Liberal Hypocrisy on Islam

[Ritalincel]

 

[Deleted member 685]

i dont think @ioan meant that
it's that it out of nowhere became normal that women started acting like utter whores, pedo drag queens are reading stories to kids and there are people out there lobbying for pedophiles

Again, you don't need religion to keep something like that in check. And if anything Islam is in favor of pedophiles. The reason behind these things being unideal and bad can all be explained by human nature and the fact it stops people from developing into that which they were meant to be. Men being men for example, and not girly boys.

 

[Deleted member 4645]

Define degeneracy. If 2 men doing their own thing in their bedroom gets you in your feels you're not a mature person.

Immoral behavior that leads to nothing but the glorification of vices.

Also, I wouldn't care about two men having gay sex on their own accord, but encouraging that kind of behavior only leads to promoting the destruction of the traditional family unit, thus society in general, since families is what a society is composed of.

 

[Deleted member 7112]

If it weren’t for religion we wouldn’t have morals. Do you have morals op? If so why?

 

[Blackout.xl]

*You said I had cognitive dissonance and refused to listen to the other side because I disagree, I respond and say that I have already listened to the other side and interacted with them.*
Which makes sense? Since literally your first reply about cosmic skeptic was that he's a low T white cuckold who browses reddit or whatever, rather than actually going in on his arguments. Obviously I've never seen you argue against his case before, so yeah obviously I detected cognissive dissonance. I don't see how it took you 5 min to type this.

*That somehow makes me not have any evidence for my core beliefs? What? The jump from the first statement to the next that you made is absolutely nonsensical.*
Because it goes to show you're not actually comfortable defending your position but rather personally attacking others who hold a different belief. After all you said you had no evidence for your religion previously anyways.

*If you actually read my comment you would realize that i never said he made a positive statement in favour of liberals.*
I never said you did, I just said your cognissive dissonance is stupid since he wasn't defending his liberal view in the first place which would only allow for your conservative position to be right.

Nigga who tf do you think you are? Do you really think you have my full undivided attention and are entitled to instant replies?

This is absolutely retarded. You accused me not wanting to listen to the other side, I respond with mentioning that I have listened to the other side on many occasions, and you respond with me somehow not having evidence for my core beliefs, which is a non-sequitur.

Never said I don’t have proof for religion.

“Had you actually understood this video you would've realized he wasn't even making a point directly in favor of "liberals", moreso he made a good critique of modern liberals.”


Now you’re saying you never accused me
Of saying he made positive statements in favour of liberals. Lol

 

[Deleted member 685]

Immoral behavior that leads to nothing but the glorifying of vices.

Also, I wouldn't care about two men having gay sex on their own accord, but encouraging that kind of behavior only leads to promoting the destruction of the traditional family unit, thus society in general, since families is what a society is composed of.

Nobody is encouraging others to be gay though.

 

[Blackout.xl]

And you're an obese black guy who larps on forums, why bring up personal nonsense? Who cares about whether I sound low T? Being disrespectful and arrogant is an obvious indication you're afraid of defending your actual worldview.

Yeah obviously they mog Islamic values, but I never said liberalism was the full way forward.

Not obese, 6’4.5 230.

No one cares about that shit bro. You sound like a debate club nerd

 

[Deleted member 4645]

Nobody is encouraging others to be gay though.

Well, I could be wrong but I think a lot of western media is pushing LGBT propaganda, even encouraging straight males to "explore their sexuality" or blaming them for not doing so. Also, faggotry is just an example. The body positivity movement is also pure degen and is heavily pushed.

Vice magazine is a typical example of that tbh.

 

[Blackout.xl]

Nobody is encouraging others to be gay though.

Ofc you ignore the drag queens in schools, media attention and praise for the LGBTQ community, full social protection for those who are gay, full normalization Of homosexual behaviour as just another activity, with no implications and the normalization Of mental illness through gender dysphoria along with state subsidized transitions

Edit: Quotas for gay people too

 

[Deleted member 685]

Nigga who tf do you think you are? Do you really think you have my full undivided attention and are entitled to instant replies?

This is absolutely retarded. You accused me not wanting to listen to the other side, I respond with mentioning that I have listened to the other side on many occasions, and you respond with me somehow not having evidence for my core beliefs, which is a non-sequitur.

Never said I don’t have proof for religion.

“Had you actually understood this video you would've realized he wasn't even making a point directly in favor of "liberals", moreso he made a good critique of modern liberals.”


Now you’re saying you never accused me
Of saying he made positive statements in favour of liberals. Lol

*Nigga who tf do you think you are? Do you really think you have my full undivided attention and are entitled to instant replies?*
Not even gonna bother replying to this.

*This is absolutely retarded. You accused me not wanting to listen to the other side, I respond with mentioning that I have listened to the other side on many occasions, and you respond with me somehow not having evidence for my core beliefs, which is a non-sequitur.*
Because your first messages were all ad hominems? This is like going to some random religious forum and giving all types of ad hominems, and then saying it doesn't make you look like you don't actually have the ability to defend your belief system instead of attacking others because you've already presumably disputed them before.

*
Now you’re saying you never accused me
Of saying he made positive statements in favour of liberals. Lol*
You were acting like it since your first natural response was calling him a "low T recessed liberal cuck"

 

[Deleted member 685]

Well, I could be wrong but I think a lot of western media is pushing LGBT propaganda, even encouraging straight males to "explore their sexuality" or blaming them for not doing so. Also, faggotry is just an example. The body positivity movement is also pure degen and is heavily pushed.

Vice magazine is a typical example of that tbh.

Yeah but vice is an obvious extreme case. I've never encountered any of that myself, if a straight person ends up "being gay" through exploration anyway he was most likely never actually straight to begin with eh? Or are you saying you can change your sexuality?

 

[Deleted member 685]

Ofc you ignore the drag queens in schools, media attention and praise for the LGBTQ community, full social protection for those who are gay, full normalization Of homosexual behaviour as just another activity, with no implications and the normalization Of mental illness through gender dysphoria along with state subsidized transitions

Edit: Quotas for gay people too

I don't see how this turns someone gay, moreover I've never seen full social protection for gay people.

 

[Blackout.xl]

*Nigga who tf do you think you are? Do you really think you have my full undivided attention and are entitled to instant replies?*
Not even gonna bother replying to this.

*This is absolutely retarded. You accused me not wanting to listen to the other side, I respond with mentioning that I have listened to the other side on many occasions, and you respond with me somehow not having evidence for my core beliefs, which is a non-sequitur.*
Because your first messages were all ad hominems? This is like going to some random religious forum and giving all types of ad hominems, and then saying it doesn't make you look like you don't actually have the ability to defend your belief system instead of attacking others because you've already presumably disputed them before.

*
Now you’re saying you never accused me
Of saying he made positive statements in favour of liberals. Lol*
You were acting like it since your first natural response was calling him a "low T recessed liberal cuck"

A lot of your responses can be chalked up to not reading properly and likely skimming through my post with no regard for the point being made.

Again,

Me not having evidence for my world view, does not logically follow from me saying I have interacted with the side of the argument that you accused me of refusing to listen to. You’re making a lot of unnecessary Assumptions.

Again, another assumption not based in evidence. “You were acting like it”, based on what exactly? Me saying that his leftist world views are the source of his content does not mean that I’m saying he made arguments in favour of liberals in his video.

 

[Deleted member 685]

A lot of your responses can be chalked up to not reading properly and likely skimming through my post with no regard for the point being made.

Again,

Me not having evidence for my world view, does not logically follow from me saying I have interacted with the side of the argument that you accused me of refusing to listen to. You’re making a lot of unnecessary Assumptions.

Again, another assumption not based in evidence. “You were acting like it”, based on what exactly? Me saying that his leftist world views are the source of his content does not mean that I’m saying he made arguments in favour of liberals in his video.

*
A lot of your responses can be chalked up to not reading properly and likely skimming through my post with no regard for the point being made.*
You really didn't make any. You just gave some ad hominems and after justified it by saying "B-b-bbut I've already argued with their side!"

*Me not having evidence for my world view, does not logically follow from me saying I have interacted with the side of the argument that you accused me of refusing to listen to. You’re making a lot of unnecessary Assumptions.*
So you didn't even understand my response. Yes, that assumption does logically follow as you ignore one's entire YouTube video based on the fact you think he looms a certain way. When your first natural response is to completely shame someone for their looks or whatever resulting in ad hominems and AFTER saying you already watched his videos and arguments anyway so it's good, makes you look like exactly that. It's the most childish way of arguing, "I've already argued before so my ad hominems don't make me look like an insecure prick who doesn't actually bother defending his core belief system which defines his/her way of viewing this world!"

*Again, another assumption not based in evidence. “You were acting like it”, based on what exactly? Me saying that his leftist world views are the source of his content does not mean that I’m saying he made arguments in favour of liberals in his video.*
Based on exactly what I said previously? The fact you had ad hominems and immediately called him out for being liberal? Do you even understand half of the shit you're saying? Nobody said for a *100%* you did, but you sure make yourself look that way by directly attacking him for being liberal when the actual video linked doesn't even defend his personal political position.

 

[Deleted member 4645]

Yeah but vice is an obvious extreme case. I've never encountered any of that myself, if a straight person ends up "being gay" through exploration anyway he was most likely never actually straight to begin with eh? Or are you saying you can change your sexuality?

No idea honestly. Now this is a purely anecdotal argument from me, but I feel like a growing number of teens on social media are adopting LGBTQ ideas (whether they're gay, bi, trans or whatever thing they came up with) solely because it's trendy and progressive.

But this could be just me interpreting it this way, who knows.

 

[Blackout.xl]

I don't see how this turns someone gay, moreover I've never seen full social protection for gay people.

Normalization allows for people to easily justify engaging in the behaviour, since they see it as just another activity with no repercussions. This is why the rate of heterosexuals in every generation decreases as the years go by, to point now where in the US something like 1/3rd of Gen Z does not identify as exclusively heterosexual.

Redirect Notice

www.google.ca

Full social protection = shielded from criticism and constantly praised, which is true. In the west at least, homosexuals are praised for being “brave” and “courageous” if they come out of the closet, or decide to become a tranny.

They are shielded from criticism, especially when it comes to their behaviour. Ppl who oppose them are labeled as homophobic.

 

[Kevin Logan]

Why is this guy dressed like AVGN?

 

[Deleted member 685]

Normalization allows for people to easily justify engaging in the behaviour, since they see it as just another activity with no repercussions. This is why the rate of heterosexuals in every generation decreases as the years go by, to point now where in the US something like 1/3rd of Gen Z does not identify as exclusively heterosexual.

Redirect Notice

www.google.ca

Full social protection = shielded from criticism and constantly praised, which is true. In the west at least, homosexuals are praised for being “brave” and “courageous” if they come out of the closet, or decide to become a tranny.

They are shielded from criticism, especially when it comes to their behaviour. Ppl who oppose them are labeled as homophobic.

*Normalization allows for people to easily justify engaging in the behaviour, since they see it as just another activity with no repercussions.*
Yeah, that's pretty much the entire point of defending homosexuality. Not having it as a taboo when they naturally feel that way and aren't hurting anyone with it.

*Full social protection = shielded from criticism and constantly praised, which is true. In the west at least, homosexuals are praised for being “brave” and “courageous” if they come out of the closet, or decide to become a tranny.*
Nah I don't see homosexuality being praised here all the time that's just a media thing. And maybe just maybe the reason coming out of the closet could be considered brave because homosexuality is not fully accepted yet? Homosexuals being beat up etc is a huge thing in the West still. These people have also always been a vulnerable minority.

*They are shielded from criticism, especially when it comes to their behaviour. Ppl who oppose them are labeled as homophobic.*
No shit that's literally the definition of homophobia.
"an aversion or hostility to, disdain for, or fear of gay sexual orientation or gay people"

 

[Blackout.xl]

*
A lot of your responses can be chalked up to not reading properly and likely skimming through my post with no regard for the point being made.*
You really didn't make any. You just gave some ad hominems and after justified it by saying "B-b-bbut I've already argued with their side!"

*Me not having evidence for my world view, does not logically follow from me saying I have interacted with the side of the argument that you accused me of refusing to listen to. You’re making a lot of unnecessary Assumptions.*
So you didn't even understand my response. Yes, that assumption does logically follow as you ignore one's entire YouTube video based on the fact you think he looms a certain way. When your first natural response is to completely shame someone for their looks or whatever resulting in ad hominems and AFTER saying you already watched his videos and arguments anyway so it's good, makes you look like exactly that. It's the most childish way of arguing, "I've already argued before so my ad hominems don't make me look like an insecure prick who doesn't actually bother defending his core belief system which defines his/her way of viewing this world!"

*Again, another assumption not based in evidence. “You were acting like it”, based on what exactly? Me saying that his leftist world views are the source of his content does not mean that I’m saying he made arguments in favour of liberals in his video.*
Based on exactly what I said previously? The fact you had ad hominems and immediately called him out for being liberal? Do you even understand half of the shit you're saying? Nobody said for a *100%* you did, but you sure make yourself look that way by directly attacking him for being liberal when the actual video linked doesn't even defend his personal political position.

I didn’t use the argument of me interacting with their side as a justification for my ad hominems. I made that mention as a response to your accusations of me refusing to listen to the other side, what is so hard to understand about this? Jfl

It doesn’t follow. Everything you say after this is just regurgitated nonsense that is the result of either your brain being stuck in debate mode and unable to listen to other people or genuine retardation.

Get out of your room, get some fresh air outside and clear ur head. You’re extremely estrogenic today.

 

[Blackout.xl]

*Normalization allows for people to easily justify engaging in the behaviour, since they see it as just another activity with no repercussions.*
Yeah, that's pretty much the entire point of defending homosexuality. Not having it as a taboo when they naturally feel that way and aren't hurting anyone with it.

*Full social protection = shielded from criticism and constantly praised, which is true. In the west at least, homosexuals are praised for being “brave” and “courageous” if they come out of the closet, or decide to become a tranny.*
Nah I don't see homosexuality being praised here all the time that's just a media thing. And maybe just maybe the reason coming out of the closet could be considered brave because homosexuality is not fully accepted yet? Homosexuals being beat up etc is a huge thing in the West still. These people have also always been a vulnerable minority.

*They are shielded from criticism, especially when it comes to their behaviour. Ppl who oppose them are labeled as homophobic.*
No shit that's literally the definition of homophobia.
"an aversion or hostility to, disdain for, or fear of gay sexual orientation or gay people"

Dn rd

 

[Deleted member 685]

I didn’t use the argument of me interacting with their side as a justification for my ad hominems. I made that mention as a response to your accusations of me refusing to listen to the other side, what is so hard to understand about this? Jfl

It doesn’t follow. Everything you say after this is just regurgitated nonsense that is the result of either your brain being stuck in debate mode and unable to listen to other people or genuine retardation.

Get out of your room, get some fresh air outside and clear ur head. You’re extremely estrogenic today.

LMAO does this not look like justification for the fact you only gave ad hominems? And yeah giving ad hominems makes you look like you're refusing to listen to the other side, especially when you later say you already argued with them before and how he's "not based" as a way to soften the fact you only made fun of him for the way he looks or what he believes in. You don't realize you afterwards saying you already argued with atheists before makes you look like a fool when your first responses were all as hominems?

You essentially made that mention as a response after I said you refused to the other side AFTER you already gave ad hominems like a 12 year old kid who just found out about /pol/. Do you not realize this makes you look like you're justifying the fact you gave some low iq ad hominems instead of actually responding to his context?

 

[Blackout.xl]

View attachment 776291View attachment 776292
LMAO does this not look like justification for the fact you only gave ad hominems? And yeah giving ad hominems makes you look like you're refusing to listen to the other side, especially when you later say you already argued with them before and how he's "not based" as a way to soften the fact you only made fun of him for the way he looks or what he believes in. You don't realize you afterwards saying you already argued with atheists before makes you look like a fool when your first responses were all as hominems?

You essentially made that mention as a response after I said you refused to the other side AFTER you already gave ad hominems like a 12 year old kid who just found out about /pol/. Do you not realize this makes you look like you're justifying the fact you gave some low iq ad hominems instead of actually responding to his context?

Not a pixel

 

[Deleted member 685]

Not a pixel

Manchild

 

[Blackout.xl]

Manchild

D n

 

[Deleted member 685]

D n

How Christianity Was Used to Exploit Africans | The African Exponent.

Some of the missionaries worked hand in hand with the colonial administrators in advancing the subjugation of Africans, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

www.africanexponent.com

 

[Blackout.xl]

How Christianity Was Used to Exploit Africans | The African Exponent.

Some of the missionaries worked hand in hand with the colonial administrators in advancing the subjugation of Africans, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

www.africanexponent.com

Dn