Consept

@Scholar You're asking a lot, im obviously not as invested as you are. But I'm curious on your stance, can you go through what that is and why you feel like that? I will try and get back to your questions

Be needy if you want lol no ones stopping you

Yeah not really interested in a debate bro, just thought you wanted to know what it was

I didn't say it was bad I said its not as attractive. I'm not sure it's logical so I can't explain sorry

Let me know how it works for you, genuinely

It is a beautiful paradox

In the dating and relationship context, if you are not good as you are ie happy being single and what's stopping you is needing something from someone ie a relationship, sex etc. Then you will be needy because you 'need' that thing to be ok. Then when going into potential relationships the stakes are higher for you because you're not OK by yourself. You may need a relationship or feel like you do but if you act in a needy way it will not be as attractive. The food example doesnt really fit the context.

I'm saying it's basically inherently grooming if you knew a child from when they were a kid and get with them when they're an adult. Potentially if you weren't in their life and met them when they were an adult that would be different. Still weird though. No i don't agree, I think disgust in incest is a way it manifests for us to avoid it or at least that's how we experience it. Some animals do this as well, lemurs for example use pheromones to choose who is the least related to them to mate with. Homosexuality is different in that we're taught to be disgusted by it so I feel that's more of a past social thing which as you say has even changed from 30 years ago. Incest has been around for a long time and I feel that if we were really driven to so it you'd see a lot more cases. I actually know a few cousins that are married so I'm not overly disgusted by it but also those relationships are more cultural and not based at least initially on love. It's dysfunctional in that it would be very unusual to go from a sibling relationship to a sexual relationship, this by definition wouldn't be 'normal' probably in all of history. Therefore it would indicate some kind of dysfunction, like if someone fucked goats I'd think it's dysfunctional because it's so far from the norm. No idea but could be possible It's actually a condition between long lost relatives where they fall in love later in life. Its something to do with the attraction as relatives being mistaken for sexual love. So for example if you never met you mum and then you meet her when you're 25 and she's 45 and you're both really attracted to each other it's kind of like malformed love you would've had for your mother. This does actually happen. I don't know what the punishment should be or even if there should be a punishment but I guess it would be similar to grooming cases without incest. I guess there would be more social pressure not to do it from your family. It's rare you'd see a healthy family engage in it, I mean I might be wrong but I've only ever seen unhealthy situations with this occurring. Age gap relationships I don't see a problem with in general. I think the issue is more if you knew them when they were young got them to like you and then conumated when they were older, I'm not really sure how you could police it but that for me would be immoral. If it was fine you'd have a strange situation of adults hanging around kids and basically being in relationships and then getting with them as soon as they cross the legal age, I think that behaviour would be very damaging for kids. Also another factor is whether the older person is in a position of power ie teacher, church leader etc What are your views on it you think consenting adults should be able have sex with family members?

Non-eu country migration increased because of how needed immigrants were and are. Nhs and many industries suffered from lack of workers. Labour isn't really pro-immigration look at their policy on it, they literally want to stop boats. Where do you get your news from btw? Do you live in England? People can protest anywhere as long as their not violent people won't get arrested. The reason why these guys were labelled nazi thugs is because they attacked mosques without any reason.

Its true, the UK government, which by the way has been a conservative government for the last 14 years, has not handled the trafficking well at all. If you think about it its really on them to crackdown on the gangs making a fortune smuggling people. But then also if people are not genuine asylum seekers they will get deported anyway. You cant blame the people for wanting a better life but all this is to do with how Britain police immigration. Which if you follow from that, they should really be rioting directly at the government, not at normal people or mosques.

Overall I feel disgust toward it, there is something biological that makes us feel disgust toward it so that we dont reproduce with close family members, obviously there is increased risk to any offspring, so nature does seem to be against it. Porn seems to be for it though. In terms of immorality, i think theres a strong element of grooming in these situations thats if the family members have grown up around each other. So like lets say you have an uncle who is 15 years older than his niece and knew her all her life and then gets into a sexual relationship with her when shes 20 and hes 35, i believe this to be immoral because trust has been built up and hes taken advantage of this position. Its kinda similar to if there was a trusted family friend that knew the kid all its life and then started a relationship when they became an adult. Most situations like this are not really acceptable for good reasons, teacher - student, priest - churchgoer etc. If theyre 2 adults of the same age and knew each other all their lives, this would be less immoral assuming there isnt any manipulation, but it would still feel disgusting and wrong. I say its unhealthy because it would indicate some kind of dysfunction between the siblings. Its mostly the case, i think the only exception is if you didnt know your sibling at all for your whole life and then as an adult you get with them, there at least isnt the moral issue, however i would say its still dysfunctional as your attraction is actually a malformed plutonic, sibling attraction. Birth defects are probably lower than we think but much higher than the general population. If people want to inbreed the can but i dont think society will really be that accepting of it, but generally i dont think a lot of people would want to. I think it should be illegal just because the risk of grooming and manipulation as i think thats a lot more likely to be involved than other relationships.

Exactly, i was gonna say the issue is often put on all muslim or Asian men but its very specific to 2nd and 3rd generation Pakistani men. It is an issue within that community, when i worked for a youth club it was in a Pakistani area of town so it was pretty much 99% Pakistani young males, as far as i know none have ever been involved in sex crimes but we did have an informational talk about attitudes toward sex and what i noticed is that some did have a kind of victim blaming attitude and slightly regressive attitude toward women. This attitude is something they are working on within the community and I wouldnt say its prevalent but it is there in a minority. I would say also i have heard similar attitudes with white and black people as well. I want to make an overall point here, so im not going to answer your questions directly. Everyone commits crime, no matter that their race or religion. The type of crime might vary between demographics and cultures, rich and poor, but overall people are going to commit crimes. If we start playing the game of this culture commits more of this crime, we're basically getting into an argument of whos worse and to actually work that out we'd have to add up all crimes, make exceptions for poverty etc and still it would be quite pointless. The reason why certain crimes are talked about more is because those that dont want to see immigrants, specifically brown immigrants in the UK promote these stories, such as no-go zones (which by no means exist as ive been to some). This is a way to put suspicion and make it seem like certain people are more dangerous to justify putting in laws in place that will make life harder for those worse off. Its an under-handed way of trying to create an argument for your immigration policy. The fact is if you have to do all that probably the facts are not on your side about immigration. Immigration itself is a separate argument, the crime stuff is basically a red herring. The immigration argument is basically, UK needs immigrants to keep it going, but theyre not happy with how many are being let in so they need to change it. Asylum seekers is also a separate issue, this is effectively a humanitarian endeavor, where if someone needs asylum because of war (most likely Britain was involved in), then they can come to England for Asylum, this is part of a Humanitarian budget that has always been set for this type of thing. To be sure there were plenty of cover ups across the board for white men. The reason why police were reluctant to investigate certain cases is basically because theyd be accused of racism. This is mainly because since 9/11 there has been a crazy amount of racism toward muslims. But its not their fault that the crimes werent investigated, they shouldve been and maybe if there wasnt racism in the first place they wouldve been.

What are no go zones?

If you look back on the thread, I posted links to numerous pedophile rings with all white people involved. Also 90% of all child sexual abuse conviction are of white men in the UK, does that become a cultural thing that white people do? If 99% of Muslim men are not involved in grooming gangs how can that make it a cultural thing? A home office report says that most sexual abuse gangs are made up of white men as well https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/15/child-sexual-abuse-gangs-white-men-home-office-report?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

It doesn't invalidate grooming gangs or radicals but don't you agree it puts his motives into question? For example if we talk about sexual abuse, 90% of convictions for child sexual abuse are white men in the UK. This isn't to dismiss that other demographics commit these horrible crimes but the bulk of the problem definitely seems to be white men. Even within the edl a senior member was jailed for for 17 years for abusing a 10 year old child - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/edl-english-defence-league-leigh-mcmillan-jailed-paedophile-old-bailey-a8231231.html Robinson did not even speak on the issue or condemn this person in his own organisation. There were others as well. So it seems like his issue is with Muslims directly not necessarily because they are commiting crimes, although I'm not dismissing their crimes. If the argument is the police covered it up or didn't care, that is something that unfortunately has been happening with white men for years eg Jimmy Saville. It strikes me as strange that Robinson only picks the Muslim demographic to attack about sexual abuse. What would be more logical is that he wants Muslims and other immigrants out and is using crimes that the worst within the demographic are commiting to stir up division and hatred.

It's basically when you need someone or something external to yourself fulfil your needs. You're not good as you are, this makes you outcome dependent, meaning you can't just flow in an interaction

Cult leader

I'm curious to get your opinion on this video and how Stephen is funded

The numbers are low relative to how many kids within that age group, however they have risen as you say. There are 2 potential answers for this 1. Social contagion ie kids are seeing it and want to try it 2. It's now more acceptable so kids who always would've felt they were trans are free to pursue it or look into it. Probably it's a combination of both

I have a bat-boy kid and I must admit I love him the least, not because he's a bat-boy but because he used to piss on the carpet a lot and I've never gotten over it

I think there are issues on both sides in the common discourse, in basic terms one side says a trans-woman is a woman and the other says its not a woman, lets call them left and right. The left side seems to not acknowledge that biologically a person born with a male body that transitions or identifies as a female, is biologically male. I dont see the issue with saying this person is a trans-woman which is distinct from a cis-woman because the experience and the biology is very different, however there are certain things that group them together as women. On the right they dont seem to be able to acknowledge that you can be born with a different gender, psychologically to your biological body. This is something that has always existed. If they could bend on this point then there isnt really an argument to be had on either side. In reality this should have very little impact on society, the only things that are slight sticking points are how do we categorise sports and how do we navigate gendered spaces like public bathrooms? With sports it wouldnt be hard to put in place if you were born male you shouldnt be allowed to compete in womens sports. This may feel unfair to trans people but the advantage is just too much. But it is unfortunate that they might not be able to compete where they feel comfortable. THe only options for this is having a trans league or competing with cis-males. What i would liken it to is being born with a disability where you maybe really competitive but physically you cant compete at the top level. This will happen in the future with prosthetics, Pistorius, before his off the rails incident, ran the 400m at the olympics with 2 prosthetics blade runners instead of legs, no one really questioned it at the time and he didnt win but it could be seen as an advantage because he wont get the same injuries, he wont have lactic acid build up, so in theory this could be advantage and maybe an advantage in the future with further development, so i dont think that would be fair for him to compete with non-disabled athletes, this is the same for trans competitors. The bathroom issue seems to be a logistic one, there are many places with unisex bathrooms, or where you just have the cubicle. I also think some self awareness could be helpful, like if they are female passing it makes more sense for them to use a female bathroom because it may make males uncomfortable if they use a male one. If theyre not really female passing, then i guess using the male one makes more sense but that is a bit of a tricky one granted.

Yeah they do teach us this at school, it is weird because there have always been so many different cultures in the UK, so much so that this small island is split up into 4 distinct countries, with different traditional languages. So how anyone can say theres one indigenous culture is just false. This guy sums up British identity quite well -

If youre both authentic about it then i dont really see a problem, it wouldnt be that different to having a friend as a roomate and you both help each other. However if one person is really in love and the other isnt, you may run into issues with insecurity or one side not putting as much in etc. But generally if it works and everyones on the same page then yeah.

This looks cool, im gonna come back to read it properly

My original point was that the people that are most worried about immigrants and immigrant crime don't really have much contact with immigrants as their towns are overwhelmingly white. If you wanna talk about the crime rate, crime stats show no change in violent crime, slight 1% in property crime, this is of asylum seekers. In general immigration various reports say it causes minimal if any rise in crimes https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ But that's why I asked what Tommy says, he maybe convincing but does he actually have observable data that contradicts the studies?