Jordan Peterson Is Canada's Most Infamous Intellectual - General

[QUOTE=Cyanlime;53118792]Can we all agree to just stop upholding this crackpot already? [video]https://twitter.com/S_Saeen/status/955889027957297152[/video] (Also, do watch the video in the OP, particularly 5:45 to 7:30 if you're short on time. Very elucidating in terms of the weird pseudo-scientific brand of sexism he pushes.)[/QUOTE] He's saying he [I]doesn't[/I] want to brutally dominated by a guy? How vanilla.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53120609]I get that he says "cultural marxism", I've listened to 6 hours of him on the Joe Rogan podcast. Yes, he says ridiculous shit that I discount and say "welp he doesn't get any points on that from me". But basically he's being presented as one of the worst "intellectuals" ever, one of the most vile speakers, one of the most vile people, the hyperbole around him is extreme and extraneous and doesn't help the genuine criticisms that are displayed here. Quite honestly, those genuine criticisms are getting buried in fucking stupid vitriol. I feel like once we reach the point that we can't have discussions about these kinds of things without resorting to labeling each other as fast as we are in this thread then there's no point to anything we wish we were talking about.[/QUOTE] He doesn't even "say" cultural marxism, he throws that shit around like candy. Happily labelling entire departments of universities as "infested" with these so-called "Cultural Marxists". Calling for their courses to be shut down, and contemplating creating a database where he can record and share the names of these so-called "cultural Marxists". Peterson is not a nice man. I am more than happy to discuss Peterson with people who like him for whatever reason. But thus far I have gotten precisely nowhere as any attempts I've made to point out his flaws are met with "yeah but he said this not awful thing once so he's redeemable!". A few phrases that he uses here and there that don't make him a total shit aren't quite enough to redeem his worse views and his super reactionary ideals. He hides his worse views behind pretty prose and a calm demeanour, we shouldn't be letting that fool us. That's how we get clowns like Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg having scary amounts of public support.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53120616]Do you not see the irony in typing this at the end of a long post defending Peterson?[/QUOTE] But I haven't labeled you anything. Where as I have been labeled how do you mean

Why are you so focusses on labels. Dude its bordering on paranoia.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53120655]Why are you so focusses on labels. Dude its bordering on paranoia.[/QUOTE] Labels don't matter, right? That's why you use them to discount, dismiss or disregard those things you label? [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] It's human nature to use labels and not think about them, I'm not being paranoid having a concern about he over reliance of people on them

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53120666]Labels don't matter, right? That's why you use them to discount, dismiss or disregard those things you label? [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] It's human nature to use labels and not think about them, I'm not being paranoid having a concern about he over reliance of people on them[/QUOTE] I'm so confused, I don't really see anyone labeling anyone

[QUOTE=J!NX;53120673]I'm so confused, I don't really see anyone labeling anyone[/QUOTE] [img]https://reel.geel.tf/uex4l7y5a3dmyw1i1o30.png[/img]

[QUOTE=geel9;53120792][img]https://reel.geel.tf/uex4l7y5a3dmyw1i1o30.png[/img][/QUOTE] Pretty sure they were talking about labelling users.

[QUOTE=ThePanther;53120199]Wow, here's another gem, I'm not sure how else to interpret this: [QUOTE]The parameters for my resistance are quite well defined which is: We talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical... When men are talking to each other in any serious manner, that underlining threat of physicality is always there, especially if it's a real conversation, and keeps the thing civilized to some degree. If you're talking to a man who wouldn't fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you are talking to someone for whom you have absolutely no respect.[/QUOTE] So only discussions with people who are willing to get physical to prove their point are respectable? :what:[/QUOTE] FUCK handicapped men. weld a fucking machine gun to your wheelchair or dont presume to be worth talking to. your choice, cripple bitc [editline]9th February[/editline] Peterson's idea of masculinity reads like a pretext for an anime battle "you're not man enough to destroy me even now, goku" *teleports away with ur girlfriend*

Why do people always scramble so hard to assign malicious intent to people they disagree with? Like fuck, for some of the people in this thread, it reads like there are secret photographs of this guy kicking grannies in the cunt. Isn't the guy a staunch advocate of personal liberty/ lessening of state control- and rigorous examination of ideas? What the fuck is the problem.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;53120597]Neutrality isn't king. Neutrality can be good. But it can also lead to complacency and give those with bad intentions the means to act on them. Either by poisoning discussions because "oh but we have to be fair and let them speak!" or by leading to absurd amounts of whataboutism to ensure that [I]everyone takes the blame equally[/I].[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Raidyr;53120599]I see very, very little disparagement of [B]genuine [/B]neutrality.[/QUOTE] wasn't trying to extol the virtues of neutrality, more just note a trend i have seen, one that seems to be pushing people to take one side or the other. perhaps disparage was too strong of a word, discourage would have been more apt.

[QUOTE=St33m;53120825]Why do people always scramble so hard to assign malicious intent to people they disagree with? Like fuck, for some of the people in this thread, it reads like there are secret photographs of this guy kicking grannies in the cunt. Isn't the guy a staunch advocate of personal liberty/ lessening of state control- and rigorous examination of ideas? What the fuck is the problem.[/QUOTE] Imagine you're trying to get rid of really really really shitty behaviours and ideas that are plain lies about say for example trans people. Then comes along a dude with youth appeal and a cult, telling everyone that kids at ages 3 or 4 are getting irreversible sex surgery on TV. Or he starts going off on a rant about a law he doesn't understand that's trying to protect trans people and he tries to stop that. Or during his rant he puts trans people in opposition to free speech, victimizing them further. Wasn't it enough with the creationists that they were wrong? This guy justifies opposition to himself dozens of times over. (It's not just that of course)

[QUOTE=geel9;53120792][img]https://reel.geel.tf/uex4l7y5a3dmyw1i1o30.png[/img][/QUOTE] Human Abyss was talking about himself labeling somebody else Not sure where any poster labeled another here

Its funny because when I saw this thread I knew there would be the jilted bitching of those who had no argument outside of what has already been debunked about Peterson, just the usual insults and miss-understandings of what the man actually has to say. And that's fair enough FP is very left leaning and its to be expected however don't think that because these opinions are validated in an echo chamber that they have any credibility outside of it. I am sure if any of you had a one on one conversation with him then your arguments would fall down flat, a little humility would go a long way but I wouldn't expect it from those testing their ideological convictions on a video game forum.

[QUOTE=PelPix123;53120242]the problem i have with this dude isn't his points, it's the obvious bias in which he applies his points, like talking about makeup while he has 20 metric tons of product in his hair[/QUOTE] You're not wrong. He says the purpose of red lipstick to be sexually attractive to men, which is true. But then he uses this to try and justify why makeup should be banned in the workplace, which is ludicrous.

[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;53120989]You're not wrong. He says the purpose of red lipstick to be sexually attractive to men, which is true. But then he uses this to try and justify why makeup should be banned in the workplace, which is ludicrous.[/QUOTE] Men should not be allowed to wear suits at work because it makes them more sexually desirable due to the social connotation and how it make men appear broader than they are. Thus more sexually appealing.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;53120602]The law wasn't even unfair lmao. Every fear of being "jailed" for not using the correct pronouns was fucking bunk from the get go as Canada has legal precedent with similar laws protecting other minority groups. You don't face any form of legal action unless you're clearly being malicious and even then it's a fucking fine at worst.[/QUOTE] What a lot of people don't understand (because Peterson propagandized people into believing otherwise) is that Bill C-16 wasn't a new law. Bill C-16 was an amendment to a preexisting law that added gender identity and expression to a list of classes that are protected from discrimination. The guidelines for what constitutes a discriminatory practice are specific and are almost solely restricted to the workplace. Peterson's entire initial claim to fame is based off of plain stupidity or maliciousness. And literally anyone can read the full bill online. You can even read old versions of the bill to see what C-16 changed. [url]http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/FullText.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Proj3ct_ZeRo;53120933]Its funny because when I saw this thread I knew there would be the jilted bitching of those who had no argument outside of what has already been debunked about Peterson, just the usual insults and miss-understandings of what the man actually has to say. And that's fair enough FP is very left leaning and its to be expected however don't think that because these opinions are validated in an echo chamber that they have any credibility outside of it. I am sure if any of you had a one on one conversation with him then your arguments would fall down flat, a little humility would go a long way but I wouldn't expect it from those testing their ideological convictions on a video game forum.[/QUOTE] If the hieght of Conservative thinking is Peterson, you guys are so fucked in the ideas department.

[QUOTE=omarfr;53121016]Men should not be allowed to wear suits at work because it makes them more sexually desirable due to the social connotation and how it make men appear broader than they are. Thus more sexually appealing.[/QUOTE] When you think about it, everything we do in life has the end goal of passing on our genes as much as possible. Therefor everything we do is sexually motivated by definition.

[QUOTE=cbb;53121098]What a lot of people don't understand (because Peterson propagandized people into believing otherwise) is that Bill C-16 wasn't a new law. Bill C-16 was an amendment to a preexisting law that added gender identity and expression to a list of classes that are protected from discrimination. The guidelines for what constitutes a discriminatory practice are specific and are almost solely restricted to the workplace. Peterson's entire initial claim to fame is based off of plain stupidity or maliciousness. And literally anyone can read the full bill online. You can even read old versions of the bill to see what C-16 changed. [url]http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/FullText.html[/url][/QUOTE] That's a different piece of legislation entirely, that's bill C-16 and the bill Peterson argued against was motion M103. Neither bill has had the effect that Peterson claims M103 would have (making it illegal to criticize Muslim people or Islam), but when we actually read what M103 actually did it becomes even more ridiculous. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103[/url] [QUOTE] Motion 103, also known as M-103, was a [b]non-binding motion[/b] in the 42nd Canadian Parliament stating that the members of the House of Commons called on [b]the Government of Canada to condemn Islamophobia in Canada.[/b] It also called on the [b]Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to carry out a study on how racism and religious discrimination can be reduced and collect data on hate crimes[/b]. The motion was introduced by Iqra Khalid, a Liberal MP representing Mississauga—Erin Mills. The motion passed by a vote of 201–91 on March 23, 2017.[1] The debate surrounding the motion was characterized as "deeply divisive", especially within the Official Opposition Conservative Party of Canada which was in the midst of a leadership election.[2][/QUOTE] [QUOTE] Motion 103 calls on the government to "condemn Islamophobia [b]and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination"[/b], asks the government to [b]"recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear"[/b], and request for the [b]"Commons heritage committee to study how the government could develop a government-wide approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia, and collect data to provide context for hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities. Findings are to be presented within eight months."[/b][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Motion 103 has been accused of "singling out Muslims for special treatment",[9] by condemning only Islamophobia by name and not explicitly mentioning other religious groups.[10] This argument was made by Pierre Lemieux,[9] and Kellie Leitch.[11] [b]Several previous motions in the House of Commons have singled out individual religions in a similar manner (for example, asking MPs to condemn anti-Semitism).[/b][11] Conservative MP Michael Chong pointed out that the House of Commons had [b]previously passed motions that denounced hatred against Jews (on February 22, 2016), Yazidis (on October 25, 2016) and Coptic Christians (on October 17, 2011).[9][/b][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Rona Ambrose and Lisa Raitt criticized the motion for its use of the term Islamophobia, which they described as "controversial".[9][17] Many Conservative MPs said that the Liberals needed to define Islamophobia.[20] On February 15, Iqra Khalid stated that the definition of Islamophobia is "the irrational hate of Muslims that leads to discrimination".[21] It was also pointed out that the Conservative party had already supported a motion condemning "all forms of Islamophobia" in October 2016.[22][/QUOTE] In summary, a non-binding bill was passed in the canadian parliament that had two effects. One was for the government to condemn systematic racism and religious discrimination, which is a token (i.e. meaningless) gesture with no actual effect on government policy. The other was to instruct an existing government committee to conduct a study on systematic racism and religious discrimination. Part of the study is already completed (there have been several reports published and you can read the latest one here: [url]http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CHPC/report-10/[/url]). The arguments against the bill within the parliament included that it singled out Muslims for preferential treatment among other ethnic minorities or religious groups, and also that it included the word Islamophobia which the bill's detractors argued was contentious. I would argue that these two arguments are very misleading because, firstly, the bill calls on the government to condemn and conduct a study on "all forms of systematic racism and religious discrimination". Secondly, I would argue that the word Islamophobia is simply thought to mean any form of religious discrimination against Muslims based on their religion, and its meaning is only contentious within conservative circles. There is no way that the bill, in it's original stated form, could possibly be interpreted as wanting Muslims or Islamic countries to be immune to criticism, or whatever vaguely defined slippery slope the bills detractors believe it would've lead to (I say would've because the bill passed and Islamic law hasn't been instituted in Canada). If that was so, then simply stating "racism is bad" should be interpreted as a slippery slope to letting black people rule over whites and instituting traditional African tribal ceremonies to replace all laws and systems of government. Because that's effectively what the people making that argument (including Peterson) were suggesting.

[QUOTE=Zyler;53121136]That's a different piece of legislation entirely, that's bill C-16 and the bill Peterson argued against was movement M103. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103[/url] [/QUOTE] Oh that's fucking neat. We were both thinking of two completely different pieces of legislation that Peterson argued against because he's an idiot. [video=youtube;KnIAAkSNtqo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo[/video]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53120609]I get that he says "cultural marxism", I've listened to 6 hours of him on the Joe Rogan podcast. Yes, he says ridiculous shit that I discount and say "welp he doesn't get any points on that from me". But basically he's being presented as one of the worst "intellectuals" ever, one of the most vile speakers, one of the most vile people, the hyperbole around him is extreme and extraneous and doesn't help the genuine criticisms that are displayed here. Quite honestly, those genuine criticisms are getting buried in fucking stupid vitriol. I feel like once we reach the point that we can't have discussions about these kinds of things without resorting to labeling each other as fast as we are in this thread then there's no point to anything we wish we were talking about.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53120666]Labels don't matter, right? That's why you use them to discount, dismiss or disregard those things you label? [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] It's human nature to use labels and not think about them, I'm not being paranoid having a concern about he over reliance of people on them[/QUOTE] I think you may be too emotionally invested in this argument. You keep talking about how you are feeling personally attacked by people labeling you and that we personally hate Jordan Peterson and think he is the most vile human being to ever exist or something similiar. Nobody has said that they hate you or Jordan Peterson. We don't hate personally hate Jordan Peterson, we think he's a 'hack' because he uses emotionally charged and manipulative language to trick people to believing misleading or outright false claims. He doesn't follow any scientific process and spins his own tricked out pseudo-psychology as fact rather than his own views/opinion on the (false) basis that his doctorate provides him expert knowledge on topics beyond his actual field of clinical psychology. He's a spin doctor who writes pseudo-scientific self-help books and spreads fraudulent conspiracy theories about western academia being filled with evil communists trying to take over the country. His work is spread by actual neo-nazi organizations because he legitmizes their beliefs and (intentionally or unintentionally) spreads their own propaganda in turn. That's why people have said he spreads nazi propaganda (because that's what he does), I don't think anyone has called him a neo-nazi. He's not a neo-nazi, he's someone neo-nazis use to form a facade of legitimacy so that they can suck more people into believing aspects of their ideology. Just because someone has a doctorate doesn't mean that the things that they say automatically have increased worth as a result. For example, Ben Carson is one of the world's leading neurosurgeons and was one of the republican candidates for the 2016 presidential primaries, but he also believes that the pyramids were build by jesus' father to serve as grain silos. A person can be knowledgable in one area and not very unknowlegable in another area. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect]In some cases, people who have very high opinions of themselves because of their knowledge in one field may cause them to falsely believe that their knowledge carries over into other fields and then refuse the accepted scientific consensus as a result.[/url] That's how you get people like Ben Carson and Jordon Peterson.

[QUOTE=V12US;53121124]When you think about it, everything we do in life has the end goal of passing on our genes as much as possible. Therefor everything we do is sexually motivated by definition.[/QUOTE] I guess asexual people don't exist then?

[QUOTE=V12US;53121124]When you think about it, everything we do in life has the end goal of passing on our genes as much as possible. Therefor everything we do is sexually motivated by definition.[/QUOTE] There is no inherent purpose or end goal to human lives. [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem]Sexual reproduction is why we are here, that does not mean that it is what we ought to do, i.e. there is a moral or biological imperative for us to reproduce.[/url] We have a sex drive, but as humans we can choose not to persue that sex drive or to persue it and use contraceptives to avoid having children, because we have sentience/sapience. In other words, we were not put on this earth to reproduce because there is no intention behind us existing, we simply exist. [Url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy]You're conflating the reason for our existence with a purpose for existing, of which there is none except what we've invented through our constructed culture and religions.[/url]

[QUOTE=01271;53120237] Overall you did a good job of understanding me, understanding Jordan Peterson but you didn't really understand m103.[/QUOTE] I will say now, since I am only now getting home and about to go to bed, that you have a good point. You are right that there is a degree to which the legistlative authority brought on by the bill in question is not proportional to the sensational treatment that peterson gave it. I will will say that, despite that, there are still some points of contention which I will hold out on pending further understanding on my part. I will not reply to your points in full in this post, as I am limited in time on this day, but I will attempt to do so tomorrow. Until that time, I will say that my preliminary response to your rebuttal is that there still seems to be a degree of vague definition within [quote]“[B]anti-Muslim discrimination or hate[/B];”[66] “[B]a criticizing or scathing negative opinion that might directly or indirectly cause humiliation >>or<< [/b] damage to the reputation and or incite to hatred and to violence against a person or a group of persons for the only reason that they are of Muslim faith;”[67]“extends from ‘a fear or hatred of Islam and Muslims’ to acknowledge that these attitudes develop into individual, ideological, and systemic forms of oppression that shore up specific power relations;”[68][/quote] The above quoted and bolded passages contain wording which is vague to a degree that seemingly puts me among the nebulous group of 'conservatives or peterson's fans'. I intend to elaborate on what I mean by this tommorow, but for the time being allow me to say that the banning of hate needs to be fixed to purely humanistic levels, as opposed to ideological, and furthermore the measure of an acceptable amount of 'criticism' or 'humiliation' ought to be taken into account. Granted, the context for this is highly important. It could range from an acceptable debate to an uncalled-for public denouncement based on grounds that do not necessarily represent the person in question's viewpoint. Lastly, before I finish this intermediary response to our discussion, let me also reassert that I, currently, still intend to reply to your larger post that I alluded to in my earlier reply, to do otherwise would do a disservice the the effort you have put in.

[QUOTE=Mech Bgum;53121553]"to be more attractive to themselves" But that is not true? You may do it for yourself in a sense, to make yourself feel good about your body and appearance, but somehow I don't believe a woman stranded on a deserted island would be putting on lipstick "to be more attractive to herself". Implications of social judgment is still within that feeling. Women wear makeup and engage in self-care and hygiene to be [B]more attractive period[/B] (just like men do haircuts, personal hygiene and shave for the same reason, except well, not makeup). With all implications of increased status both among males and females and sexual attractiveness to opposite gender.[/QUOTE] Do you not feel a sense of dirtiness and discomfort when you haven't bathed, or haven't shaved, or haven't brushed your teeth or cut your nails? It's the same concept. Being clean and attractive feels good. The idea that people should be purposefully more unkempt to ward off sexual advances is just fuckin' crazy :v

[QUOTE=Mech Bgum;53121568]Women don't put on [B]bright red[/B] lipstick to feel nice thick layer on their lips.[/QUOTE] Yeah man I'm sure every woman that puts on lipstick before she goes to work is thinking about how many dudes she's gonna make pop a boner at the office.

[QUOTE=Mech Bgum;53121599]You have anything else to say? Preferably in respectful and constructive manner.[/QUOTE] I don't think there's anything respectful I can say about this toxic mindset Peterson is promoting. If you really want to have a constructive conversation you should go ask a woman why she wears makeup and they'll be able to explain it to you.

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;53120266]Why only focus on Muslim countries in that case though? Have you seen how women get treated in India? China? Huge parts of Africa that are home to various non-Muslims? Or how about North Korea, Various Latin American countries, even Eastern European? Women get treated like absolute shit all over the world. I mean, how many people cared that Trump, leader of the free world, boasted about sexually assaulting women? Pretty much no one as it had zero effect on the election and whenever feminists try attacking him over it people just say "WHAT ABOUT ISLAMIC COUNTRIES!".[/QUOTE] I think the major issue why muslims get targeted is because they live by the Quran and Sharia's law which openly state how and why women are treated like shit (to us, the western civilization). China doesn't have that many people living by the Quran btw. Last time I checked, in India Islam is also kinda spread. [QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;53120266] It's just hip to shit on Muslims right now which is why they get targeted, despite the fact women get raped to death with rods in India but because they are cool Hindu people it's all good. Even JAPAN, one of the most highly regarded countries in the world, can have some serious issues towards women.[/QUOTE] Problem I see is that muslims have very high birthrates, get into other countries and want to live by their ideologies, laws (Sharia) and such and try to get these things applied in said countries they go to (Most european countries right now). The mass immigration and refugee crisis is also partially at fault for this because those people just don't understand how women are treated here and just treat them like in their home countries. Muslims outclass the citizen's birthrates by a large margin at one point until they become a majority, then the seculary state gets most likely removed and Sharia's law gets applied. Just look at surveys about how many people would love to have Sharia's law as their only law in a country in which muslims make up a good amount of the population. Countries like UK already have a 40% population of muslims living in cities like London and even Sharia's law is partially applied in courts and there have been clashes between the rulings and judgements that conflicted with the actual law system in it already. Here are a few rules of Sharia which are most taken from the Quran: - Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death. - A woman or girl who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s). - A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's - Testimonies of 4 male witnesses are required to prove rape of a female - A woman or girl who alleges rape without producing 4 male witnesses is guilty of adultery. - A woman or girl found guilty of adultery is punishable by death. - Muslim men have sexual rights to any woman/girl not wearing the Hijab (Taharrush - group sexual harassment where they circle a woman and where they can rape her as well (as happened hugely on Cologne 2015 sylvester night) - A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old [URL]https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/rape-adultery.aspx[/URL] [URL]http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html[/URL] Additionally, Mohammed did molest a child according to what's written in the Quran and (related to terroristic attacks) the Quran openly states to use violence against non-believers and non-muslims in other countries, because it's written in a way to give them a right to do it and spread the Islam. Through violence. That's why many muslims don't take part in anti-terror demonstrations that often (in my country for example). Not all of them are like that. Sometimes they tell others to not take it that serious. But there are definitely more indications for violence than I have seen from the bible and christians, for example. Yes, women get treated like a shit in many other countries but since the refugee crisis (where muslims also came in masses in european countries.) there has been a huge increase in sexual assaults and general violence. Sexual assaults increased by 500% in Sweden when they took in large numbers of those people in. Even in Germany, a writer who speaks fluently arabic has learned that the muslims who go into the mosquees think that the money from our job centers (the money our honest citizens pay into the state) "comes from Allah" and not from the job center. 95% of the stuff spoken loudly on speakers in public is gibberish that no one really understands. The muslims in mosques are being told that the Germans are non-believers and foreigners in this country. The problem I have with muslims is that most of them don't want to integrate themselves into the countries they live in. Our female minister for integration (a muslim woman) even openly stated and I quote that "Germany does not have a culture beyond its language", she even defended refugees who used their free money to go back to the countries they fled from to do vacation. Just to give you some examples. There are many places in the world in which women get treated badly but when it comes to Islam, the Quran and Sharia's law it's just so much easier to see how they even [I]support[/I] that kind of behavior, compared to other countries. It is inhuman to us, the western people but for them it's completely normal. And ever since they come to the west in masses now, it's a bigger problem for people in these countries as well, for the reasons I wrote above.

The Christian Bible also declares that men should rule over women, and that women should have no position of authority whereby women could have any power over men: "I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent." Timothy 2:11 Essentially, if we were to cherrypick parts of the bible to support a prior conclusion as you have done with the Quaran, the bible definitely states that: -Criticizing or denying any part of the holy law is punishable by death -A woman or girl who is raped shall be stoned to death for adultery -A woman is property, to be owned by their fathers until they are forcibly married and become property of their husbands, their word means nothing and attempting to go against the will of their fathers (and by extension, they husband) is punishable by death -Women are, by nature, sinful adulteresses who are deceitful and likely to betray men and God -Women who wear makeup are sinful and probably prostitutes -Women should have their vaginas inspected on a regular basis, just to check that a strip of cartiliage isn't ripped, and if it is then it they should be stoned to death. In Genesis, Eve is the primary instigator of humanity's fall into original sin. All of humanity is condemned as being sinful because of the progenitor of women, and who metaphorically represents all women as a gender. Samson is betrayed by Delilah, who uses her evil feminine ways to seduce him into telling her the source of his incredible strength. She uses this knowledge to strip him of his power and give him over to the Phillistines, who have him killed. God instructs Moses to commit a genocide of the Midiantes because one of the leaders of the Iraelites has sex with Cozbi, a midiante woman, and the mixing of the blood of the chosen people with those of infidels is an affront of to God. As soon as the other leaders of the Israelites see her, one of them picks up a spear and then runs into their tent to kill them both. They then go on to kill twenty-four thousand people in order to ethnically cleanse themselves of the Midiantes, as ordained by God. Gomer was, according to the bible, a "promiscous woman", a harlot" and a "whore" and is responsible for the decline of the Kingdom of Israel because she is an adulteress and her husband is commanded to 'buy her back' from her lover for 15 shekels and some barley. Jezebel convinced her husband Ahab, the king of Israel to stop worshiping God and worship pagan gods instead. She does this by forging evidence against Jewish prophets in order to falsely convict them of crimes. As just punishment, God had her thrown out of a window and had her flesh eaten by dogs. Characters like Jezebel are used to associate make-up and cosmetics with infidelity and female sin, i.e. "painted women" being prostitutes. The bible also says that a woman giving birth is an 'unclean' act. A woman must be sequestered into a church for 66 days in order to contemplate their shame for giving birth until they may be allowed back into society: "But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)" The bible says that non-virgin women who are not married are to be stoned to death: "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." (Deuteronomy 22: 20-21)" Women are owned by their fathers until the day they are forcibly married to a husband by their father, upon which they become the property of their husband. In order to check the virginity status of women, it was necessary to check a part of the woman's body known as the hymen, which is essentially a strip of cartillage that stretches accross the inner vaginal cavity and can be broken by having sex, but also randomly through stenuous excercise or injury. If a woman's hymen was broken, it was expected for them to be stoned to death. Revelations tells us even more ways in which breaking any of these rules will result in punishment, ranging from stoning we talked about previously to being forced to eat your own children. Leviticus tells us that "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9). I'm pointing this out not in order to argue that this is the definitive or correct interpretation of the whole bible. Or that there is anything particularly wrong with the bible compared to any other religious text. Instead, I'm pointing out that using the same cherrypicking of facts in order to suit an agenda, one can pick and choose whatever they wish to prove about how all Muslims/Christians/Sikhs/Jews/Hindus are women-hating women-stoning rapist murderers or whatever one wishes. These texts were all written thousands of years ago, so they reflect the beliefs and views of people who were alive during that time. People have been reinterpreting bits of all of these religious texts for centuries if not millennia, picking and choosing which bits to follow and which bits to creatively reinterpret in order to have it make sense for the time. That isn't even including the various translations and revisions, such as the King Jame's Bible, in which the translations completely changed the meanings of some passages, and some bits were outright changed in order to suit the contemporary beliefs of the time. Religion/Culture is fickle and, by nature, made up, changed, revised and constructed through generations of what is essentially a game of telephone. The original Jews were considered to be a terrorist group of brown middle-eastern people by the prevailing empire of the time (the romans). Their descendants, the Christians were considered to be violent revolutionaries before their beliefs were adopted by the emperor. It's not just a christian/jewish/muslim thing either. The Rohingya Genocide was committed by people in a majority Buddhist country, Myanmar. Even though Buddhists are stereo-typically considered to be the most peaceful religion, and other Buddhists such as those in Tibet are against any form of violence. Any person of any religion can be violent/misogynistic towards anyone and are justified, according to them, by their holy texts. The behavior of modern day Muslims is reflective of the modern social factors and ideologies of theocratic dictatorial governments from countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Iran, extremist religious/political ideas such as Salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood and as well as criminal organizations including Al Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS. It is very easy to trace the actions and repressive treatment of women within these countries and organizations back to specific people and systematic structures, just like it is possible to trace the wrongful treatment of women in 'Christian', i.e. western, countries to specific organizations and institutions. It's just lazy and counter intuitive to blame modern day political issues on 10,000 year old pieces of writing, which have been and still are interpreted in a million different ways by a million different people to justify horrific acts of violence in the name of God, including white domestic terrorists in the United States who make up the majority of violent attacks in the country. On a related point, the vast majority of muslim related violence is caused by a small minority of the extremist groups I mentioned. And white christian men commit the majority of violent terrorist attacks. The vast majority of muslim immigrants integrate like any other member of society and are not any more prone to violence. The refugee crisis was not caused by Muslims 'outbreeding' western people, it was caused by a huge number of misplaced innocent people being displaced by a series of violent wars which have been going on for over a decade. That's not to say that all muslims are completely innocent and that there are no problems with mass immigration when the systems aren't in place to handle it. However, these issues are caused by the current social, economic and political situation where you have extremely poor, starving people who have been shuffled from country to country for years either placed inside little boats that are tightly packed with over a hundred people or walking for weeks through a desert only to be placed in cramped and decrepit housing settlements within ghettos. There is a linkage between extreme poverty and a high crime rate. Many of the children have never been to school because the wars have been going on for so long, which leads to child delinquency. Crime and poverty also lead to a cycle whereby crime leads to even more poverty because people cannot succeed in the ghetto neighborhood without being robbed. It's the same reason we see (proportionately) higher rates of crime and poverty in other minority groups, such as African Americans in the states, not because black people are inherently criminals but because the social and economic situation within historically black neighborhoods leads to increased levels of crime and poverty. We need to get over this thing of blaming huge vaguely defined groups of people as inherently bad based on vaguely defined characteristics like race, gender or an entire religion made up of numerous sects and political/religious offshoots. It's wrong, but most of all it's just extremely lazy. Instead of thinking why a person might be acting the way they do, we just pick up whatever the most general, noticeable thing about them is and just go "anybody who looks or believes things like that must act in that exact same way".