge of the culture.

Fair enough, thanks for the info.

Did you look at the linked paper for a history of adultery laws in the West?

Quote:Anyways you're a game denialist so again I won't address the rest of your drivel without substance.

Still unsure why you're saying this. Is it because I characterize your argument as "game is sufficient on a societal level to overcome a State, media, and academic system all aimed at destroying foundations of said society?" If so, then you're correct.

Quote:One last thing for the others reading that are intersted. They've never been deprived of their agency it's just guys like Different T think so. The Anatomy of Female Power is a great book on this topic for those that are interested in a Western context.

What? I think women were deprived of agency in the past? Where did that come from? Do other readers get that impression?

LOL, does this apply to me, too...

Quote:Because the longer you maintain this idea that everyone is going out of their way to misinterpret you the longer you will suffer and in the worst case, the uglier your delusional self protection will get.

Post: #44

(01-19-2017 11:38 PM)Different T Wrote:  

Quote:Don't try to one up someone who has invested knowledge of the culture.

Fair enough, thanks for the info.

Did you look at the linked paper for a history of adultery laws in the West?

Quote:Anyways you're a game denialist so again I won't address the rest of your drivel without substance.

Still unsure why you're saying this. Is it because I characterize your argument as "game is sufficient on a societal level to overcome a State, media, and academic system all aimed at destroying foundations of said society?" If so, then you're correct.

I skimmed the paper and what I looked at has shown that even as far back as the 17th century the punishment was more public shame than it was any kind of jail time or capital punishment.

Quote:Early fornication laws were concerned with curbing immorality.128
Colonial judges saw
themselves of arbiters of religion and morality, not just the law.129
They often urged those
convicted to seek redemption and mend their ways.130
Those who failed to show due humility
and repentance were often punished more severely than those who showed contrition. 131
The
judge’s own morality was frequently on display in adultery and fornication cases: “What act can
be more grossly lewd or lascivious than for a man and woman, not married to each other, to be
publicly living together, and cohabiting with each other?”
132
Indeed, judges in colonial times
often created a public shaming aspect to their legal punishments, which was intended to
stimulate remorse to the transgressors could then return to the church.133
This public shaming
was also intended to deter others. 134

So if anything my point still stands. There was not the same level of both social or legal punishment as they do in the Islamic world. That it took game and the ability to keep your woman in line to truly keep her faithful. The woman respected the man there was no other way to have it. Adultery was also to my knowledge just as shameful to the man as he was married to a harlot.

And much the same today if you want to prevent your girl from cheating on you. You have to keep her line irrespective of any propaganda. Not to mention being unafraid to leave.

Though your first mistake would even be marrying a girl in the West.

If you magic yourself into some kind of traditionalist revolution and put a law on the books against adultery I'd imagine it would still happen like it does behind your back in the Middle East. With the upper class being more lenient and opting for hymen restoration or putting it under wraps.

You have to first change the culture. Anyways again this is why I find your argument both retarded and not functional. People know drugs are bad. People know adultery is bad. People still do those things. The thing is there isn't as much as a stigma for adultery. A heroin junkey will be ostracized. An adulteress will not[to the same degree]. You have to change the culture not put laws on the books for something like adultery.

Not to mention the laws won't even happen as it is without changing the culture if that's your premise. As well as the false equivalency as people can't addicted to adultery. It's not a substance that can be controlled and is harmful, but an action that occurs once. The damage done is much less than what a bunch of starved heroin junkies can do.

Post: #45

Quote:Though your first mistake would even be marrying a girl in the West.

And that is because of the laws regarding marriage, correct?

Quote:Anyways again this is why I find your argument both retarded and not functional. People know drugs are bad. People know adultery is bad. People still do those things.

It doesn't seem I've even made argument here other than "honor killings" aren't sanctioned by any States and that the posters in this thread are primarily motivated to not live in a society with laws against adultery because they like their current lifestyles and if they were to accept a moral stance that says it's wrong, they would face too much cognitive dissonance and pain. Certainly no societal prescriptive arguments have been made.

Quote:You have to change the culture not put laws on the books.

Not to mention the laws won't even happen as it is without changing the culture if that's your premise.

The alternative perspective would be that while what your saying is understandable and has merit, it isn't possible for the State to be some uninterested by-stander. Whatever it chooses to classify such things as, there are consequences. We are living in the consequences.

Post: #46

Quote:As well as the false equivalency as people can't addicted to adultery. It's not a substance that can be controlled and is harmful, but an action that occurs once. The damage done is much less than what a bunch of starved heroin junkies can do.

You think drugs have caused more damage to the West than the changes to sexual relationships and families?

Maybe this is the wrong forum...

Post: #47

(01-20-2017 12:24 AM)Different T Wrote:  

Quote:Though your first mistake would even be marrying a girl in the West.

And that is because of the laws regarding marriage, correct?

Fix the laws and the cultural rot will remain. How do you plan to undo 60 years of feminism?

Quote:

Quote:Anyways again this is why I find your argument both retarded and not functional. People know drugs are bad. People know adultery is bad. People still do those things.

It doesn't seem I've even made argument here other than "honor killings" aren't sanctioned by any States and that the posters in this thread are primarily motivated to not live in a society with laws against adultery because they like their current lifestyles and if they were to accept a moral stance that says it's wrong, they would face too much cognitive dissonance and pain. Certainly no societal prescriptive arguments have been made.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Quote:You have to change the culture not put laws on the books.

Not to mention the laws won't even happen as it is without changing the culture if that's your premise.

The alternative perspective would be that while what your saying is understandable and has merit, it isn't possible for the State to be some uninterested by-stander. Whatever it chooses to classify such things as, there are consequences. We are living in the consequences.

Well how do you stop women from cheating? With drugs it's simple. Attempt to stifle out production and wipe out the source as well as the methods to make it. Also to prevent dissemination.

From a stately perspective very doable in say 50 years(though not possible with booze or tobacco due to the massive culture and demand).

Now lets look at adultery. A concept any rational person can do. With men. Putting laws on the books will just relegate it to the upper class and people of influence with high end prostitutes/slaves/etc. like they do currently. Or people will do it behind the government's backs. With the way Western culture is how would you prevent women and men from trying to meet behind closed doors? A shift to the kind of culture that prevents that will be damned near close to Sharia. And I'm no fan of that.

And if anything the forum is very pro-male sexual desire. As am I. A healthy man should sleep around, but commit to his duties in order to keep his head clear and game tight.

Which leads to women. Women will find a way to win the favor of the powerful, wealthy, and/or handsome. It's biological imperative. Hence why game is needed to keep them in line. As I said above you'll have to resort to Sharia to even prevent the circumstances needed for adultery. This is no drug problem this is something innate to human biology. Change the culture by creating strong men with social skills and game to counteract that innate biological need. Laws will only just create a false reality where damaged goods will be sold at full price.

Anyways this was a massive derail from Sharia-law loving Rob's post. So I would take this to PM, but there is a fundamental difference in values where you don't seem to see the importance of developing strong men with game and instead relegating it to the Leviathan. So odds are we'll never agree.

Post: #48

Quote:And if anything the forum is very pro-male sexual desire. As am I. A healthy man should sleep around, but commit to his duties in order to keep his head clear and game tight.

Another excellent example of how this topic links directly to the libertarianism thread.

No need to PM.

Post: #49

Correct me if I'm wrong Rob, but I believe you said you are 25 years old and have been with one girl since you were 16, and you recently married her and see her twice a year.

Nothing wrong with that at all of course- but personally I wonder how much a dude of that background really knows about dealing with women. It doesn't seem to come from any kind of significant first hand or varied experience. Meeting a girl at 16 and being with her 9 years later would certainly shape a person's view in a very specific and narrow way.

Between your thread complaining about men being called virgins, a majority of your posts being about virginity, and now this sympathizing with Islamic ideals on women, it is safe to say this is far past -and different in kind from- laudable "conservative values" and into some kind of other issue.

I know and have met many men who would like a virgin and seek them out, but not one of them has ever had this level of single minded mania about female sexuality that I read from you. Member Raymond Kertezc has a similar thing going on.

And no, stating this does not equate to "pushing feminist ideas", as you've accused many of before who disagree with what are quite apparent obsessive hang ups.

Post: #50

(01-20-2017 01:58 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong Rob, but I believe you said you are 25 years old and have been with one girl since you were 16, and you recently married her and see her twice a year.

You're (somewhat) wrong. I have been with the same girl, but since we were living apart for a lot of that time, I did stuff with other girls. She was aware of this.

Also, when we were living apart, seeing her "twice a year" meant for several months at a time. I didn't mean I only saw her two days a year.

I can go into more detail on PM or on another thread. I'd rather not go into detail about my personal life on this thread.

(01-20-2017 01:58 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  Nothing wrong with that at all of course- but personally I wonder how much a dude of that background really knows about dealing with women. It doesn't seem to come from any kind of significant first hand or varied experience. Meeting a girl at 16 and being with her 9 years later would certainly shape a person's view in a very specific and narrow way.

Between your thread complaining about men being called virgins, a majority of your posts being about virginity, and now this sympathizing with Islamic ideals on women, it is safe to say this is far past -and different in kind from- laudable "conservative values" and into some kind of other issue.

I know and have met many men who would like a virgin and seek them out, but not one of them has ever had this level of single minded mania about female sexuality that I read from you. Member Raymond Kertezc has a similar thing going on.

And no, stating this does not equate to "pushing feminist ideas", as you've accused many of before who disagree with what are quite apparent obsessive hang ups.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only dude here with those ideas about female sexuality. Roosh has written at least two articles where he says that he believes women should remain virgins until marriage, and that if he gets married, he wants the woman to be a virgin:

http://www.rooshv.com/the-future-mother-...ves-in-god

http://www.rooshv.com/7-things-i-require...f-my-child

I've seen members here who express ideas that would be considered "extreme" by the mainstream, and sometimes they are ideas that even most forum members disagree with. I always liked and respected this forum because of that.

Your issue seems to be more with the way I am expressing my opinions than it is with the opinions themselves.

I feel like when I express opinions that other members disagree with or find to be "extreme," the responses I get are usually something to the effect of "Rob believes X because he is a weak/narcissistic/(insert negative quality) man who thinks he's smarter than everyone."

Obviously, I am aware that this is because of how I am expressing my opinions and how I am coming off to other members. I know that I am not being singled out for criticism/insults for no reason. It is just very frustrating that the discussion always gets brought back to my persona life when I express certain opinions.