bebotalk

So then Muslims have no right to freedom of religion? They'd have no human rights in Western countries, why? Not all Muslims are hardline or radical. If Muslims aren't allowed to practice, then neither should Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

No group should get more benefit over another, without due course or need. Immigration is a complex topic, and often the issue is a lack of integration. This is both the fault of migrants and governments alike. Even though migrants often do low-skilled/low-pay jobs, it still can cause issues down the line.

Much of this already happens. The issue is consistent implementation. Though human rights by international law cannot be forfeited. If France wanted to publicly flog or torture migrant committing crimes, then it couldn't as it's a party to European and global human rights agreements.

Is being LGBT normal? What is normal? Who defines this? And by what metric?

Politics is philosophical and thus pretty tribal. Most people vote blindly for parties due to an ideological allegiance, or what their family or culture approve of. there's nothing wrong with this. Politics isn't a science and is often based on subjective value judgments of how to run a society or a country. Few people vote on what's the best option in an objective sense. In most democracies, major parties have a large ideological block of voters based on whom they appeal towards via their ideology. Trump still has a very large base, despite losing in 2020, and the following Jan 6th furore and his numerous criminal/civil cases.

PUA, and now the redpill, are just snake oil sales pitches. I doubt that many actually work as stated, and they draw on men who lack success and obviously want to boost it.

if it means you're bi or gay, so be it. i like mostly women, but have on occasion found really girly/femboyish men cute.

Sometimes it might be. Some people's preferences might be based on who they think is worthy of dating and who is worthy enough based on looks, wealth, status, etc. Others might have had positive first experiences with a given type, and that's been etched into them. Like if their first kiss or virginity loss was with a given look or character type. Others yet might just have a natural attraction to given looks or character traits, like if a person thinks brown or blonde hair just looks prettier.

Judging people based on appearance is natural. But what is natural isn't necessarily good or beneficial. I admit I judge others on appearance. Nobody is perfect and we all have failings on some level. Though I'm not fattist and I admit that if a woman is very pretty by conventional standards, then I do judge her for potentially having a bad character. It may not be "right" on some level, but such is life. Generally, humans are not than how we look. I've known fat people who don't consistently eat junk foods and are not necessarily lazy. It's often just bad genetics that cause this, and not necessarily lifestyle. That said, even if a person has such a genome, they can eat foods that better suits their metabolic nature.

"absolute" freedom in a private space is a pipedream. it's not always about sponsors but the USP that a media company wants to fill.

He seemed like a smart guy. Though as he was in Nixon's Cabinet, I'm surprised he wasn't implicated in the Watergate affair. I wonder if he fought in WW2, or even served in the Third Reich in some capacity. He was old enough to have done so.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_JWeaOXcAAvwYR.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Total_Fertility_Rate_for_6_Regions_and_the_World%2C_1950-2100%2C_UN2022.svg/405px-Total_Fertility_Rate_for_6_Regions_and_the_World%2C_1950-2100%2C_UN2022.svg.png Interesting to see that across different social, cultural, and economic dynamics, fertility rates are falling. The common factors are better healthcare, rising living standards, and less need to have children due to these points.

I don't like manosphere guys and haven't been exposed to them. You're being quite presumptive in "knowing" how I came to my views. How can you say I'm lying? loool

Even in the US/Canada, immigration can be an issue. They are exceptions as they have always been immigrant societies, but united by shared political and cultural ideals. Even then, there are white Americans who differ, such as between the conservative southern states and the liberal western states. Human resources need food. More food means more deforestation and environmental pollutants. Yes, we can always devise solutions, but then this assumes that these solutions are readily available or will come before humans extend ourselves too far. Forested areas are required for the atmosphere's oxygen content, and also for global biodiversity. EU countries do have issues in immigration. But often due to integration issues. Why is all cultural change negative? France has become a major team in world football as a result of immigration. In Britain, the most popular food is arguably curry. Brexit was due in part to immigration, but often amongst fellow white European migrants from Eastern Europe. It's not necessarily a white vs. non-white thing. They're fitter due to better medicine.

Most of Europe, even the Warsaw Pact, saw massive economic growth post-WW2. There was the threat of nuclear war, and the continent was divided by the Iron Curtain.

Older people are fitter these days due to modern medicine. Yes, they will retire but you'd be surprised as a number of them work or do jobs. If anything, to keep them active and get in money without withering away or being idle. Immigration causes issues when disparate peoples come in, without recourse to integrate or pressure/persuasion to integrate. A major cause of racism towards immigrants is due to ghettoisation and a lack of integration. There can even be bigotry towards immigrants of the same race. Multi-culturalism has failed since it's been misguidedly implemented and not accounted for migrants' integration into existing communities.

So is this the same in Iran, the tolerant, liberal and progressive secular country? Their birth/fertility rates are falling also. Japan isn't LgBT-friendly, yet has lower birth/fertility rates than Western European countries. Gay people can have kids anyhow.

Birth rates are falling globally. This is distinct from being at a standstill. Certain countries may not be experiencing falling populations, but their birth rates are lessening. So population growth would logically be at a lower rate currently and in the future. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521 https://www.vox.com/23971366/declining-birth-rate-fertility-babies-children https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazil-census-shows-population-growth-its-slowest-since-1872-2023-06-28/#:~:text=Brazil's population growth has been,said reflected lower birth rates.&text="In 2022%2C the annual growth,Duarte said in a statement. Brazil's population growth rate is slowing. The UK has seen a growth in population, which is a richer country than Brazil, but like many other countries has seen a fall in fertility and birth rates (they aren't the same thing). And yes, people in the past globally used to have children due to high child mortality rates. And? This is a historical and medical fact. That's why mass vaccination of kids is a boon. We all got our BCGs or Tetanus jabs for this reason. Prior to modern medicine, parents would have many children to offset this, in part. Actually, yes, you've hit the nail on the head as to why historically birth rates were higher. Your points don't even address mine. But just narratives you made in your head. As well as a lack of rudimentary economic, sociological, and historical understanding. Whatever church taught you basically deluded you. You've also demonstrated that you cannot read, nor even reason properly. Yes, fertility rates are lowering globally. But populations are still rising. That's perfectly reasonable and rational.

Why unemployment? People have had jobs since WW2, and even before then there were economic crises. The USA was founded as an immigrant country. BUt in other countries, such as in Europe or Asia, immigration has been an issue, especially with people of disparate cultures.

And Western Europe still outpeforms Russia, and still drives Europe as the world's leading continent. Russians love their Western Europe banks, sports goods, cars, universities, and properties. As for xenogenders, that's really a far-left/Western USA thing. It's not that common in Europe or the EU as it stands.

I've never really known anybody who has had a similar view to mine. You're making a lot of assumptions. Yes, our environment does shape us all. However, the effects of such manifest in different ways. This can result from internal reflection, as do most opinions people hold.

I won't know about Indian term limits. I'm saying that in Indira Gandhi's time, there was genuine secularism. there isn't now.

I don't see falling birth/fertility rates as a problem. The world can only support a given amount of people. If there is anything to blame for such, I'd say it's medical advances and contraception. it's shallow to blame contemporary capitalism for this also. Working hours are limited by law in many countries. This was not the case 100 years, when Western countries often had more rigid and less regulated forms of capitalism. There was no such thing as a work/life balance then, and it was due to such excesses that working hour limits were imposed. People then had more children as a surety against poverty, and of course there was less readily available contraception. I'd say generally when wealth rises, people are less incentivised to have children. If birth rates are falling in Western liberal countries (,e.g. USA, Canada), Islamic states (,e.g. Saudi Arabia and Iran), and Eastern capitalist states (,e.g. China and Japan), then the cause has to be more pervasive than feminism. Many countries still have heavy legally-sanctioned patriarchy as well as strong societal patriarchal norms. The constant is that the pill, condoms, etc. are still available in patriarchial societies, as well as Islamic/Eastern countries.

Marx imagined his theory would arise in Britain or Germany, which in his time were leading capitalist countries that showed the signs he was referring to. But he never gave a specific process in how capitalism would progress into communism. He also never said what communism would look like, such as a stateless and classless society. He never said how people would grow food, educate themselves, provide for common defence or welfare, etc. It's an interesting theory and analysis of historical class relations. But it seems pretty weak overall in its prescriptions.

I don't see why it needs to be fixed. The solution is immigration, though the West should emphasise immigration from similar cultures to reduce friction. If it's a country like Britain, then this should be like European countries such as Poland or Czechia, or Commonwealth states with linguistic or cultural ties, such as Australia, India, Nigeria, Canada, South Africa, etc. Lower birth rates are good for curbing the strain on natural resources and the environment. It means less land used for agriculture, less need to extract base and precious metals, and less need to overfish and pollute oceans. It also means more innovation in ensuring economic growth with a slower birth rate. People often compare it to decades or centuries past. Well, times move on, as does understanding. In the 19th century, with more widespread poverty, having many kids was necessary as insurance in old age, and also as child mortality was high. Lower fertility rates are a universal phenomenon, and are present in liberal Western countries such as Canada or the UK, through to Islamic states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. China, India, Nigeria, Brazil, etc. are all experiencing it too. I'd argue it's better medical care, and less need to have many kids that is causing it. I don't believe it's a problem in itself. Even if one doesn't think global warming is man-made, then there are other valid environmental effects. These are soil degradation, pollution of rivers, oceans, and lakes, micro-plastics and littering, de-forestation, forest fires, etc. Saying environmentalism at all is invalid is false, and with fewer people, it means that existing resources we need to survive are not as exhausted or spoilt.