Translate

Saturday, 3 June 2017

If you are not a feminist, you must be an extremist, say the Left who claim Philip Davies has Far Right links





























http://hopenothate.org.uk/2017/06/02/tory-politician-links-extreme-far-right/


OK so I know there are content creators on my friends list. I have made a deal with the devil. AKA Claire Khaw. I have agreed to a debate or 'chat' about anti feminism. If ANYONE is interested in hosting this on their channel please inbox me. It won't be on Liberty Belles channel for OBVIOUS reasons...but I am sure its good lick bait if she goes full blown Theocratic dictactor.
LikeShow More Reactions
Comment
Comments
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Gosh, I don't want to be dictator. I know my place.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 3 May at 16:33
Remove
Natty Kadifa
Natty Kadifa whatever lol
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 16:50
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw I think the problem is that people think I am an extremist because they say my ideas go too far. 

I disagree because I think nothing short of what I propose would solve the problem of feminism. 


I invite people to tell me what they think would solve the problem short of what I propose and that is the last I hear from them!
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 3 May at 16:36 · Edited
Remove
Natty Kadifa
Natty Kadifa sort of, its more that you spam people and insult them
 · Reply · Storify · 
2
 · 3 May at 16:48
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Claire_Khaw
Petition: Have JK Rowling stay at a refugee camp for 7 days, no bodyguards, to show they're…
EN.RIGHTPEDIA.INFO
 · Reply · Storify · 5 May at 18:43
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khawhttps://benwoodhams.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/claire_khaw/
I don’t really know who Claire Khaw is, or why she feels it necessary to systematically upset so…
BENWOODHAMS.WORDPRESS.COM
 · Reply · Storify · 5 May at 18:46
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw I am insulted all the time because people dislike my views.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 3 May at 16:49
Remove
Natty Kadifa
Natty Kadifa and you insult others
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 16:49
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Who in particular are you thinking of?
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 16:50
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Or what particular insult?
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 16:50
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Yes, I admit what I say can be insulting, but I don't think my insults are gratuitous. They are always to make a point.
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 16:57
Remove
Jordan Gonzo
Jordan Gonzo I WILL HOST
 · Reply · Storify · 
5
 · 3 May at 17:10
Remove
Natty Kadifa
Natty Kadifa OK lets do it :)
 · Reply · Storify · 
2
 · 3 May at 17:16
Remove
Jana Xiolier
Jana Xiolier i would love to also put at least a clip on women against feminism..
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 17:19
Remove
Jana Xiolier
Jana Xiolier looking forward to it. i wish claire had a channel she is funny. bring on the slut shaming lol.
 · Reply · Storify · 
2
 · 3 May at 17:21 · Edited
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw If only we had access to TV studios so we can do it properly!
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 17:42
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw I wonder if we can get a cameraman to do it. Stead Steadman, is this something you would consider?
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 17:44
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Perhaps we could do it in your kitchen or on your sofa? Heh heh.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 3 May at 17:46
Remove
Natty Kadifa
Natty Kadifa You do live near me
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 17:50
Remove
Paul O'Sullivan
Paul O'Sullivan Is she going to pose with a machine gun?
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 18:04
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw I could make my way to you if you want. 

Look, if you want people to watch it, it has to look and feel real. 


Just my talking head and your talking head is going to be boring.
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 18:14
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw It will be fun when the baby cries!
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 18:14
Remove
Natty Kadifa
Natty Kadifa I agree.
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 18:25
Remove
Paul O'Sullivan
Paul O'Sullivan In her underground anti-feminist bunker...
 · Reply · Storify · 
6
 · 3 May at 18:20
Remove
Vincent Fletcher
Vincent Fletcher She's seriously antifeminist, like radical.
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 18:58
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw I do after all propose a one party theocracy. Natty was at my talk last Tuesday.
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 19:03
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Not my place, actually. I was a long way from home.
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 18:28
Remove
John Gormley
John Gormley Personally I'd have nothing to do with her.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 3 May at 20:50
Remove
Jeff Gagnon
Jeff Gagnon I'll watch. This should be interesting.
 · Reply · Storify · 
2
 · 3 May at 22:12
Remove
Jeff Gagnon
Jeff Gagnon Meh, I think Natty will hold her own. She's legit......
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 22:53
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw It could just be a discussion. No need to get aggressive.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 3 May at 22:57
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw I have actually suggested we do it in writing because then the arguments are easier to follow.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 3 May at 22:58
Remove
Jeff Gagnon
Jeff Gagnon Either way, I shall tune in. Lemme know date and time..... :)
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 23:36
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw I am basically saying that the problems of feminism can be solved by re-establishing the patriarchy, and the patriarchy can only be re-established if the law supports marriage again. 

If the law supports marriage, we will have a patriarchy, and all will be well again.
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 23:42
Remove
Pete Xi
Pete Xi You mean you support gynocentricism.
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 23:50
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Define it, please.
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 23:51
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw The law can support marriage by forbidding and punishing premarital sex.

quran.com/24/2
The Quran translated into many languages in a simple and easy interface.
QURAN.COM
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 23:44 · Edited
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw The law can support marriage by forbidding and punishing adultery. 

quran.com/24/2
The Quran translated into many languages in a simple and easy interface.
QURAN.COM
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 23:44
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw The law can support marriage by forbidding recreational sex between lesbians. 

quran.com/4/15
The Quran translated into many languages in a simple and easy interface.
QURAN.COM
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 23:46
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw The law can support marriage by forbidding recreational sex between men. 

quran.com/4/16
The Quran translated into many languages in a simple and easy interface.
QURAN.COM
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 23:46
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw The law can support marriage by treating it as a contract and breach of it as a reason for divorce. This means the party breaching the terms of the contract is at fault. 

quran.com/65
 · Reply · Storify · 3 May at 23:50 · Edited
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw The purpose of forbidding extramarital sex is to drive most people into marriage to make them the majority of the people of a society that is a patriarchy. 

Obviously, people who are married with children think and behave in a different way to spinsters, bachelors or LGBTs. 


We are now a matriarchy because most of the sex that takes place now is extramarital sex and most children don't have married parents.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 01:25 · Edited
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw The most expensive form of sex is married sex, even in a patriarchy.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 00:28
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw The cheapest form of sex is gay sex. You don't even need to buy your potential sex partner a drink or chat him up if you decide you fancy him and he is prepared to have sex with you. Just one look is enough.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 00:29
Remove
Pete Xi
Pete Xi Hey whats the topic of your debate since you both antifem?
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 4 May at 00:35
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Haven't decided yet. I am just setting out my case so Natty can decide what she disagrees with me about.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 4 May at 00:42
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Why raise the cost of sex?

Because it makes men and women choose their sex partner (who must also be their spouse for life) more carefully.


Choosing a man with a large sex organ for a roll in the hay is different to choosing a good husband and a good father of your children for the rest of your life.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 01:26 · Edited
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Why make men and women choose their sex partner (who must also be their spouse) carefully?

So their marriage will last and their children be brought up by both parents living together and able to access the cultural, social and economic resources of the extended families of both their parents, compared to the illegitimate offspring of a single mother.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 00:44
Remove
Pete Xi
Pete Xi Request: debate on gynocentricism
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 00:46
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Please define gynocentricism.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 00:47
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Obviously men want sex with women. This is inevitable in both patriarchy and matriarchy. 

Lots of sperm, very few eggs compared to sperm. So men will always be chasing women to pass their genes on. 


It is always the woman who chooses. 

To ensure human progress, women should choose good men to father their offspring. 

But if they are focused on recreational sex and the size of the male sex organ, then they won't be choosing their sex partner beyond the purpose of a roll in the hay for one night.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 00:56
Remove
Pete Xi
Pete Xi Let me find a better definition of gynocentrism. Wait please.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 00:57
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Pussy power? Pussy whipped? ;-)
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 4 May at 00:59
Remove
Pete Xi
Pete Xi Claire you just did it in 2 words! Lol.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 4 May at 01:00
Remove
Pete Xi
Pete Xi Its basically defined as men have to subjugate to women because they posses the vagina. Even to the point of being a slave. Hows that?
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 01:03 · Edited
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Obviously all heterosexual men who are looking for sex or a wife will be in danger of submitting to pussy power. 

And obviously all homosexual men will be in danger of being whacked by penises ....
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 01:02
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw I think I have already given you a pretty good idea of my position. 

No doubt Natty will be arguing that what I propose is not in fact necessary to solve the problem of feminism, which means she will have to tell us what proposals she has that she thinks might work. to solve the problem of feminism.


What are the problems of feminism?
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 01:19
Remove
Pete Xi
Pete Xi Whether we like it or not, sexbots and artificial wombs (not mentioning cloning engineering) will destroy gynocentrism one day.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 03:04
Remove
James Bell
James Bell Claire Khaw The juice is almost always not worth the squeeze anymore for men.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 4 May at 03:09
Remove
James Bell
James Bell It would be easier to ask what AREN'T the problems of feminism.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 4 May at 03:10
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Pete Xi And the human race will die out. 

Or, more likely, Western men will be defeated by repeated invasions and then have their stuff taken by other races, who will kill them and breed with their women.


The whole purpose of having an heir and a spare is for married fathers to produce enough fighting men for the next generation to increase the chances of fighting a successful defensive war.

If they have more than an heir and a spare then there will be more fighting men to fight an aggressive war. 

This was how empires were created and how they will always be created.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 11:47 · Edited
Remove
Pete Xi
Pete Xi Empires dont have nuclear devices nor genetic engineering. Its a totally different paradigm today.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 12:02
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw What do you mean by genetic engineering?
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 12:04
Remove
Pete Xi
Pete Xi Central to your argument above is propagation of specie. Genetic engineering can clone human like mass production of cars today. Another thing you mentiomed is war. Genetic engineering can produce germ warfare. Genetic engineering may even able help to achieve immortality one day. We have enough science today to achieve world peace for the first time but we choose to fight. And the elites choose to destroy civilizations.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 12:22 · Edited
Remove
Jeff Gagnon
Jeff Gagnon Claire Khaw You may have answered this already but I'm only just now discovering you, so I'll ask what's your stance on MGTOW? Also couldn't help but notice you saw our hangout. Thanks for watching. Looking to start a blog of my own. I hope you check it out.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 4 May at 00:58 · Edited
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw MGTOW is part of the problem of matriarchy because men going their own way because women are not worth marrying means men not marrying, meaning more illegitimate offspring by unmarried mothers who will be badly parented ie degeneracy.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 4 May at 00:59 · Edited
Remove
Jeff Gagnon
Jeff Gagnon Or, less offspring to be used as tools against otherwise dutiful and loving fathers. For me, it goes further than just marriage. It's more "don't put yourself in a position to be taken for a ride". Self preservation. And by refusing to cohabitate, refusing to reproduce (too late for me, I wasn't always MGTOW) and definitely refusing to marry. Well, now you have really piqued my interest. That's an interesting point of view.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 01:01
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw You can fix the problem of men refusing to marry by abolishing no fault divorce and shaming sluts with quran.com/24/2
The Quran translated into many languages in a simple and easy interface.
QURAN.COM
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 01:03
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Once you start shaming sluts, there will be fewer of them. Once there are fewer of them men will have to up their game to get sex. If the supply is perfectly controlled, it means men won't be able to get any sex unless they hire a prostitute or take a wife. Gay sex, incest, fornication, adultery and bestiality would be sexual offences.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 01:10 · Edited
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Marriage is the pivot upon which gender justice rests. 

Note that I do not say gender equality, but justice.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 4 May at 01:06
Remove
Jeff Gagnon
Jeff Gagnon I actually fully agree that no fault should go. But, quoting the Quran, you kinda lost me. No offense. I'm athiest. And not one of those insane liberal antifa athiests. I'm actually an athiest Republican (I know right? We do exist....). But that doesn't mean I dont support people's rights to have a religion. But that's a whole other can of worms.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 4 May at 01:06
Remove
Jeff Gagnon
Jeff Gagnon I do think slut shaming has it's place.just like how we shame those men who abandon their children. They deserve shame.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 01:07
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw I am agnostic, but have grown to accept that marriage is such a onerous undertaking that most people have to be made to believe in God to make them obey its rules, or at least be in fear of the law's punishment.

If we shame sluts, fornicators, adulterers, sodomites and lesbians then we are in fact implementing God's laws and our society would be a theocracy. A theocracy is a society that is governed by God's laws.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 01:12 · Edited
Remove
Jeff Gagnon
Jeff Gagnon You say "God's laws", I say "general principles". But it's the same thing really.....
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 02:49
Remove
James Bell
James Bell Claire Khaw That might be the case, but to solve that issue men need to be heard! Right now logically speaking it isn't worth it for most men. Men are extremely marginalized in our society, and MGTOW is just growing. Frankly, I hope MGTOW and red pill males grow greatly until things change. As of now, the growth rate of the MGTOW community is staggering. The issues MGTOW addresses are not being dealt with properly, and don't look to be anytime soon.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 03:13
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw https://www.facebook.com/groups/121566994537384/ was a group I started. I guess I was proposing MGTOW before I even knew the term existed.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 4 May at 11:43 · Edited
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/.../official...
An official marriage strike by marriageable men would be the only way to draw the attention of the government to the parlous state of gende...
THEBATTLEFIELDOFLOVE.BLOGSPOT.COM
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 11:42
Remove
Jeffrey Marshall
Jeffrey Marshall This should be an interesting debate for a change. Look forward to seeing it.
 · Reply · Storify · 4 May at 11:30
Remove
Archi Ssan
Archi Ssan Hi, as you can see I'm new to this string/group of people with the exception of only knowing one of you. I haven't read all the posts, but enough to see the central point of what Claire proposes, a 'return to patriarchy' basically through a strengthening of traditional marriage. 

My close friend Drex~man? also shares this view and even adds to that something like, 'all families should be headed by a man'. His sense of 'returning to patriarchy' is vibrant and I have known and debated the issue with him for years, often very stupidly. [I am not offering to invite him here, which might be regrettable or inspiring, but rarely mediocre.]

Here's something radical for you Clair: There has never been a patriarchy. In fact, our species, of weather you believe is a product of evolution or creation, is biologically misandric in function which can be observed through time.

We are that sub-sentient about this misandric function of our species that we instinctively see and feel the opposite. Men have always been the disposable teraformers to make the world more comfortable to women. It is the function of our species, have a look.

The other point I'd like to make is a basic philosophical one, time only flows in one direction and culture flows with it. Has any society ever convincingly resurrected some past way of life? 

I'm not sure what this debate would be like Natty, but it sounds interesting so do let me see it and I could be moved to host/share it.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 5 May at 08:42 · Edited
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw A patriarchy is a society whose members are mostly married with married parents living together bringing up their children together.
 · Reply · Storify · 5 May at 08:55
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw A matriarchy is a society run on the preferences of the fornicatress where the children are mostly illegitimate and/or singly parented.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 5 May at 08:57
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Only by criminalising extramarital sex and abolishing no fault divorce as well as anti-discrimination legislation can marriage be made attractive again. Polygamy should also be tolerated up to four wives because most men won't be worth marrying.
 · Reply · Storify · 5 May at 09:00
Remove
Archi Ssan
Archi Ssan I see your definition of patriarchy, is yours Clair, where as I was referring to the commonly understood definition of patriarchy. ~'a system for the benefit and privilege of men at the exploitation of women' is as I understand it, the commonly held view. Interesting that you should make your own definition of terms from adapting existing ones. [Tha'ts not me being sarky, or getting at you, I often do the same] However I found my last point is lost on you and the manor in which you state your views tells me that you do realistically see or hope for some reversal in culture against time. I don't believe that would happen, at least to your satisfaction. Culture can only go forward through time.

Your apparently staunch counter-feminism is refreshing though.
LikeShow More Reactions
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 5 May at 09:35 · Edited
Remove
Natty Kadifa
Natty Kadifa just wait until she mentions the authoritarian way she thinks the country should be run....
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 5 May at 09:49
Remove
Archi Ssan
Archi Ssan I get the impression that she might be like that already.
 · Reply · Storify · 5 May at 10:09 · Edited
Remove
Jon Flint
Jon Flint Next debate is Drex vs Claire then ........ that would be a brain melt :-)
 · Reply · Storify · 5 May at 11:20
Remove
Natty Kadifa
Natty Kadifa That's far more interesting lol
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 5 May at 11:50
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw I am just trying to save you people time. 

Natty was at my talk last Tuesday on why we should have a one party theocracy. 


Obviously, Natty doesn't agree because she thinks she knows of a better way to solve the problems of feminism. 

If we are to solve the problem of feminism, then we must at least say what it is.

Otherwise, it will be a whinge fest with everyone posting long and hard without their comments even being read.
 · Reply · Storify · 5 May at 12:05 · Edited
Remove
Archi Ssan
Archi Ssan I certainly agree with the 'we must at least say what it is' (feminism) view you expressed and believe I project it when relevant, not simply just when it's convenient. 

Most men's rights advocates in my experience generally only express the truth abo
ut feminism when its convenient, that is within their counter-feminist peers. In my experience most male MRA's shut up 'in public' - social self preservation and all that.

I don't agree, if that is what you mean, that the only solution, or best solution to feminism is some theocracy (would that be fundamentalist?) where marriage is state guaranteed to be monogamous with significant and effective disincentives to extra marital sex.

As far as I can see in history, when states have attempted to do that sort of thing, I observe it to be like herding cats really, so within the observed human reality, it won't work anyway. 

There are many solutions to feminism far more practical than that I believe. Perhaps one would be the open condemning by women, of mangina attitudes and actions in men, rather than the feminist opposite. This ought to be done in tandem with condemning gender entitlement attitudes in women. 

I believe feminism is constructed on a foundation of typical male attitudes which are quite natural to men, biologically or theologically! Women naturally manipulate unwarranted entitlements from such natural male attitudes, and normal people are usually too embarrassed by their true primal motives to see the reality.

Increasing numbers of women like you and Natty, could openly identify and condemn male feminist attitudes more vigorously when experienced, even amongst so called MRA's, as a more practical way of addressing feminism. This ought to be done in tandem with condemning natural gender entitlement attitudes in women. (I believe that if this doesn't convince you, then verses from both Genesis and the Quran should back me up.)

Simply put, when men stop being mangina, women will follow. But they need to do it on mass as a culture and not like a secret minority in my opinion. Encouragingly, I am beginning to see less of that MRA secret minority comfort in this decade.
 · Reply · Storify · 
1
 · 5 May at 14:20 · Edited
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Politics is downstream of culture. 

Culture is downstream of law. 


Law is downstream of morality. 

Morality is downstream of religion.

The correct religion is the religion that would most effectively and permanently impose a patriarchal moral values for national success.
 · Reply · Storify · 5 May at 14:39 · Edited
Remove
Archi Ssan
Archi Ssan You talk of criminalising extra marital sex which strikes me like Canute trying to convince others he could hold back the tide.

Consider this: The integrity of mirage is lost in our sexually and materially hype-indulgent society, clearly. The cost is 
the quality of children to be adults, in my part of South London, the majority of kids don't know their fathers, or carry an inaccurately hostile view of him through the manipulative alienation by the mother (most usually). People then generally fear these adults that often form from such a nasty upbringing, and they are often of little value to society. 

Unless we are capable of desisting our indulgencies, highly unlikely when you really think of human truth, marriage for the benefit of children doesn't work. After all, isn't even having children the ultimate indulgence? Are we doing it to help anyone or the world, no, we have children to fulfil our personal aspirations. Are children just lifestyle commodities these days, for me yes, often by toxic mothers who relate to people like dolls in her dolls house complex fantasy where they place themselves to be 'enchanting' rather than selfish and exploitative of her own child.

How about this, instead of laws to enforce the impossible like prohibition, how about no marriage, technology, wealth and cultural developments make true marriage impossible because we are too indulgent, and rationalising of our indulgence.

How about free relationships, but a legally binding license to have children as 'parents'. Perhaps a new status of parenthood should be considered which is legally defined and drawn up to raise good adults. if parents fail to parent correctly, they are penalised.

Dump marriage and make child raising sacrosanct.

[look I've given you a considered response, would you mind me mentioning that I didn't consider your previous response to me to be that considered. I'm not an idiot, and returning those short snappy statements, rather than engaging me better is not that appreciated. But I'm also concerned that you might be intellectually thuggy, a little bit really. Give me better responses than that would you please?]
LikeShow More Reactions
 · Reply · Storify · 
2
 · 5 May at 10:04 · Edited
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Marriage is God's child protection scheme. Perhaps you would like to consider that in the context of your saying child raising should be sacrosanct.
 · Reply · Storify · 5 May at 10:09
Remove
Archi Ssan
Archi Ssan I do consider religious views, as an atheist I have taken the trouble to read the scriptures of the main religions in my past and some quantity of theology as well. I even go to church sometimes to talk with particularly interesting vicars, and with respect too, really.

You can use the word sacrosanct in many ways when you look at our language's use of it. You can choose what interpretation you will, but reality won't care or change because of how you choose to interpret it.

You can consider marriage as 'God's child protection scheme' particularly if you are religious, but I consider the reality of marriage as we as a society 'practice it'. For the sake of the children, I can clearly see it doesn't work, go down my high street at going home time (for schools) and you will see for yourself.

Materialism, social and sexual indulgence are what's being satisfied and rationalised, but I certainly don't see much piety generally amongst those that identify with and promote religions, I see indulgence and rationalisation, as we presume the sentience we don't quite actually have.
 · Reply · Storify · 5 May at 10:40 · Edited
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw The most important rule of marriage is its forbidding and punishing of extramarital sex. Most people don't understand or accept this.
 · Reply · Storify · 5 May at 14:40
Remove
Archi Ssan
Archi Ssan If you're projecting a theological view, then again I find it also bears your personal perspective more than I can agree with. From interpreting scriptures, I find the most important 'rule' of marriage is to love, honer and respect your spouse primarily, you may find that fidelity follows as a consequence. Personally I find that emphasising punishment which is ultimately true for breaking any scripted rule not just marriage or fidelity, is tending to a tyrannical application of religion rather than through grace and wisdom.

I certainly don't mean that as a slur, if a tyrannical theology is something you believe in as the best way to have people behave better than today, I think you can stand by it without worrying about how it appears to me.

I would also suggest that you can observe people do generally understand or accept that extramarital sex is wrong and unacceptable. But generally we are also a people who wants to have our cake and eat it by constantly rationalising indulgence.
 · Reply · Storify · 5 May at 16:35 · Edited
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Are you any closer to coming to a decision on this? 

If you make this post public, I can share it.
LikeShow More Reactions
 · Reply · Storify · 31 May at 07:59
Edit
Natty Kadifa
Natty Kadifa I've made a decision just haven't organised it.
After the election x
LikeShow More Reactions
 · Reply · Storify · 31 May at 08:14
Remove
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Fair enough.
LikeShow More Reactions
 · Reply · Storify · 31 May at 08:14



Looks like we triggered some Philip haters. Also, did you plant this story Claire Khaw?
You know I've publicly said I disagree with your theocratic dictatorship right?
Like numerous times and at that meeting I publicly criticised you.
If it was you, you are a fucking attention whore, if it wasnt, then you just an annoying attention seeker :p


The Liberty Belles
14 hrs
It was only a matter of time before the Philip Davies haters found some nefarious dirt to label us 'far right' http://hopenothate.org.uk/…/tory-politician-links-extreme-…/
It's so tiresome.
Can't they think of anything else?
What does the far right even mean these days?
Answers on a post card :)


HOPE not hate can reveal that Tory politician Philip Davies, currently seeking re-election in Shipley, has been associating with anti-feminist pressure group…
HOPENOTHATE.ORG.UK

LikeShow More Reactions
Comment
Comments
Claire Khaw I have no idea why you think I might have "planted" this story. Reading the report, it is obvious that HnH are digging up the dirt on Philip Davies because of the election campaign. The dirt consists of the position he has taken against feminism and his association with the Liberty Belles of whom you are one.

Your trip to Shipley on Wednesday was clearly the reason for their interest. 

At no time did I suggest to anyone that you agreed with me on anything. Your post on 3 May made quite clear that you do not agree with me about establishing a one party theocracy as the cure for feminism. 

"OK so I know there are content creators on my friends list. I have made a deal with the devil. AKA Claire Khaw. I have agreed to a debate or 'chat' about anti feminism. If ANYONE is interested in hosting this on their channel please inbox me. It won't be on Liberty Belles channel for OBVIOUS reasons...but I am sure its good lick bait if she goes full blown Theocratic dictactor."

It can be inferred that our proposed debate will be about just this. 

You said it would have to take place after the election, but it is my view that it would do more good before 8 June because more people will be interested. 

So, will we be having our debate *before* polling day?

Reply · Storify1 minEdited
Edit
Claire Khaw It is annoying that I have been called a Nazi apologist. I have never apologised for the Nazis and the Nazis have never asked me to apologise on their behalf.

Reply · Storify2 hrsEdited
Edit
Claire Khaw FACT: Anyone who is a social conservative is also a fascist as far as the left is concerned. 

You should be used to it by now, or get used to it, or retire from politics if you can't get used to it. 


Before much longer our stinking matriarchy will be banning the Bible and Koran on the grounds that Biblical and Koranic principles threaten it.

No comments: