Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday November 20 2015, @11:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the this-ain't-dilbert dept.
We've previously covered Scott Adam's writings on gender discrimination. Now we see an expansion of his thoughts on the gender war and how it relates to terrorism:

I came across this piece on Scott Adam's blog and found it quite interesting. Thought others here might find it interesting too:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/133406477506/global-gender-war#_=_

So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn't religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I'm not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I'm designed that way. I'm a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.

Now consider the controversy over the Syrian immigrants. The photos show mostly men of fighting age. No one cares about adult men, so a 1% chance of a hidden terrorist in the group – who might someday kill women and children – is unacceptable. I have twice blogged on the idea of siphoning out the women and small kids from the Caliphate and leaving millions of innocent adult men to suffer and die. I don't recall anyone complaining about leaving millions of innocent adult males to horrible suffering. In this country, any solution to a problem that involves killing millions of adult men is automatically on the table.

If you kill infidels, you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven. But if you kill your own leaders today – the ones holding the leash on your balls – you can have access to women tomorrow. And tomorrow is sooner.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:52AM

    by frojack (1554) on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:52AM (#266085) Journal

    I'm not a SJW, and I took exception to some of it, actually. For one thing he really seems to promulgate a feeling of men being entitled to sex.

    I think the last half of your sentence gives the lie to the first part. I didn't see any sense of entitlement. Expectations are NOT the same of entitlement, in in general most humans can expect sex now and then.

    His general tenant is

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but Islam doesn’t look so dangerous in countries where women can vote.

    Some of you guys seem to get side-tracked with the small supporting details that he provides, and loose site of the big picture.

    His basic tenant is rather insightful. And his conclusion is equally insightful. It has nothing to do with pay equality.

    The problem is that wherever Muslims become anything over X% (and X is arguably somewhere between 20% to 50%) women lose their rights to vote, and many other rights. If not legally, then by force of males. (Even in the US, many Muslim women vote exactly as their male relatives instruct them, or not at all. Its one of the major problems with Vote by Mail. It often becomes Vote by Male.)

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by NoMaster on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:32AM

    by NoMaster (3543) on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:32AM (#266092)

    The problem is that wherever Muslims become anything over X% (and X is arguably somewhere between 20% to 50%) women lose their rights to vote, and many other rights. If not legally, then by force of males. (Even in the US, many Muslim women vote exactly as their male relatives instruct them, or not at all. Its one of the major problems with Vote by Mail. It often becomes Vote by Male.)

    • Indonesia? 86% Muslim, full suffrage since 1941 (before independence), has had multiple notable female politicians and a female Prime Minister.
    • Pakistan? 97% Muslim, full suffrage since independence (1947), has had multiple notable female politicians and a female Prime Minister.
    • Bangladesh? 89% Muslim, full suffrage since independence / liberation (1971), has had multiple notable female politicians and a female Prime Minister.
    • Turkey? 99% Muslim, full suffrage since 1934, has had multiple notable female politicians and a female Prime Minister.

    That's 4 off the top of my head where the fact that women have held ministerial / leadership positions suggests your blanket statement is a load of shit.

    --
    Live free or fuck off and take your naïve Libertarian fantasies with you...