Topic: Islam is right about women.
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago #136,458
It just is.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 18 minutes later[^] [v] #1,448,531
Okay but are you willing to stone people who commit sins? I thought so
Innocent joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 39 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,538
Innocent double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,540
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebelss against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted. And those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right, and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath, to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. You see my son, you could have walked the path of Christ, but instead you chose to ignore and spit on his grace. We are given freedom in this world and you used it to poison the pure souls of Christ. But keep your head up in for it will be the closest you will be to God's kingdom.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 17 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,752
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,756
Islam men can still have sister wives. As many as they can afford.
(Their own sisters are mostly forbidden)
(Their own sisters are mostly forbidden)
ill hun replied with this 3 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,761
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 11 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,764
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,792
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,793
Affirmative action is racist, some groups just are biologically inferior to other groups, therefore they must compete against each other without any special privileges the same way men and women should compete against each other in sports without any special privileges because that would be sexist against men. This makes complete logical sense and you shouldn’t question it or you’re a lefty lunatic who hates white people because you don’t want to give them literally everything just for existing and call them smart just for being white when they’re clearly not smart.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,794
On the internet there’s always somebody who can’t understand sarcasm so I have to say it explicitly that that was all sarcasm
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,795
Ironically, getting rid of affirmative action has actually been hurting white men because white women perform better than white men.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,796
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/06/29/affirmative-action-who-benefits-white-women/70371219007/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/06/29/affirmative-action-who-benefits-white-women/70371219007/
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,799
@previous (D)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2026/01/19/dei-rollbacks-may-hurt-white-mens-college-enrollment-an-exploration-of-potential-workplace-impacts/
Both things can be true at once. Just because white women perform better than white men doesn’t mean other groups don’t perform better than white women. These things also shift over time, men used to outperform women academically but it’s been shifting. There are various theories but I’ve never looked into it deeply enough to have a well formed opinion.
My whole thing is I just assume there is variance between individuals across all groups and each group averages out to be about the same under perfectly fair conditions. But perfectly fair conditions never happen in our world because we are all socially influenced by our conditions. For example if you’re a girl all your toys growing up will be a bunch of pink girly dolls and stuff and if you’re a boy you’ll get legos and fire trucks or whatever, so that condition by virtue of your birth will influence you throughout your entire life so that if you’re a boy you’ll never say your favorite color is pink even though it’s arbitrary. When you factor in all the visual differences in humans and then you factor in all the stereotypes and associations society has with different groups, it’s impossible to separate social norms from outcomes. So it makes sense to compensate for inequality due to social conditions so that we can increase fairness in society, within reason. Of course, some individuals are less intelligent than others but it’s not by virtue of gender or race.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2026/01/19/dei-rollbacks-may-hurt-white-mens-college-enrollment-an-exploration-of-potential-workplace-impacts/
Both things can be true at once. Just because white women perform better than white men doesn’t mean other groups don’t perform better than white women. These things also shift over time, men used to outperform women academically but it’s been shifting. There are various theories but I’ve never looked into it deeply enough to have a well formed opinion.
My whole thing is I just assume there is variance between individuals across all groups and each group averages out to be about the same under perfectly fair conditions. But perfectly fair conditions never happen in our world because we are all socially influenced by our conditions. For example if you’re a girl all your toys growing up will be a bunch of pink girly dolls and stuff and if you’re a boy you’ll get legos and fire trucks or whatever, so that condition by virtue of your birth will influence you throughout your entire life so that if you’re a boy you’ll never say your favorite color is pink even though it’s arbitrary. When you factor in all the visual differences in humans and then you factor in all the stereotypes and associations society has with different groups, it’s impossible to separate social norms from outcomes. So it makes sense to compensate for inequality due to social conditions so that we can increase fairness in society, within reason. Of course, some individuals are less intelligent than others but it’s not by virtue of gender or race.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,800
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
If it hurts white men, fine.
Admit and hire based on their performance, not their race and sex.
If there's a need for helping those with a disadvantage make it needs based, not race/sex criteria.
If it hurts white men, fine.
Admit and hire based on their performance, not their race and sex.
If there's a need for helping those with a disadvantage make it needs based, not race/sex criteria.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,801
It’s also not smart to extrapolate American inequality and then assume it’s due to biology instead of our unique social environment. Because for example people will notice there are more Asians than Africans in American universities. But in France it’s the other way around. They have more African international students than Asian international students. So it’s like, what does that actually say? More than a hundred million Africans speak French. There are so many social factors that people don’t think about.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,802
@1,448,800 (D)
> If there's a need for helping those with a disadvantage make it needs based, not race/sex criteria.
I don’t really have a problem with that. Although, if you make it need based, it will still end up advantaging black people more than other groups because black people are poorer on average because systematic racism is actually a real thing.
> If there's a need for helping those with a disadvantage make it needs based, not race/sex criteria.
I don’t really have a problem with that. Although, if you make it need based, it will still end up advantaging black people more than other groups because black people are poorer on average because systematic racism is actually a real thing.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 21 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,807
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It would be politically easier to pass, it would take away the anti-DEI talking points, and it would actually be fairer and account for disadvantaged groups that are not yet known.
It would be politically easier to pass, it would take away the anti-DEI talking points, and it would actually be fairer and account for disadvantaged groups that are not yet known.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,808
@previous (D)
Tbh the most ideal solution would be to fund elementary, middle, and high schools at the state level instead of the local level so that schools in black neighborhoods receive equal funding as schools in white neighborhoods and then let universities actually choose people based on merit and nothing else, but that’s politically impossible for some reason even though it’s dead simple.
Tbh the most ideal solution would be to fund elementary, middle, and high schools at the state level instead of the local level so that schools in black neighborhoods receive equal funding as schools in white neighborhoods and then let universities actually choose people based on merit and nothing else, but that’s politically impossible for some reason even though it’s dead simple.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,810
Really the most ideal way would be to fund it at a federal level, because some states are poorer than other states (mostly southern states are poorer and states on the east and west coast are wealthier). But I’m not sure if systematically that would be possible because of how our government is structured to have a separation of powers between the state and federal government.
(Edited 28 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,812
I think there were some attempts to standardize the curriculum like what Obama did with common core. (Even though a lot of people were unhappy with it for various reasons). If there was a national standard for education and all schools received equal funding, that seems like it would be the solution. Because when I applied to college for example, I remember almost every good university wants students who have AP or IB or dual enrollment credits, but only particular high schools have those things (I was lucky mine did). But still, it’s weird we don’t just have one standard, kids aren’t even receiving equal opportunity. Somebody in a poor neighborhood can’t take IB or AP or dual enrollment classes, but those can actually transfer towards college credit so a kid who does in a more well off neighborhood will end up having to pay less for college because they’ll need fewer college classes.
boof joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,813
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,815
And the thing about dual enrollment is some students in the US take college credits before high school, but when you’re a high school student, the government pays completely for your education, its free by law. But they’re actual college courses and a lot of students don’t have access to that.
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,817
Actually now that I googled it, apparently most high schools offer it but most high school students don’t do it, which is dumb. Like even if you don’t want to go to college, it’s free so why would you not take something that’s free? That doesn’t make any sense.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,820
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,821
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,823
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,824
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,825
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 29 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,448,832
Islam won’t let you quit
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,085
admitting it as a religion means admitting its fifteen hundred history written on bread paper too
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 18 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,449,256
Islam is right about everything