Trump says US will take Gaza & turn it into the rivera of the ME

Author: Yassine

Posts

Total: 66
Topic's author
#61
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,161
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Pedophile isnt really an insult. All your ancestors were pedophiles.
- LOL! Whatever happened to this Forum. I used to say this & get chewed on. – The real pedophiles aka 'pederasts' have alway existed at the bottom of sexual filth of societies & they are the ones behind feminists promoting marrying young fertile girls as "pedophilia" to gatekeep men from ditching them in favor of younger girls. I guarantee you, if you drop the legal age of consent tomorrow down to 12, half the relationships in the country will breakup & 5000 years of history will set in right back up.

#62
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 389
Posts: 12,273
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Yassine
LOL! Whatever happened to this Forum. I used to say this & get chewed on.
There were plenty of debates regarding age of consent here. People eventually learned not to get too upset about it.

– The real pedophiles aka 'pederasts' have alway existed at the bottom of sexual filth of societies & they are the ones behind feminists promoting marrying young fertile girls as "pedophilia" to gatekeep men from ditching them in favor of younger girls.
I figured that is very possible. Not many men want to be with a fat feminist woman. But then again, society also abolished polygamy marriages, which is what caused many people to not have any relationship at all.

I guarantee you, if you drop the legal age of consent tomorrow down to 12, half the relationships in the country will breakup & 5000 years of history will set in right back up.
10 to 13 is usually the age when women can give birth.

About 150 years ago, age of consent was mostly 7 to 12 in different areas of the world.

However, some countries started increasing age of consent until they ended up at 16 to 18.

The funny thing is that now those same countries struggle with very low birth rate problems. Divine nature always punishes the violation of her commands. The basic math will tell them that highest birth rate is achieved only when woman starts giving birth as early as possible.
#63
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,829
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Yassine
Very well put question. I assume this is a genuine question, so I am gunna answer genuinely. But I will ask you similar questions, how do you believe Israel wages war? Is this consistent with Christian/Western/American... values? Is this morally justifiable according to you?
Thanks for your comprehensive answer! I asked out of genuine curiosity and not to critique or cross examine your answer. I suspect that if I answer in kind, you will seek to criticize, take exception, and maybe even have a good laugh at my expense; I’m just not in the mood to go to great effort for it to result in bickering back and forth. What I will say is that the Bible does not really give much instruction at all about how war should be waged. The Old Testament has a little bit, but is mainly a history of war rather than a how-to manual. The New Testament has none to my knowledge. IMO, the Bible is a book at war with itself— by that I mean contradictory and open to interpretation. For example, Jesus famously said, “He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.” But… obviously some disciples WERE carrying swords!

The West seems to get its rules of warfare from historic warriors such as Hammurabi and from the history of warfare itself. Do western forces follow the rules? Yes and no depending. If I were to sum up the conduct of American forces at least, we do the best we can based upon the circumstances. I cannot speak for the Jewish/Israeli rules of conduct, but I imagine they overlap a fair amount with the US and Western Europe. I don’t agree with everything Israel does, but neither do many Israelis! And I live in a nation surrounded by allies, not potential adversaries as Israel does. As I said earlier, Israel has to strike a contradictory balance between valuing all human life and “Never again.”

Topic's author
#64
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,161
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@cristo71
Thanks for your comprehensive answer! I asked out of genuine curiosity and not to critique or cross examine your answer. I suspect that if I answer in kind, you will seek to criticize, take exception, and maybe even have a good laugh at my expense; I’m just not in the mood to go to great effort for it to result in bickering back and forth.
- I always welcome a genuine discussion. I know quite a bit about the subject, I was just curious about what you believe.

What I will say is that the Bible does not really give much instruction at all about how war should be waged. The Old Testament has a little bit, but is mainly a history of war rather than a how-to manual.
- I would posit that the Jews take that "little bit" as law, from the Torah. 

The New Testament has none to my knowledge. IMO, the Bible is a book at war with itself— by that I mean contradictory and open to interpretation. For example, Jesus famously said, “He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.” But… obviously some disciples WERE carrying swords!
- Indeed. Jesus (pbuh) himself would come down with the sword in the Second Coming.

The West seems to get its rules of warfare from historic warriors such as Hammurabi and from the history of warfare itself.
- The modern West's warfare modus operandi originates in the Christendom Crusades, distinct from ancient warfare such as Rome. Conquests shifted from imperial to colonial, from extension to extraction, from eternal to utilitarian, from fighting to killing, from centrifugal to centripetal, from fiscal to economical... etc, & henceforth developed into more & more utilitarian organized systematic warfare.

Do western forces follow the rules? Yes and no depending. If I were to sum up the conduct of American forces at least, we do the best we can based upon the circumstances.
- 'Best' assumes a reference of conduct in war. There is none anywhere in US Law, or for any other western country.

I cannot speak for the Jewish/Israeli rules of conduct, but I imagine they overlap a fair amount with the US and Western Europe.
- I agree. In fact, modern European warfare is throughly tied to Jews. 

I don’t agree with everything Israel does, but neither do many Israelis! And I live in a nation surrounded by allies, not potential adversaries as Israel does. As I said earlier, Israel has to strike a contradictory balance between valuing all human life and “Never again.”
- They are indeed acting according to their own Just War beliefs, which consists of thoroughly destroying the enemy including women & children, killing their cattle, raping...etc, as constantly declared by their officials & religious leaders, & shown daily in their action. – Yet, It is not impossible that they could act according to aforementioned rules of Just War in Sharia, but they won't. Israel's (West) manner of warfare is not sustainable & is doomed to fail sooner than later.
Topic's author
#65
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,161
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea

I figured that is very possible. Not many men want to be with a fat feminist woman. But then again, society also abolished polygamy marriages, which is what caused many people to not have any relationship at all.
- I actually know quite a bit about the history of consent laws & marriage & so on. I may make a post about this, but it's a deep rabbit hole. What I said is actually fact. – Virtually all the rationale & legislation Feminists, both liberals & radicals, promoted or introduced regarding consent & marital law during the 70s & 80s revolved around age & age-gap provisions, to an asinine degree. These reforms included for instance:
• Raising the age of consent > to make younger girls even less accessible.
• Replacing chastity provisions withs age-gape provision > whereas previously victims were chaste girls preyed on by men under false promises, thenceforth any girl below the age of consent became by definition a victim & any man above the age of consent in a consensual relationship with said girl an aggressor.
• Replacing seduction crime with assault crime > the former encouraged those who have consensual sex with a minor to marry them, the latter sends them to prison.
• Dropping the promiscuity clause that dismissed cases if the young female was not a virgin > to drive home that absolutely any consensual sex with a minor even a prostitute or a seductress is criminal.
• Extending penetration provision to all types touching > So it doesn't have to be intercourse, any suggestive relationship with a minor is penalized.
• Eliminating the mistake-of-age defense > to make sure older men avoid any young looking woman at all costs.
• Dropping corroboration requirements (witnesses & proof) > So the mere fact that you're with a minor is sufficient evidence if claim made.
• Grading the offenses based on the age of the victim > i.e. the younger the less accessible.
• Dropping  marital exemption that excluded husbands from prosecution > no comment.
• Implementing rape shield laws so that the victim's sexual past could not be brought into evidence > Need I say more!
...etc.

- Most importantly: although these Feminists clearly wanted to keep men their age from chasing younger women, they are not the ones holding power. Libertarian Feminists at the time promoted abolishing age of consent, but they didn't succeed. This is by design. – In truth, this formulation of Consent Laws is primarily aimed at stifling marital relationships in favor of promiscuous sex. A relationship between an older established man & a young fertile impressionable virgin girl inevitably leads to a stable marriage & children, as has been the case the past 5000 years in all human societies. The age-gap provisions are one loop in a chain to separate sex from marriage, along with sexual education, ban of segregation, accessible contraception, abortion, parental rights termination, adoption, child support... etc. Absolutely any obstacle that may steer women away from promiscuity towards marriage in fear of getting pregnant or raising children is categorically removed. Boys & girls at the height of their sexual libido forced to mix during their teen years results in high mileage hoes who can't settle, & even if they do it inevitably fails. – All this is by design. The powers that be, i.e. the ruling dynasty in the West & their Jewish kingmakers, are bent on depopulating humans, & particularly hell-bent on extinguishing White populations. If you know you know. 

10 to 13 is usually the age when women can give birth.
About 150 years ago, age of consent was mostly 7 to 12 in different areas of the world.
- In the US this persisted until early 20th century, & 12 is still the age of consent in many parts of the world today including provinces in Mexico. However, what age of consent meant back then it isn't what it means now. Age of consent at the time was not a condition for marriage, rather it provisioned for two things: virginity & chastity. You could still marry a 7 year old with the permission of the father. That is, it was a crime to take the virginity of a girl below the age of consent (outside marriage). It wasn't a crime to have consensual sex with a minor promiscuous (i.e. not virgin) girl; unless the consent was contingent on the promise of marriage –aka seduction crime. It wasn't even a crime to have forceful sex (rape) with a non-virgin minor! In fact, the increase in age of consent early 20th century (to 16 in the US for instance) was done to protect young girls from seduction crimes, because then it became widespread that underage girls would go to the town or the city to study or work putting them at risk of being preyed on by older men under the promise of marriage. – Marriage with underage girls continued normally until the 70s & 80s with 2nd wave Feminism.

However, some countries started increasing age of consent until they ended up at 16 to 18.
The funny thing is that now those same countries struggle with very low birth rate problems. Divine nature always punishes the violation of her commands. The basic math will tell them that highest birth rate is achieved only when woman starts giving birth as early as possible.'
- True. The beautiful thing about this is that the "progressive" "liberal" "egalitarian" "feminist" "human rightist" "free" societies will simply go extinct & soon be replaced by those "backward" "misogynist" "medieval" "homophobic" "pedophile" societies from sheer birth rates.
#66
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 389
Posts: 12,273
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Yassine
You seem to know a lot about history. Most people are surprised when I tell them that just 150 years ago, age of consent in USA was 7 to 10, and just 80 years ago it was around 10 to 14 in many different states in USA. However, raising the age of consent and changing consent laws didnt seem to benefit USA in any way. It didnt reduce crime or suicides, but it did reduce birth rates and it did increase prison population significantly. Laws are by nature supposed to encourage marriages, not discourage them. The main two arguments today against child marriages are consent and harm, but both are self contradicting, because consent argument on its own cannot work without harm argument, and harm argument doesnt work either because raising age of consent laws increased harm, especially by reducing birth rates and increasing prison population and violence in prisons. I am yet to see someone make a case for how this nonsense which we have today is actually somehow beneficial for the country. If US birth rates keep dropping as they were so far, USA might face same situation as Japan and South Korea. Both Japan and South Korea are predicted to lose 60% to 80% of their population in next 100 years if they dont increase birth rates. Its actually amazing how people want to introduce fake morality by pretending they care for children, yet end up destroying millions of future generations through birth rates alone. If 500 years ago someone said that age of consent should be 18, everyone would laugh and consider him insane because back then it was impossible for society to defend itself if it didnt have high birth rates achieved only through early marriages. But today, most people seem to be clueless about how reproduction works. What is even more crazy is that today, countries which have and encourage child marriages not only have very high birth rates, but their suicide rates are much lower than in countries with higher age of consent. There are plenty of studies done to show how marriage reduces suicide rates, thus countries which banned child marriages have merely removed the protection those marriages offered and thats all they achieved.