They know every way to skin a cat, it's true.Hygenic with the Chinese is a bit of a stretch IMO...No offense but I've heard some fucked up shit about the street food there from my chinese friend
Gutter oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They know every way to skin a cat, it's true.Hygenic with the Chinese is a bit of a stretch IMO...No offense but I've heard some fucked up shit about the street food there from my chinese friend
Gutter oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's a social engineering project; our oligarchs are navigating uncharted waters to the best of their ability. Improvising, making it shit up as they move along, much of it contradictory. They're like astronauts in a way,. I'm actually hopefully they get hung up on Uranus and we never hear from them again. We can go back to monarchy or something.I think it should be fine to judge a person based on their religion, at least it shouldn't be taboo.. ofcourse don't just restrict muslims or jews or christians or whatever, what I'm saying is if someone's religion is so important to them they are absolutely defined by and abide by it so much that their religious ideology trumps law, they should be expected to be judged on it, no?
I'm taking Chinamen and Koreans if it's my call. Hard working, high achieving, hygienic. Thrifty, law abiding. Compact hairless, fiercely intelligent. what's not to like!
Japs too of course, but they seem happy where they are.
Not really, no.Sounds good just replace secular with economically developed imo
same same?
Britain in between Vietnam and Hong Kong on yet another descending list!
That's not really consistent. Judging someone by the strength of their religious fanaticism isn't the same as judging them by their religion.I think it should be fine to judge a person based on their religion, at least it shouldn't be taboo.. ofcourse don't just restrict muslims or jews or christians or whatever, what I'm saying is if someone's religion is so important to them they are absolutely defined by and abide by it so much that their religious ideology trumps law, they should be expected to be judged on it, no?
Thank you loyal Dalit, seriously Scandinavians are best."fiercely intelligent"
lol all those national IQ stats EY finger fucks himself over are self reported, Korea had 200 Professors caught out for plagiarizing their doctorate FFS
NE Asians arent any smarter than Australian aboriginals, anyone who has dealt with both will know this, values are different though hence the nicer stuff the rice eaters have
Then you define a person by his country, is that not intrinsically the same if not worse than judging him by his or her religion (which they have some control over to some extent).That's not really consistent. Judging someone by the strength of their religious fanaticism isn't the same as judging them by their religion.
In any case, it would be difficult to enforce, as people could just lie. The idea being put forward is that we ban people from countries that have high numbers of people identifying under a certain religion. My additional point is that for consistency, the argument should be religious countries in general.
Yes, it's terrible. I certainly don't support it but that is the common argument. Don't allow people from Muslim based countries.Then you define a person by his country, is that not intrinsically the same if not worse than judging him by his or her religion (which they have some control over to some extent).
ah right, that just means keep brown people out really.Yes, it's terrible. I certainly don't support it but that is the common argument. Don't allow people from Muslim based countries.
Yes that is very true but only in proportion with the wider pro freedom debate.I think it should be fine to judge a person based on their religion, at least it shouldn't be taboo.. ofcourse don't just restrict muslims or jews or christians or whatever, what I'm saying is if someone's religion is so important to them they are absolutely defined by and abide by it so much that their religious ideology trumps law, they should be expected to be judged on it, no?
I'm not familiar with that debate, what are the arguments?Yes that is very true but only in proportion with the wider pro freedom debate.
I don't think that's what he was saying. What I received is that if someone defines themselves by their religion, then, based on what you know about that religion, it would be impossible not to take that into consideration when assessing that person.Judging someone by the strength of their religious fanaticism isn't the same as judging them by their religion.
I can understand that but the reality is that even those who identify and define themselves by their religion are diverse. Some strong Muslims, for example, are scholars and educators whereas others blow people up. Some Christians are great people, some are racist thugs. Many (most?) religious people compartmentalise their faith from their every day personality.I don't think that's what he was saying. What I received is that if someone defines themselves by their religion, then, based on what you know about that religion, it would be impossible not to take that into consideration when assessing that person.
It's what people do and there's nothing right or wrong about it.
You don't. You let people think how they want to think. Sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong and it's been like that as long as our history shows. As long as we ask people to express and articulate why they feel or think this way or that then we'll get somewhere, albeit slowly. What kills any progress is censoring discussion.I can understand that but the reality is that even those who identify and define themselves by their religion are diverse. Some strong Muslims, for example, are scholars and educators whereas others blow people up. Some Christians are great people, some are racist thugs. Many (most?) religious people compartmentalise their faith from their every day personality.
I know he stated that it's more than just Christian or Muslim etc but how do you realistically determine and police that?
So basically the saudi rulers have practices that go against islam. Off the top of my head they have interest banks, they have a monarchy and as my jihadi friends would say "they ally with the kuffar init" regarding their relations with the US. So they make Takfir on them and tell everyone other muslim who doesn't do the same that they are also not a muslim.Number 2 has me puzzled, care to expand? I have studied Islam extensively and have family from Libya. I think you might say people who declare takfir are guilty of shirk per definition.
So when you talk about someone's religion influencing your assessment of them, you are not suggesting you should act on it?You don't. You let people think how they want to think. Sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong and it's been like that as long as our history shows. As long as we ask people to express and articulate why they feel or think this way or that then we'll get somewhere, albeit slowly. What kills any progress is censoring discussion.
No.So when you talk about someone's religion influencing your assessment of them, you are not suggesting you should act on it?
Didn't you once automatically assume that I had hacking skills just because I'm a rice eater, huh? Ya curry munchin' aboNE Asians arent any smarter than Australian aboriginals, anyone who has dealt with both will know this, values are different though hence the nicer stuff the rice eaters have
1 dead, 2 injured? Talk about underachievement.Immigrant crime of the day:
Syrian refugee wielding machete kills 1, injures 2 in Reutlingen, Germany
Just one more isolated incident I guess ...
they're not sending their best folks. keep taking in this riff raff and this will be happening a few times a day.Immigrant crime of the day:
Syrian refugee wielding machete kills 1, injures 2 in Reutlingen, Germany
Just one more isolated incident I guess ...