Refugees to be given lessons in 'Western sexual norms' in Norway

eddie wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/islam_rape_and_the_fate_of_western_women.html

Nah American women in general are stronger like Aussie Women.

I cant see them having the same issues, Culturally they are more like Aussies in their 'strong' women that don't take shit from men.

Yes us Brits just get raped and moan about it.

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:So Veya, you don't trust the media I take it?

I understand statistical Mathematics.
Plus I am a technical person at a level where some of the projects I have worked on make the media when they have problems.

I KNOW FOR 100% FACT THEY LIE or at least post such simplification and sensationalism of the information as to make it deceitful.

Tommy Monk wrote:The article was written by a woman.


Muslims follow islam... Islam tells them to dominate... not integrate...

Tommy Monk wrote:Telling the truth is neither fear mongering or cowardly...

Lord Foul wrote:the only reason you aussies havnt had any such problems is economics

it would cost them 500Au$ to make a decent bomb


when they fired it, wherever they fired it...it would only cause 3 cents of damage

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If it's "normal" where they come from though ...

They don't need educating, they need telling, and they need deporting straight away if they do it.

Its worrying that countries would let in people that they know have a "norm" in their spsocieties, of attacking women!

Yes. I don't know if it's the norm or not, but the stories in the news about this "education" implies that Governments of certain countries think it is.

If that's the case....
Well it's a pretty bad gamble to take with the people of your own country. Governments are essentially letting in large groups of people who are known to have "dangerous hobbies" that are the "norm" that could harm their own people.

What does that say to the people who,voted you in?

despite the media sensationalism, there are many more likely threats to your person.

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its not a knee jerk reaction when there clearly is a problem, when countries are having such lessons.
The fact is there is a problem from certain cultures where women are treated as property and not equal and there is no denying this, where again countries like Eygpt show there is widespread abuse of women and ignoring this problem is fundementally wrong. No such lessons would even be needeed if not for a huge problem. The problem I find is when the left weakly and badly defend making assertions people are making knee jerk reactions, when this clearly is not a knee jerk reaction but a continued problem, thus bashing people for asserting there is a problem is counter productive.

Tommy Doesn't live in Egypt
you don't own the world
So all your points are nothing

the VERY SMALL number of Migrants that come to the UK can Easily be assimilated into a Superior Culture.
As I have Asserted Before Maybe the UK has to Look at Why It's Culture is Unable to do what other English Speaking western nations do, Cause it may be a shock to you but Maybe YOUR culture is not good enough.

veya_victaous wrote:so why are you letting them abuse women at all?

You see it's not relevant because if they abuse Women here (or Europe) they go to jail no if's no buts no fucking around
Apply the Laws.
that is all that needs to happen.


in their home nations we do not control the law, so irrelevant.
the issue seems to be police incompetence and failure to ensure Justice is served.

veya_victaous wrote:you assume the men don't learn
they seemed to rather quickly here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_gang_rapes

solved 15 years ago thru full application of the law. 
they tried to say it's culture Blah, we said 240 years behind bars
Problem solved.

the police need to Stop fucking around, seriously how hard is it to Ignore race and charge people for their crimes. it is actually like Eddie said in another thread, they are making such an effort to appear not racsit they are outing themselves as Hyper-race sensitive to the point that they are unsuitable for authority

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:so why are you letting them abuse women at all?

You see it's not relevant because if they abuse Women here (or Europe) they go to jail no if's no buts no fucking around
Apply the Laws.
that is all that needs to happen.


in their home nations we do not control the law, so irrelevant.
the issue seems to be police incompetence and failure to ensure Justice is served.

Its more about how they were let in which is the point.
Again people can understand families being allowed in but well over 55 percent of those who have gained entry are men. So to brush off what we cannot control and say its irrelevant is giving up on the plight of women when we should be championing their cause for justice and equal rights. Sorry that is an appalling thing to say Veya, when we can certainly do much more by standing and condemning the practices in country, which is what every Liberal should do.
How do you protect women all the time in Europe, they should be able to walk the streets frree from danger, where this is not possible they should at least have been better protected and had riot Police called in for when this happened at these events.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its more about how they were let in which is the point.
Again people can understand families being allowed in but well over 55 percent of those who have gained entry are men. So to brush off what we cannot control and say its irrelevant is giving up on the plight of women when we should be championing their cause for justice and equal rights. Sorry that is an appalling thing to say Veya, when we can certainly do much more by standing and condemning the practices in country, which is what every Liberal should do.
How do you protect women all the time in Europe, they should be able to walk the streets frree from danger, where this is not possible they should at least have been better protected and had riot Police called in for when this happened at these events.

Families do often include men you know, and men who have families are not necessarily paragons of virtue.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Families do often include men you know, and men who have families are not necessarily paragons of virtue.

Really Rags, I did not know this 

Again it will be less likely they will be out on News Year Eve trying to assualt women, when they will be with their family. The point is it is less likely a person with a family is going to be out looking for sex are they? So this is why I say families are going to be less of an issue. It still does not comepletely remove the threat or even a terrorist threat but again this is down to risk factors

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really Rags, I did not know this 

Again it will be less likely they will be out on News Year Eve trying to assualt women, when they will be with their family. The point is it is less likely a person with a family is going to be out looking for sex are they? So this is why I say families are going to be less of an issue. It still does not comepletely remove the threat or even a terrorist threat but again this is down to risk factors

It's not just about New Year's Eve though is it? It's about the attitudes of these men, and I don't think that having a family changes their attitude.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not just about New Year's Eve though is it? It's about the attitudes of these men, and I don't think that having a family changes their attitude.

Yes some have poor attitudes, some do not have poor attitudes as it is dependent on up bringing, whether the religious aspect is part of a more hardline religious teaching or more moderate. That is where the difference will be.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yes some have poor attitudes, some do not have poor attitudes as it is dependent on up bringing, whether the religious aspect is part of a more hardline religious teaching or more moderate. That is where the difference will be.

So are you now saying that refugees should be vetted according to how "moderate" they are rather than their marital status? You implied earlier that they all have the same attitude because of their religion. That's assuming that they're all Muslims of course.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So are you now saying that refugees should be vetted according to how "moderate" they are rather than their marital status? You implied earlier that they all have the same attitude because of their religion. That's assuming that they're all Muslims of course.

Did I say that?
Please show me where I said that and then we will continue?

What really needs to happen is to tackle the coultural problems in these countries in the first place and that is the biggest challenge to face when many of these countries are led to believe the most ridiculous claim based around a religion.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Did I say that?
Please show me where I said that and then we will continue?

What really needs to happen is to tackle the coultural problems in these countries in the first place and that is the biggest challenge to face when many of these countries are led to believe the most ridiculous claim based around a religion.

So are you assuming that it's only single men who believe this ridiculous claim based around a religion - whatever that belief is that you're referring to?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:



So are you assuming that it's only single men who believe this ridiculous claim based around a religion - whatever that belief is that you're referring to?

Assuming what exactly Rags and that its only single men, as what did I just say previously about those married?

Try again

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Assuming what exactly Rags and that its only single men, as what did I just say previously about those married?

Try again

I actually don't know what you're saying. You appeared to be saying that single men are more likely to be out and about, so they're the ones who are going to attack women, and that married ones are less likely to because they're not physically out and about on their own. Then you changed it and talked about moderate versus hardline views.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I actually don't know what you're saying. You appeared to be saying that single men are more likely to be out and about, so they're the ones who are going to attack women, and that married ones are less likely to because they're not physically out and about on their own. Then you changed it and talked about moderate versus hardline views.

I am talking about risk factors as I always do. There is so many aspects to look at.
So for example if a homosexual refugee male comes, what risk factor is he going to be to women?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I am talking about risk factors as I always do. There is so many aspects to look at.
So for example if a homosexual refugee male comes, what risk factor is he going to be to women?

So you would let in gay men but not heterosexual men?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you would let in gay men but not heterosexual men?

Where did I claim the above, again I never did.
They would be one of the priority groups from persecution that would be deemed of a less risk factor

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Where did I claim the above, again I never did.
They would be one of the priority groups from persecution that would be deemed of a less risk factor

You dislike discrimination, so how on earth are you going to judge these risk factors? Are you really suggesting that a refugee should be asked if he's gay or heterosexual, and that if he's gay he's let in on the grounds that he's not likely to grope women? Are you really suggesting that a young, heterosexual man should be refused on the grounds that he might grope women? I don't understand how you think this vetting procedure should work.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You dislike discrimination, so how on earth are you going to judge these risk factors? Are you really suggesting that a refugee should be asked if he's gay or heterosexual, and that if he's gay he's let in on the grounds that he's not likely to grope women? Are you really suggesting that a young, heterosexual man should be refused on the grounds that he might grope women? I don't understand how you think this vetting procedure should work.

Again based on risk, so again.

What risk factor would a homosexual fleeing persecution be to women?
What risk factor would a homosexual fleeing persecution be to terrorism, based on the fact his life is forfiet in Islamic extremism?
Are you not asked your sexuality on application for a job?
Are you saying that a refugee is not going to declare they are homoseuxal, being the reason they are fleeing persecution?

Seriously?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again based on risk, so again.

What risk factor would a homosexual fleeing persecution be to women?
What risk factor would a homosexual fleeing persecution be to terrorism, based on the fact his life is forfiet in Islamic extremism?
Are you not asked your sexuality on application for a job?
Are you saying that a refugee is not going to declare they are homoseuxal, being the reason they are fleeing persecution?

Seriously?

Are you now saying that it's fine to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation? Just spit it out Didge. You approve of families being let in, but you're not sure about young, single, heterosexual men because they might grope women when out in public. Are you seriously suggesting that entry should be refused on those grounds even if those young single men haven't yet done anything wrong?

You keep talking about "vetting" refugees, but it's not practical, and it would be based on an assumption that some people are more likely to commit a crime than others. It's also a bit late to start vetting anyone - they already let them all in. The real problem here is what happens after such a crime has been committed, and reports have suggested that the police do nothing, and that the Governments don't take it very seriously because they consider it to be merely a matter of "education".

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Doesn't live in Egypt
you don't own the world
So all your points are nothing

the VERY SMALL number of Migrants that come to the UK can Easily be assimilated into a Superior Culture.
As I have Asserted Before Maybe the UK has to Look at Why It's Culture is Unable to do what other English Speaking western nations do, Cause it may be a shock to you but Maybe YOUR culture is not good enough.

Nobody says we do own the world, but we should champion the plight of people who suffer an injustice where if people instead and try to downplay a problem they are in fact allowing  that problem to continue. Sadly for many women in mainly the Arab and North Arican countries and not just Muslims but Christians as well brought up in a culture which makes them think they own women. I am not even talking about the UK here but the fact many people have been let into Europe without any checks at all. For one this is a problem for the real refugees, as then migrants and even criminals have gotten in. Again there was a higher proportion of single young men more so than families that got in,m which you would expect more of the later. You see my point is on stioll helping geunuine refugees, but we also have to face that in some cultures they are way behind the west in how women are treated and no poor excuses of how women are dressed is a reason for men from a different culture to think they can abuse at will

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Nobody says we do own the world, but we should champion the plight of people who suffer an injustice where if people instead and try to downplay a problem they are in fact allowing  that problem to continue. Sadly for many women in mainly the Arab and North Arican countries and not just Muslims but Christians as well brought up in a culture which makes them think they own women. I am not even talking about the UK here but the fact many people have been let into Europe without any checks at all. For one this is a problem for the real refugees, as then migrants and even criminals have gotten in. Again there was a higher proportion of single young men more so than families that got in,m which you would expect more of the later. You see my point is on stioll helping geunuine refugees, but we also have to face that in some cultures they are way behind the west in how women are treated and no poor excuses of how women are dressed is a reason for men from a different culture to think they can abuse at will

What good would checks do? If a refugee is vetted, should they be asked about their attitude to women? If there's any sign that they think women are there to be owned, should they be refused? That would also apply to married men with families as well, would it not?

Also, someone who thinks women should be owned aren't necessarily "fake" refugees are they? You appear to be saying that "real" refugees would not take such a stance, and that doesn't necessarily ring true.

Then what about the women? Should they be asked if they consider themselves equal to men before they're let in? If they don't, should they be refused on the grounds that they're not likely to discourage sexist attitudes?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you now saying that it's fine to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation? Just spit it out Didge. You approve of families being let in, but you're not sure about young, single, heterosexual men because they might grope women when out in public. Are you seriously suggesting that entry should be refused on those grounds even if those young single men haven't yet done anything wrong?

You keep talking about "vetting" refugees, but it's not practical, and it would be based on an assumption that some people are more likely to commit a crime than others. It's also a bit late to start vetting anyone - they already let them all in. The real problem here is what happens after such a crime has been committed, and reports have suggested that the police do nothing, and that the Governments don't take it very seriously because they consider it to be merely a matter of "education".

Point 1) Show me where I have said to discrminate?
Point 2) Again I am talking about risk factors, where you can rule or not rule out risks. For example you could not rule out criminatlity for either a homosexual Arab refugee or a Conservative Muslim refugee, but you can show a clear difference on risk between both on the threat to women and terrorism.
Point 3) Show me anywhere that I have said they should be refused entry on just these grounds?
Point 4) You say its not pratical and offer up no reasoning as to why, where again I am talking about risk factors, of who will be a higher risk and who will be w lower risk.

Stop making the most absurd assumptions of what I say, because it drags out the same point mundanely for ages, because you fail to grasp that I am talking about risks. My view would be of those of higher risk are not allowed yet into the greater public until more checks are made on them, but that all are monitored and have to keep reporting in each week to check on them with advisors and security, until their application is processed.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What good would checks do? If a refugee is vetted, should they be asked about their attitude to women? If there's any sign that they think women are there to be owned, should they be refused? That would also apply to married men with families as well, would it not?

Also, someone who thinks women should be owned aren't necessarily "fake" refugees are they? You appear to be saying that "real" refugees would not take such a stance, and that doesn't necessarily ring true.

Then what about the women? Should they be asked if they consider themselves equal to men before they're let in? If they don't, should they be refused on the grounds that they're not likely to discourage sexist attitudes?

OMG its like getting blood out of a stone.Sorry bored now, as you are so pessmistic its beyond belief.
Thanks for the chat but as you fail to grasp any of this I fail to see the point in continuing


Cheers

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


OMG its like getting blood out of a stone.Sorry bored now, as you are so pessmistic its beyond belief.
Thanks for the chat but as you fail to grasp any of this I fail to see the point in continuing


Cheers

Fine by me. All your talk about how you dislike discrimination is bullshit - you are discriminating in every post against single heterosexual men and assuming that they are likely to grope women and that married men are not.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fine by me. All your talk about how you dislike discrimination is bullshit - you are discriminating in every post against single heterosexual men and assuming that they are likely to grope women and that married men are not.

Oh grow up you pathetic child at no point did I back any discrmination, this is why you are so boring to debate you have to start and make false accusations, just because I easily showed your views were silly.
As stated hetrosexual single men are going to be a higher risk, and at no poingt did I say they should be denied entry, proving what a sad pathetic liar you are.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Oh grow up you pathetic child at no point did I back any discrmination, this is why you are so boring to debate you have to start and make false accusations, just because I easily showed your views were silly.
As stated hetrosexual single men are going to be a higher risk, and at no poingt did I say they should be denied entry, proving what a sad pathetic liar you are.

Your post included abuse - you broke your New Year promise.

You just said it again - you think that single, heterosexual men are more likely to grope women, so you want to discriminate against them one way or another.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Your post included abuse - you broke your New Year promise.

You just said it again - you think that single, heterosexual men are more likely to grope women, so you want to discriminate against them one way or another.

When you are acting like a child telling lies, that is not abuse, but telling you that you are being utterly immatuire.

Again they arw a higher risk but show me where I want to discrminate against them?
Neve did, seriously wash your mouth out with soap

Again I never once said to deny anyone based off any reason,

Show me where I did

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


When you are acting like a child telling lies, that is not abuse, but telling you that you are being utterly immatuire.

Again they arw a higher risk but show me where I want to discrminate against them?
Neve did, seriously wash your mouth out with soap

Again I never once said to deny anyone based off any reason,

Show me where I did

I haven't lied. You have consistently said that you consider single, heterosexual male refugees to be at particular risk of sexually assaulting women. You want a vetting procedure, but you refuse to say how that would work.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I haven't lied. You have consistently said that you consider single, heterosexual male refugees to be at particular risk of sexually assaulting women. You want a vetting procedure, but you refuse to say how that would work.

Yes you have lied.
They are of a higher risk, it does not mean they are all going to commit a crimee, showing you have no comprehension of risk factors. Again you are just spoiling for a fight, talk to yourself, because I am not interested in a fight with someone who constantly goads for one.
When you start to understand risk factors, then come back and we will debate

Thanks

My view would be of those of higher risk are not allowed yet into the greater public until more checks are made on them, but that all are monitored and have to keep reporting in each week to check on them with advisors and security, until their application is processed.

Again people can understand families being allowed in but well over 55 percent of those who have gained entry are men.

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, you want to vet refugees based on how much of a risk they are. That's fine, but don't ever try to claim that you disapprove of discrimination again.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, you want to vet refugees based on how much of a risk they are. That's fine, but don't ever try to claim that you disapprove of discrimination again.

I trying to help you understand why you are so far removed from understanding here

Right lets break this down for Rags

Is a woman more of a risk to women than men?

Would you then employ a male to work with vunerable women, who you cannot make a CRB check on?

Is that discrmination to you?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I trying to help you understand why you are so far removed from understanding here

Right lets break this down for Rags

Is a woman more of a risk to women than men?

Would you then employ a male to work with vunerable women, who you cannot make a CRB check on?

Is that discrmination to you?

Yes of course it is - you're assuming that the man might do something to the women simply because of his gender.

Didge wrote:Next question, would you employ a male that has a criminal record of child abuse to work with children?

Is that discrmination?