Lets learn to compromise.

11014667_779141298821478_1153621606207503712_n.jpg

There’s a reason why so many MENA countries have such poor human rights records, and it isn’t colonialism, racism from white people, cosmic radiation, voodoo curses, or any of the other countless bullshit excuses that are trotted out to explain their problems. A country is a reflection of the people who live there, and when those people are a bunch of 85-90 IQ sexual deviants, with a worldview that was archaic a millennium ago, then it can hardly be surprising that some messed up behaviours become commonplace in that country as a result. Ordinarily, we’re told to believe that geographical location is the sole determinant of this behaviour, and that if we move large masses of people from a geographical location where a certain behaviour is practiced, to somewhere where it isn’t, and don’t force them to integrate with the population of their new location (that would be racist), that somehow, they’ll just give up the old behaviour by pure magic, to behave more like the population of the host society. This of course is complete nonsense, and I don’t understand how anyone can still buy it. Because we can no longer pretend that they will change their barbaric behaviour on arrival, a new suggestion has been put forward. Compromise.

From The Journal

WESTERN STATES SHOULD legally permit immigrant communities to surgically “nick” young girls’ vaginas as an alternative to genital mutilation.

*sigh*

I wonder what kind of stupid argument these idiots are going to put forward in favour of this bright idea.

That was the argument put forward by a pair of US gynecologists in a hotly-challenged paper this week.

The two doctors stated in the Journal of Medical Ethics that such a “compromise” could allow groups to honour cultural or religious prescripts while saving millions of girls from invasive and disfiguring genital slashing practised in some African and Middle Eastern cultures.

In what world does this sound like a logical and sensible argument? The idea of actually “compromising” on such a barbaric practice is completely insane. What other “compromises” should western societies make with these backwards cultures in order to make them feel welcome?

“Hey lads, I know that throwing gay people off of buildings to their deaths is a part of your culture. But you can’t do that here. As a compromise, you can just beat them to a bloody pulp with baseballs bats instead.”

Or…

“Hey lads, I know that stoning adulterers to death is a part of your culture. But you can’t do that here. As a compromise, you can just stone them until they end up in a coma instead.”

Or…

“Hey lads, I know you like gang raping unaccompanied women who aren’t covered from head to toe. But you can’t do that here. As a compromise, you can only rape them on an individual basis, instead of in a gang.”

Seriously, how fucking ludicrous is this suggestion of compromise?

Kavita Arora of the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland and Allan Jacobs of Stony Brook University in New York state, said:

We are not arguing that any procedure on the female genitalia is desirable.

Then why are you offering a compromise rather than resisting it outright?

“Rather, we only argue that certain procedures ought to be tolerated by liberal societies”, which have outlawed such practices but host immigrants for whom it is part of their culture.

all_animals_are_equal_but_some_animals_are_more_equal_than_others.jpg

If its outlawed, then it should be forbidden to everyone. If they want to practice their culture, you know where they can do that? In the countries they came from. When they’re in another country, they should abide by the cultural norms of that country. If an element of their culture is incompatible with the culture of their host society, they have two choices. Leave, or stop practicing that part of their culture. It’s really that simple.

Efforts to enforce an outright ban on female genital mutilation (FGM) have often had the opposite effect – driving the practice underground and putting women at even greater risk, said the duo.

Strange how native European men aren’t filled with the same desire to resist this ban so they can mutilate female genitals. If I didn’t know better, I’d think there are vast differences between us, and the African/Middle Eastern men that we’re flooding our countries with. But that couldn’t possibly be true, because we’re all exactly the same and equal. Only brainless, hate filled, racists, would think otherwise.

But many peers immediately dismissed the idea.

There is still some sanity in this world after all.

According to Arianne Shahvisi of the University of Sussex ethics department in Britain:”One must not cause irreversible changes to the body of another person without their consent.”

I agree. I think we should also outlaw infant male circumcision too while we’re at it. I believe that males have the right to body integrity too. Maybe circumcised boys might end up wishing they still had their foreskins when they get older, and they should have the right to not have the decision made for them. Of course, I know such a ban would piss off the Jews to no end, so it will probably never happen. Would be funny to see them whining about it though.

tumblr_inline_mxvat6sR0h1ss6hjj.jpg
This rabbi would be terribly upset if he couldn’t cut the foreskin off baby penises and suck the blood out. Consequences of doing so be damned.

Arora and Jacobs, however, contended that a one-size-fits-all approach ignored that many people believed the procedure to be a means of achieving “moral or ritual purity” for their child.

Vaginal cutting is widely regarded as a libido-reducer, intended in certain cultures to keep a woman chaste.

“We’re a first world country in the 21st century. We let women make their own choices and claim to value gender equality. But we better keep those Muslims girls chaste.”

According to the World Health Organisation, about three million girls a year fall victim to genital mutilation.

It can cause urinary difficulties, cysts and infection, infertility and complications in childbirth.

But we can’t ban it outright. We need to reach a compromise instead.

Like dental work

Arora and Jacobs have proposed new sub-categories of genital cutting.

Category One would entail procedures with no long-lasting effect on the appearance or function of the genitalia, such as a “small nick” in the skin.

Procedures under Category Two may affect appearance, but not reproductive capacity or sexual enjoyment, they said. This could include removing the “hood” or skin-fold covering the clitoris or trimming the labia (labiaplasty).

The first two categories, they said, should be reclassified as female genital “alteration” (FGA) rather than “mutilation”.

“These procedures are equivalent or less extensive than male circumcision in procedure, scope and effect,” they wrote.

Indeed, they are equivalent or less extensive than orthodontia, breast implantation or even the elective labiaplasty for which affluent women pay thousands of dollars.

Unclear is whether this type of procedure would be considered valid by communities who perform FGM.

Categories Three to Five should remain outlawed, said the pair.

These included procedures to remove the clitoris or other parts of the vagina, often to be stitched closed with only a small hole for urine, menstrual blood and intercourse.

And what if they “accidentally” botch a category one procedure and end up giving a category 3 or higher? Is that considered an acceptable risk? Similar things have happened with male circumcisions, so what’s to say it couldn’t happen here too?

Brian Earp of the Bioethics Research Institute in New York said Arora and Jacobs erred in using male circumcision as a benchmark for what is permissible.

“Ultimately, I suggest that children of whatever sex or gender should be free from having healthy parts of their most intimate sexual organs either damaged or removed, before they can understand what is at stake in such an intervention and agree to it themselves,” he wrote in a commentary.

I completely agree. It’s their body, so they should get to choose what happens to it.

Earlier this month, the United Nations said at least 200 million girls and women alive today have been subjected to FGM – some 44 million aged 14 and younger.

In the 30 countries where the practice is most widespread, the majority were cut before their fifth birthday, according to the UN.

Such vibrancy. Such diversity. So colourful and exciting. We need more of this to enrich our boring countries.

The debating skills of the politically correct perfectly illustrated.

Galileo~
Galileo~ “Um you know guys, most of these migrants aren’t genuine cases. Here’s my evidence”
Politically Correct Inquisition~ “HERETIC… I mean… RACIST!!!”

So I came across a Facebook event calling on the Irish people to demand that our government take in more “refugees” in light of that horrific picture doing the rounds of that poor drowned Syrian child. Naturally, because most people are good, they found the image disturbing and wanted to help. I myself take no pleasure in seeing innocent children die. However, as I have tried to illustrate time and time again, the vast majority of these “refugees” aren’t fleeing from warzones like Syria, nor are they children. They are in most cases young, fit, black, African, men of working age, who leave for economic reasons, rather than to escape persecution or danger. Seeing the number of people joining the page (over 10,000 at this point) I was naturally alarmed, and decided to go and share some information, not because I have some irrational hatred of other races, or because I wanted to upset people, but because I recognise the very real trouble it could cause for Ireland in the future, just from looking at what has happened to other European countries. I decided to use a fake profile (picking the generic name John Smith) because I also know how nutty some of these do-gooders can be, tracking down people they disagree with and going out of their way to ruin their lives (all while claiming to be tolerant themselves). Below are screenshots of my interactions with others. I’ve hid their surnames and profile pictures. I don’t advocate harassment or victimisation of others, so I believe it’s only right to protect their identities. My aim was simply to inform, not to harass or annoy. Here’s how the discussion went.

My first post was to provide links to video footage of the migrants, to illustrate who they are, and how they are behaving in their host nations. I also linked to various news articles such as one about illegals buying fake Syrian passports in order to claim asylum, how some migrants are spending their food vouchers on prostitutes, information about Sweden’s rape statistics (which coincide with opening their borders to outsiders, etc.).

a.png

This post was completely ignored, as other users continued to argue amongst themselves. I then provided this post.

If they had checked my links from the first post, they would know that I was saying here was true.
If they had checked my links from the first post, they would know that what I was saying here was true.

So what response did I get to this question?

c

Instead of arguing the point that I made, Laura decided to attack me personally, and I responded as such.

d

A third party, Paul joined the discussion.

d1

And Laura responded.

e

So I decided to respond to both of these people with this post.

I think I've been fairly reasonable so far. No insults. No personal attacks. No putting emotions ahead of objective facts.
I think I’ve been fairly reasonable so far. No insults. No personal attacks. No putting emotions ahead of objective facts.
“I don’t have a response to your points, so I’ll just keep attacking you, block you so I don’t have to deal with you, and be a winner in my head”

Now, she raises a fair point about me using a false identity. She’s right, I do genuinely fear using my real identity, but it’s not because what I’m saying isn’t true or that I don’t stand by it, but rather because it doesn’t fucking matter that it is true. People are so politically correct these days, that people who don’t blindly follow their line of thought are liable to have their reputations ruined, lose their jobs, or even be physically attacked for expressing their opinions. I’m not trying to become a martyr by saying the things that I do. I say it because we need to start moving the overton window away from the politically correct points of view, and back to the truth. I’m not going to destroy my own life to do that, but I am going to help in whatever way I can.

Anyway, lets continue.

h

Another user then leaves a very reasonable and fair comment.

High five Carol. You have my genuine respect.
High five Carol. You have my genuine respect.

Paul then rejoins the discussion.

I can assure you Paul, I wasn't lying.
I can assure you Paul, I wasn’t lying.

Laura tells Paul to block me, much like she herself has decided to do. Again, not once has she actually addressed my arguments. She just insults me.

k

Paul in fairness to him doesn’t. He admits that he hasn’t actually seen my links, but acknowledges that there may be some basis to my points afterall. He does finish off with a somewhat snide comment, but that doesn’t bother me, because I assume it was just to save face after attacking me so confidently before.

l

I of course have no interest in attacking him for this. I’m simply hoping that he’ll see the information I provided, and realise that I’m telling the truth, unlike Laura who refuses to acknowledge reality. I then post this reply.

m

And now, over an hour later, nobody has responded to me and apart from a few posts that aren’t directed towards anyone in particular, the thread has virtually died. So what were the links I posted? Well, here they are.

Fake Syrian passports

Most Syrians refugees are fake

Refugees spending food vouchers on prostitutes

Statistics on who refugees are (Most are young men under the age of 35)

Sweden’s rape statistics

But no, clearly I’m just a hate filled racist out to see those poor Syrian children drown. No wonder Laura wouldn’t argue with me. It’s so completely obvious that I’m just a stupid racist, what possible argument is needed to beat me?

Irish people can now “self declare” their gender.

I can just hear the Social Justice Warriors grinding their teeth as they prepare to rage at me for my “ignorance” on this topic. Sorry SJWs, I know your hearts are in the right place (at least I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming you have good intentions). However, I have done my research on this topic and despite my best efforts, I have failed to find any scientific evidence that a sex change is biologically possible. All I see evidence of is people pumping themselves full of the opposite sexes hormones, and mutilating their genitalia so that they look more like the opposite sex. I see no evidence that they actually become the opposite sex.

This is what these people actually believe.
This is what these people actually believe.

Yes, I know transgender people are being honest and genuinely feel as if their biological sex does not match the gender they identify as and I do feel genuine sympathy for their plight. I don’t envy what they’re going through one bit, and I don’t think it’s right to bully or discriminate against them. However, the schizophrenic man is being honest when he says he hears voices in his head. The anorexic person is being honest when she says that she sees an obese girl looking back at her when she looks in the mirror.

This situation again.
This situation again.

Do we tell him that these voices are real and that he should listen to what they tell him to do? Do we tell her that she really is fat and that she should keep starving herself to lose weight? Of course not, because we know how harmful it could be to cooperate with these delusions. So why is that when a guy says he feels like a female and that he needs to take estrogen and have his penis and testicles surgically removed so he looks more womanly, do we play along? Yes, I know not all trans people go that far. I’m simply pointing out the most extreme example which can (and has) been reached. I think it’s very irresponsible for society to treat this obvious disorder like it’s just a different lifestyle. These people need compassion and help, but sometimes that necessitates a dose of tough reality. Instead, our state is opting to take the cowardly and easy route of just cooperating with the condition rather than trying to help people with it.

From The Journal

TRANS PEOPLE IN Ireland will now not have to rely on testimony from psychiatrists or endocrinologists to have their gender recognised by the state.

Instead, their self-declaration will be accepted, for the purpose of updating passports, driving licences, obtaining a new birth cert, and getting married.

Tánaiste Joan Burton announced this evening that the Cabinet has agreed that, under the Gender Recognition Bill currently before the Oireachtas, changes of gender will be effected by a “statutory declaration,” for those over the age of 18.

Well I will say one thing in its favour. At least it’s limited to over 18s for now. Not like America where they allow children who don’t yet know any better to make these life changing situations.

If Friends was made today instead of 20 years ago, they would have had a storyline about Ross's son Ben transitioning to being a girl after he played with a Barbie doll in that one episode.
If Friends was made today instead of 20 years ago, they would have had a storyline about Ross’s son Ben transitioning to being a girl after he played with a Barbie doll in that one episode.

“A person who transitions gender will have their preferred gender fully recognised by the State for all purposes – including the right to marry or enter a civil partnership in the preferred gender and the right to a new birth certificate.”

“Following today’s Cabinet decision…amendments will be made to the Bill at Committee Stage to ensure there will be no need for a supporting statement from a medical practitioner.”

The medical testimony requirement had been a controversial element of the bill, with Sinn Féin MEP Lynn Boylan describing it as “an insult to transgender people.”

“A person’s gender identity is a matter for each individual. Transgender people know their own identity. They don’t need medical evaluation to prove their identity to anyone.”

I have no doubt they genuinely do “know” it. That doesn’t change the biological reality of their sex though. No more than the anorexic girl “knows” she’s overweight. Seriously why exactly do feelings take precedence over objective, undeniable, physical reality?

This whole denial of reality reminds me of this guy, who thinks if he imagined something, that makes it real.

The requirement will, however, remain in place for those aged 16 and 17, the Tánaiste has confirmed.

The government has also dropped a section of the bill that would have forced trans people who are married to either get divorced or not have their gender transition recognised.

Minister of State Kevin Humphreys explained:

“As the marriage equality referendum has been passed there is no Constitutional barrier to a person in a marriage or civil partnership having their preferred gender legally recognised.”

So there you have it. No doubt, people who claim to care so much about the plight of transgender rights will take offence to my comments, but as I’ve said, I don’t think it’s right to treat these people badly. I just think it’s wrong to cooperate with the condition and promote it to the world as something normal. We know that the suicide rate is still very high even after transitioning, suggesting that treating it as normal doesn’t always do the sufferers any good. We don’t know what causes it (there may in fact be multiple causes and we can’t yet rule out young children imitating what they see as normal being a possible cause). From what I’ve seen, the majority of people aren’t convinced that this is the right way to deal with the issue.

So what reason or reasons do we have to treat it this way? If someone could provide scientific evidence that a sex change is biologically possible, that sex changes are a good thing, and that there’s a 0% chance of impressionable kids thinking that they’re transgender and being mistaken as such (when they’re not) because its promoted as being normal, then please go ahead. Keep in mind that for as long as we’ve known about transgenderism, we’ve considered it to be a disorder. Therefore seeing as that is the old position and the new position is that it’s perfectly normal, the burden of proof is on those who are presenting the new idea rather than the old. So please, show me the proof that this is the correct attitude to have.

Ireland: One of the most inconvenient places for the demands of Muslim tourists.

So according to a recent Irish Times article, Ireland is one of the “least friendly” countries in the world for Muslim tourists.

From The Irish times

Ireland one of least Muslim-friendly countries – report

Ireland is considered to be one of the least friendly places for Muslims to visit, according to the Global Muslim Travel Index, which has just been published.

First of all, I don’t appreciate the blatantly misleading heading of the article, which simply labels us as being “unfriendly” to Muslim tourists. This is of course to trigger the typical feelings of guilt that naturally manifest in people whenever they are accused of being prejudiced in some way. A more appropriate headline for the story in question would be the one that I used in for this post, because that’s what it’s really all about. It is being implied that we should somehow feel bad about how things are here and change things to make another group more comfortable.

You hate filled paddies. I’m only demanding that you do exactly what I want in order to make me feel more comfortable in your country. Why must you oppress me so?

The report evaluates countries in terms of their attentiveness to the needs of Muslim travellers, including the presence and accessibility of “halal” restaurants with food prepared to Islamic standards, and the provision of prayer rooms at airports, shopping centres and hotels.

.

.

.

Key factors in people from the global muslim community making travel decisions are restaurants serving food that is halal, or permissible under Islamic law, as well as readily accessible mosques or prayer rooms.

Why the fuck should we be required to have Mosques or prayer rooms available for their use? Do the Irish people want them? Do we need them? I don’t think so, so why should we be expected to provide them for outsiders? What responsibility do we have to cater to their beliefs and values?

We have about 6 of these in Dublin already. We’ve done more than enough already.

Oh, and don’t even get me started on halal meat. A disgraceful (as far as I’m concerned) practice that involves the causation of needless pain and suffering to innocent animals. I’m not some vegetarian whacko or anything, but I don’t believe that an animal should have its throat slit unstunned and be left to slowly bleed to death. As far as I’m concerned, halal (and kosher for that matter) meat, has no place in a society that respects animal rights.

I didn’t want to show an actual image of Halal slaughter because of how sickening it is. The cartoon gets the point across.

According to the report’s authors, they are also conscious of safety with rising anti-Muslim sentiment in some Western countries and an increase in Islamist militant attacks are worrying.

Interesting that it brings up safety issues due to militant Islam generating a lot of ill will towards Islam in general. I’d love to see the stats comparing Muslims killed by native Europeans vs Native Europeans killed by Muslims. Even then, at least the Muslims have an option of returning to the safety of their own countries. For Native Europeans, the danger is here with us. We have no safe place to return to.

“The halal lifestyle is a key component of the global travel industry,” Fazal Bahardeen, Crescent Rating’s chief executive said. “More so, because destinations are trying very hard to diversify their tourists.”

Why do we need to diversify our tourists? Is it not better to just continue to attract tourists who like us for what we are as opposed to attracting new groups who demand that we change things to suit their specific needs? Is it really worth it?

If they want halal food prepared to their standards, and the provision of prayer rooms in various public areas, they can find these things in Islamic countries. It is not our responsibility to cater to their every demand. We are what we are, and we shouldn’t have to change to suit the demands of others.