Thank the good Lord for small favors. Fucknut.
Muslim filth commit mass rapes in Germany - no surprise there
- Thread starter transwarpdrive
- Start date
Thank the good Lord for small favors. Fucknut.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
by roving gangs of Christian men?......I believe none......
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Rune is a dildo of the first order, he has gone from denying that it ever happened to defending the indefensible. He must have spilt up with Darla as she would have his guts for garters.
transwarpdrive
Destroyer of Liberals
You're actually pretending to give a shit about jews?
Oh, that's right, the far left trash always moans about jews under the nazis - but as for those jews today defending themselves from the arab muslims - not so much. Stop pretending fuckwit, no one is buying what you are selling.
transwarpdrive
Destroyer of Liberals
Tell us, idiot - you seem so incredibly well-informed. Then tell us what you did to stop those alleged "white christian men" attacking women, whereever they were.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Unless I misread it, yep.
I used to live in a summer resort town.
Every summer, college students would descend en masse upon the city, and every year there would be multiple gang-rapes committed mainly by white, Protestant, American college students (all of which were quickly hushed up so the "family-friendly" beach town wouldn't dare have gang rapes be a dark mark on its escutcheon (the same was true of shark attacks at the beaches, but that's a different story)).
Are we going to ban white, Protestant, American college students from entering the country, or expel them from it?
Are we going to paint all white, Protestant, American college students with the same brush?
Are all white, Protestant, American college students filth?
That sword you're flailing around swings both ways.
If it doesn't, you're a damned hypocrite without the true courage of your convictions.
Every summer, college students would descend en masse upon the city, and every year there would be multiple gang-rapes committed mainly by white, Protestant, American college students (all of which were quickly hushed up so the "family-friendly" beach town wouldn't dare have gang rapes be a dark mark on its escutcheon (the same was true of shark attacks at the beaches, but that's a different story)).
Are we going to ban white, Protestant, American college students from entering the country, or expel them from it?
Are we going to paint all white, Protestant, American college students with the same brush?
Are all white, Protestant, American college students filth?
That sword you're flailing around swings both ways.
If it doesn't, you're a damned hypocrite without the true courage of your convictions.
ChoppedLiver
New member
That's a lie and you're a lying sack of monkey spunk, asshole.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
It says something when Sweden and Denmark close their borders. They have pretty much been the barometer of liberal openness. When they close their borders you know something has gone wrong.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Doesn't that make them xenophobic? I wonder if Trump would get elected there.
They have taken in 160,000 immigrants, that is hardly xenophobic.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I was with two Swedish guys last month in Thailand, Swedes are not normally given to emotion but they were absolutely livid about what their government has done. Of course you will just dismiss what I saying and that is to be expected.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
One thing you could never accuse the Scandinavians of is xenophobia.
Some facts. Of the one million people that migrated to Europe last year, less than a third have come from the warzone in Syria. The rest have used this as an opportunity to migrate. The majority are single men who come from cultural backgrounds that clash with European liberalism and ideas of individual freedom. Europe has reached Popper's tolerance paradox. We cannot be tolerant of the intolerant.
That doesn't mean Europe will ban all Muslims from entering, that is unworkable and unnecessary. It just means that this mass migration will be curtailed. Mass migrations of hundreds of thousands of people into an area, especially when their culture is alien to the host, is never sustainable.
Integration works. Multiculturalism leads to alienation, ghettoisation and voluntary segregation. And integration has a saturation point. Europe is reaching that.
Some facts. Of the one million people that migrated to Europe last year, less than a third have come from the warzone in Syria. The rest have used this as an opportunity to migrate. The majority are single men who come from cultural backgrounds that clash with European liberalism and ideas of individual freedom. Europe has reached Popper's tolerance paradox. We cannot be tolerant of the intolerant.
That doesn't mean Europe will ban all Muslims from entering, that is unworkable and unnecessary. It just means that this mass migration will be curtailed. Mass migrations of hundreds of thousands of people into an area, especially when their culture is alien to the host, is never sustainable.
Integration works. Multiculturalism leads to alienation, ghettoisation and voluntary segregation. And integration has a saturation point. Europe is reaching that.
Well, thank you for that reasoned, considered response.
Were you going to entertain us all with more from your miniscule wit and insignificant intellect?
transwarpdrive
Destroyer of Liberals
Personally, I think you are full of shit. "Oh every summer I went to a place and the whites would go around raping people..."
Spare us your fucking fish tales, dipshit, we are not buying.
Last edited:
transwarpdrive
Destroyer of Liberals
Not only that, it makes them horribly racist, since they are intolerably trying to preserve their way of life, culture, quality of life, welfare finances, etc., when they have no right to. We all know that arab muslims and the rest of the poor from around the world have the right to move to their countries and suck them dry, rape their 15-year old daughters, assault their family members, and rampage at will.
Anyone who speaks up or does anything against such things is a racist, and I know that because the national democratic party and such luminaries as Luis Gutierrez of the financial superpower state Illinois, probably the most well run state in the country, has said so.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
But if we close our borders it's xenophobic. How's that work?
Why don't you just admit your allegiance to ISIS already. Get it over with.
They have taken in a large number per capita, and I have never maintained that countries should have open borders and limitless immigration, but limiting refugees because of their religion is not Constitutional.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Wow, well said that man!! Karl Popper was a truly great philosopher. Rana, Rune et al would do well to read some of his works.
The paradox of tolerance
The liberal ideology’ has a number of paradoxes. One that threatens liberalism at its core is the paradox of tolerance. It is without doubt that liberalism is an ideology of tolerance. The common argument from the liberal front sounds as follows: “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it!” This type of openness towards the other can be parasitic to the polity in question. For, if the liberals are to tolerate all the views, would they not succumb, in the end, towards views which reject liberalism as such? In other words, the paradox of tolerance states that being tolerant must refute the intolerance of the other towards the tolerant self.
Among the first to recognize this paradox was Karl Popper. Although he is primarily (and with good reason) remembered for his philosophy of science, it is essential to view his political philosophy as well. Popper admitted as much by pointing this out in his lectures through a story of his early years. Enamoured by Marxism, as many were in those days, he could not grasp the historicism that accompanied it. During a riot some of his friends were shot by the police. While talking to the Communist party about this event, he was told that his friends lost their lives for a good cause – they were working towards the inevitable revolution of the proletariat. It is this type of historicism – a belief in the progress of science to predict human affairs – that he rejected. This relation between science and political philosophy is at the heart of his endeavor to have sound scientific theories. (A similar argument was made by his colleague Imre Lakatos, though they later drifted apart – and if there is a despicable relation in philosophy it is theirs. In a lecture at London School of Economics, Lakatos equally points out the basis of science for political acts.)
Back to tolerance and Popper. Although Popper was a proponent and defender of tolerance, he did recognize its limits – hence the paradox. He could not find a solution to the paradox as such and instead resorted to what is currently called an approach reinstating the political distinction between friends and enemies. The intolerant other is the enemy who must be destroyed:
“We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal”
It would appear strange that a tolerant man as Popper claimed himself to be, would be espousing such a measure towards intolerance. What the paradox of tolerance shows, it seems, is the doctrine emphasized by Carl Schmitt in the 20s and 30s – that the ultimate distinctions in politics are between friends and enemies; and that their relation has a potential of erupting into combat. The paradox of tolerance, in other words, does not have a solution other than Schmitt pointed out: namely, the end of the political (or politics). This is, to be sure, not the end of the world; and Schmitt was clear that an antagonistic form of politics is only the contemporary expression. So he states that in a world without politics, would be one containing: “Many very interesting antitheses and contrasts, competitions and intrigues of every kind, but there would not be a meaningful antithesis whereby men could be required to sacrifice life, authorized to shed blood, and kill other human beings” (Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, p. 35.
http://paradoxoftheday.com/the-paradox-of-tolerance/
Last edited: