Meshugger

My spidersenses are telling me that the media is picked for a ruse about these "leaks" and the current administration is actively engaging in disinformation through these channels. I hope that i am wrong though, because that would otherwise be quite sinister.

They are not fleeing islam as a religion. They colonising and creating their own societies. You mean to say that most of them are fleeing war, persecution or poverty in their own countries and we don't let them to integrate to our society but instead we put them for years in centers where they have little to none daily interaction with main population. I would point out that tens of thousands of Muslim refugees are willing to convert to Christianity (although often motivated y hope that makes us to let them stay) Strange how middle eastern and north african muslims fail to integrate into western societies while the rest does even if you take into account the detriment policy of dumping anyone into the ghetto. Previously we invited Salman Rushdies to the west to live in freedom from tyranny, but last year the door was open for any jester fooling the lady border patrol officer that he suddenly wants to be christian and if you don't open the border for him, he and his pals will storm it, throw rocks at you or any other means necessary. It is strange how there are several (5) restaurants run by middle eastern and north african muslims just one kilometer radius from my home So well integrated that they are exporting the best back: http://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/cnn_finland_tops_list_of_countries_with_muslim_fighters_in_syria/7446816 The world would be better of by sending them all back, build a wall around them, wait a few hundred years, and open the door and hopefully something civilized will emerge from the other side. Perpetually importing people from regions that do nothing but destabilizing a society is simply not going to cut it. Better do it now in a civilized matter before creating the balkanisation begins the inevitable war begins. So 30 people went in Syria to be terrorists and nearly 1000 of them decided to make pizza and kebabs in Tampere. Those are just the most hardcore ones. But being the best ISIS-exporter should tell you something about what you're dealing with compared to other groups like those from south america or east asia. So nevermind the disproportional amount of violence committed by said groups in almost every other european country already with a continuous negative trend, as long as you get that those restaurants, anything is permitted. http://i.imgur.com/EHbUiOU.jpg I am saying that majority of them integrates in our society quite fine. But there are problems that need to be looked at, so that we know what is the causes behind those problems and how we can solve those problems. But attacking/punishing all of them, especially those that not just follow our laws fully but actively contribute in our society by creating their own businesses isn't good strategy to go forward in any sense. Also grouping all people from Middle East and North Africa as same hides some of those problems and causes behind them. Like for example unemployed rate within somali population is over 55% and as largest North African Muslim population in Finland they make statistics look bad for people from other North African countries even when they do much better job in becoming productive part of our society. We have had problems with Somali population now over 20 years and still somehow we don't seem to find any actual solutions or even know why so many of them are unemployed. Also we have more problems with refugees from Afghanistan than we have from Syria for example, when it comes to committing crimes and acting badly towards women. Also people from Morocco and Algeria (maybe the criminals from those countries go in France and law binding people come to Finland who knows) seem to integrate better than Russians for example when it comes to crimes. I can't say what would to be best policy to go forward but I am pretty sure that grouping millions of people that share similar religion but still come from different culture and different circumstances in same isn't probably the best solution to pick. As you are most likely aware is that Finland is on its way to commit the same errors with the very same immigrant-groups/refugees as other countries in Europe, as in second generation muslims from these regions are either self-segregating or are behaving in anti-social behaviour of which are not acceptable by any western standards. For them to achieve order and peace in themselves in their communities, they turn to their customs and religion, which is the antithetical to the very values that we hold dear. So either we will have to betray our own values and force them the values of the enlightment upon them, which will never happen as they are too many already to simply be absorbed by the local culture, or incentive is offered to return to their homelands combined with a policy of and sensible vetting on who is let in. Otherwise we are having a ticking timebomb waiting to explode within the borders of several countries as these very groups are the fastest growing ones. This is without counting on the refugees who arrived last year.

Kennedy praised Hitler, so there's that.

They are not fleeing islam as a religion. They colonising and creating their own societies. You mean to say that most of them are fleeing war, persecution or poverty in their own countries and we don't let them to integrate to our society but instead we put them for years in centers where they have little to none daily interaction with main population. I would point out that tens of thousands of Muslim refugees are willing to convert to Christianity (although often motivated y hope that makes us to let them stay) Strange how middle eastern and north african muslims fail to integrate into western societies while the rest does even if you take into account the detriment policy of dumping anyone into the ghetto. Previously we invited Salman Rushdies to the west to live in freedom from tyranny, but last year the door was open for any jester fooling the lady border patrol officer that he suddenly wants to be christian and if you don't open the border for him, he and his pals will storm it, throw rocks at you or any other means necessary. It is strange how there are several (5) restaurants run by middle eastern and north african muslims just one kilometer radius from my home So well integrated that they are exporting the best back: http://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/cnn_finland_tops_list_of_countries_with_muslim_fighters_in_syria/7446816 The world would be better of by sending them all back, build a wall around them, wait a few hundred years, and open the door and hopefully something civilized will emerge from the other side. Perpetually importing people from regions that do nothing but destabilizing a society is simply not going to cut it. Better do it now in a civilized matter before creating the balkanisation begins the inevitable war begins. So 30 people went in Syria to be terrorists and nearly 1000 of them decided to make pizza and kebabs in Tampere. Those are just the most hardcore ones. But being the best ISIS-exporter should tell you something about what you're dealing with compared to other groups like those from south america or east asia. So nevermind the disproportional amount of violence committed by said groups in almost every other european country already with a continuous negative trend, as long as you get that those restaurants, anything is permitted. http://i.imgur.com/EHbUiOU.jpg

They are not fleeing islam as a religion. They colonising and creating their own societies. You mean to say that most of them are fleeing war, persecution or poverty in their own countries and we don't let them to integrate to our society but instead we put them for years in centers where they have little to none daily interaction with main population. I would point out that tens of thousands of Muslim refugees are willing to convert to Christianity (although often motivated y hope that makes us to let them stay) Strange how middle eastern and north african muslims fail to integrate into western societies while the rest does even if you take into account the detriment policy of dumping anyone into the ghetto. Previously we invited Salman Rushdies to the west to live in freedom from tyranny, but last year the door was open for any jester fooling the lady border patrol officer that he suddenly wants to be christian and if you don't open the border for him, he and his pals will storm it, throw rocks at you or any other means necessary. It is strange how there are several (5) restaurants run by middle eastern and north african muslims just one kilometer radius from my home So well integrated that they are exporting the best back: http://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/cnn_finland_tops_list_of_countries_with_muslim_fighters_in_syria/7446816 The world would be better of by sending them all back, build a wall around them, wait a few hundred years, and open the door and hopefully something civilized will emerge from the other side. Perpetually importing people from regions that do nothing but destabilizing a society is simply not going to cut it. Better do it now in a civilized matter before creating the balkanisation begins the inevitable war begins.

They are not fleeing islam as a religion. They colonising and creating their own societies. You mean to say that most of them are fleeing war, persecution or poverty in their own countries and we don't let them to integrate to our society but instead we put them for years in centers where they have little to none daily interaction with main population. I would point out that tens of thousands of Muslim refugees are willing to convert to Christianity (although often motivated y hope that makes us to let them stay) Strange how middle eastern and north african muslims fail to integrate into western societies while the rest does even if you take into account the detriment policy of dumping anyone into the ghetto. Previously we invited Salman Rushdies to the west to live in freedom from tyranny, but last year the door was open for any jester fooling the lady border patrol officer that he suddenly wants to be christian and if you don't open the border for him, he and his pals will storm it, throw rocks at you or any other means necessary.

They are not fleeing islam as a religion. They colonising and creating their own societies.

"Be nice to muslims or they will kill you, because islam is the religion of peace", the post. No The message is "if someone becomes an extremist, help him and solve the problems that made him an extremist, don't just radicalise him further by showing more hate". Is that really so difficult to understand? In order for him to not become an extremist is to either convert to Islam or to submit to Islamic rule and pay some jizya. Now what?

"Be nice to muslims or they will kill you, because islam is the religion of peace", the post.

Some could say that there would be much less people immigrating if France had not conquered quite lot other countries in North Africa, Middle East and Asia. France had the option to say "nah, too much potential trouble", but they didn't.

None of those problems would've occured if there weren't any immigration to begin with from north africa and the middle east. Funny that, a policy of doing nothing wouldn't cause a problem. It's almost like it is of a systematic nature.

Hmmm, i sense a meme brewing.

I just watched "All the President's Men". Completely unrealistic, no way journalists are that committed to their job. A total fantasy-piece, that's what it is.

If this reaches the supreme court, what section of the constitution will be contested then? As what is missing from the order or what is the Executive Order in direct violation of?

Sorry, I don't catch the meaning. People thinking the same for Bush? ...Course, others thought the same for Obama, and others still thought and even planned worse than that still for both of them, and I'm sure the same will be true for Trump. Oh, there were quite a lot of hoping for Bush to die to downright assassination-fantasies on other gaming-forums i frequented back in the day. Point being that things haven't changed much.

It's just like 2001 again.

That's the point. That's why environmentalism is a thing. They really need to work on their PR department.

The earth is fine and will be fine, it's humanity that is ****ed with overpopulation in Asia and the looming demographic explosion in Africa. If mother gaia has enough of humans, she will just sneeze us out with a virus that affects our immune system, turning it to ourselves.....oh.

^Bad puns are the best puns

I was in the same situation, so utterly bored at school. I learned more by reading the books found in the bookshelves back home than in school. I do not remember doing any home work at all in junior high school but still aced through most of the classes thanks to the said home library. I didn't start doing home work until before the final exams in upper seconday school (senior high for you yanks).

As someone who went to public school in Texas, I have to agree with this. In my senior year I took a class called College Algebra that doubled as a credit for College, Math 1308 or 1314 I think. Anyways most of the class consisted of getting worksheets with simplistic problems and childlike puzzles like "what did the farmer say to the pig". I think I got a C in the class, because I would never did the classwork or homework and would only wake up t take a quiz or a test, which I would make an 85 as my lowest score. And that class wasn't unique in its simplicity. Admittedly I didn't do very well in high school, did way too many drugs and rarely did homework or classwork. Almost failed in English because I didn't do a paper and a project. Always did very well on tests and my SAT score was impressive, or at least some advisors I talked to said as much, but not doing half the work tends to negatively impact your score. I blame boredom more than anything, all of my teachers were ****, I got less out of classes listening to them than I did skimming wikipedia articles or reading the textbook, classes consisted of reviewing information to take tests or dumb worksheets, and there was no challenge or learning involved. I don't have any concrete solutions to fire off the hip and blanket statements like "we need to encourage imagination" are meaningless tripe that don't add anything to the discussion. But there is a major problem with the US public education system and judging by what 'tep has said it's only gotten worse. I'm gonna go back to work now, have fun. The bold part sounds eerily familiar.

Hmm, not buying it. The gravitational constant expressed in Planck units (1) is "reality". The nuclear family is, perhaps, and at most, an evolutionarily stable strategy. Meaning, subject to change as (socioeconomic) conditions change, and it is no longer inherently disadvantageous to adopt other approaches. Society will be destroyed only when people are destroyed. We are gregarious beings. Change does not imply destruction in absolute terms, even if the process is sometimes destructive. Here's the thing: men and men have simply different interests at heart. Male nurses, ever heard of them? And the "winner takes all" explanation wrt human mating is... incredibly simplistic. You mean only the CEOs and MVPs are getting some? If it's so simple, why don't you just find uglier friends? Nah, looks will do silch alone. More like people on top of hierarchies have more oppurtunities opened up for them than for others. People like winners in general after all. It's not a rigid if-else scenario. As for exceptions from the norm, that's what makes makes life so fun and unpredictable, much to the worries of all these busybodies who try plan society like a game of civilization. No one is inheritly worth less than the other. When left to their own devices in affluence and in freedom, these gender roles as you call them are strenghtened. Men and women have simply different interests at heart. Men create hierarchies and compete with each within them and women choose the winners within those. It is manifested in your work force, in sports and in your very group of friends. We see it in our democratic processes as we elect leaders representing us. Not even the Soviet was without exception as there as well an inner circle was quickly developed. It is simply reality, of which the nuclear family is the very microcosmos of. Trying to undermine that and you destroy society. Did I just write half an essay on why the argument "that's just a way it is" is both false and worthless just so you responded basically saying "that's just the way it is"? We aren't even equal in length of text, let that be a lesson for you. Joking aside, i made the argument that no one is less worth as a human being in themselves compared to another, followed how human societies work in reality. My point had little to do with wealth accumulation, which you seemed to have missed. I have derailed this long enough. Back to debating within the system of productivity, consumerism and the distributions of these, as that seems to be more essential for human progress for most of you guys.

So, if being all about "saving women" makes one a White Knight, what does wanting to "save western civilization" make you? A Teutonic Knight? A Knight Templar? #importantquestions I am the guy who likes to argue. It's fun. Which is the exact reason why science in the Middle Ages was far more advanced than it is today. How could we possibly hope to ever reach the lofty heights of technology and understanding our forebears had? I am not following, are you arguing that science and technology is hindered by the nuclear family? Clearly your inability to understand what I meant must be the result of a lack of traditional upbringing and consequent failure of education. Tee-hee, feisty.

Where to start? First of all, you should understand that not everyone who likes gender equality is a Marxist, and gender equality is nothing inherent to Marxism. Now, your argument boils down to: "it has always been this way, why change a running system, everything else would be worse anyway." You see, there are problems with this mindset. The rules of the systems we create are just that: they are created, not given. And because we created them, we can change them, thus far the theory. Now, of course there is truth to that... There are countless examples of how the people radically changed the society they lived in. They did so whenever they realised that the system they lived under was inherently unfair and/or oppressive, and they seemed to resolve these issues. We saw this with the feudal system: its unfairness and the oppression seems obvious to us now, it created a society in which most people were essentially slaves. And in retrospective, we'd all agree on how problematic such a society is. Yet it lasted for centuries. So, how could. It sustain itself for such a long time without triggering rightful outrage and anger? The answer really is quite simple: systems have a tendency to be all consuming, meaning that they affect every part of the people's lives. If that happens, the people lack the basis to recognise the problems a society has, and thus never seek to change it in the first place. In the high times of feudalism, we can see this in th close tie between the feudal society and Christianity: the system gave everyone a fixed spot in society, and the church teached everyone to be happy and with that spot. Because Christianity was such a central part of life, very few would ever come to question the system they live under. Your argument, "it has always been like this and it works" is the only mindset people can develop under conditions in which the system they live under consumed everything INCLUDING culture. In the case of feudalism, it wasn't until the faith in the church crumbled that people started to question the system they lived under. What I'm trying to show here is that the argument of tradition isn't an argument at all. Rather, it is the very limitation that stops us from having actual discussion. So, let's move on to actual arguments, shall we? You bring up the successful separation of genders in older societies. I say that argument is completely useless for two reasons: firstly, we do not know how these societies would've been had the genders been judged equally, and secondly those societies are so radically different from ours that an examination of their ideology may be interesting for an historian, but it will help us very little if we wish to understand OUR world. So let's look at today's society, shall we? What does our society promise? That all men are created equal? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Liberté, égalité et fraternité? Whatever it is, most people would agree that freedom is a central promise of our society. Freedom, and freedom for all. Here's the thing about freedom: freedom requires equality. If we are not equal, those who have more worth will always seek to oppress those with less. In theory, we already understood this as self evident. Compare our laws to that of a feudal society. While the feudal society judged the individual's worth (his freedom, his value before court,...) by his place in society (a noble would always be worth more than a peasant), we hold everyone to be endowed to the same rights, and every voice to be equally valuable before court. But while our legal equality is at an all time high, our practical equality is at an all time low. A noble and a peasant had much more equal lives than a billionaire and a beggar. These vast differences steal what we hold so precious: our freedom. And we must fight these differences until we are truly free. So, if you tell me that "Pure equality is an ideal, hierarchy is a fact", I say that you are mistaken. Hierarchy is our reality, yes, but hierarchy is not a fact as in an unchangeable fact of life. Your view is corrupted, your system broken, your society failed. Hierarchy is not a fact, hierarchy is man made, and we can change it. But as long as you defend the hierarchy that costs us all our freedom, nothing will change. So tell me, Meshugger, what arguments aside from "it's always been this way, it has been this way for a reason, that's just how it works" do you have? What rational reason can you give me as to why a woman should be worth less than a man, why a woman shouldn't be able to decide over her own fait. The truth is, there is non. No argument that isn't tradition or one of its forms. So instead of telling me that mothers should look after the children "because that's what they should do", I recommend you take a very close look at your own set of values and start to solve the contradiction between freedom and a hierarchical society. No one is inheritly worth less than the other. When left to their own devices in affluence and in freedom, these gender roles as you call them are strenghtened. Men and women have simply different interests at heart. Men create hierarchies and compete with each within them and women choose the winners within those. It is manifested in your work force, in sports and in your very group of friends. We see it in our democratic processes as we elect leaders representing us. Not even the Soviet was without exception as there as well an inner circle was quickly developed. It is simply reality, of which the nuclear family is the very microcosmos of. Trying to undermine that and you destroy society.

Quite radical. You want to purge 50% of the workforce and strip the economic power of 50% of the population. And no, noting the value of said economic power is not reducing people's "purpose" or "meaning" to being their "purchasing power", rather its acknowledging the direct correlation of one's purchasing power with one's freedom in our society. Therefore by completely abolishing the purchasing power of half the population you have effectively halved the population's freedom. But hey, at least some dumbass neet doesn't have to compete with the alleged "20% of guys" who are getting 100% of the women now that his good buddy the state is willing to play wingman. Yes, they worked as farmers, seamstresses, brewers, factory workers, midwives and so on. It's almost like, in Western society, they've always been a part of the workforce. Ah, you're almost there. But you seem still to be confused about the point itself, which is that family is and should be prioritized before work force for a stable and growing society. As already mentioned, it is not about forbidding anyone from doing labor, it's about priority. Treating purchasing power as freedom just shows how the problem cuts deeper, right into the philosophical realm (materialism). Which is the exact reason why science in the Middle Ages was far more advanced than it is today. How could we possibly hope to ever reach the lofty heights of technology and understanding our forebears had? I am not following, are you arguing that science and technology is hindered by the nuclear family?