"I can't prove it was her intent"

good we could end the discussion right there

Sure, if you want. Not even sure what we were ever really discussing. I just gave you what I thought you were looking for.

"Nah, they're not integral."

in the bible god created man first and created women by taking a part of that man and god did so only to give man a companion,, without going further i'd say right there that this kind of sets the tone for what we see later on

Yeah and later in the Bible Paul quotes that in Corinthians as reason for women to be below men. I still don't think it's integral. A religion is not its holy book. Hell the Bible didn't even exist in its current form until over a thousand years later. A lot of religious texts did, but the official canon used today wasn't decided until 1546 for Catholics, 1647 for Protestants, and 1672 for Orthodox Christians. So yes, you're right, the text of the holy scriptures does set up the understanding of followers later on, but that understanding changes. And should be encouraged to change.

" Oh don't pretend you don't remember that. It was all over the news."

which i did not imply, to repeat if she can substantiate her statements she should say whatever she wants

That's not how implying works lol, but okay. Sure, Clinton can say whatever she wants if she backs it up.

"As I've said previously, the people aren't the problem"

as i've said values do not exist and do not impact the world outside of when they are hosted by people

And you can change their minds.

"she's making them the problem rather than their values, which is what should actually be attacked."

here's a quick thought experiment, lets say we had a man saying all pigeons should be shot because he had a deep seated fear of pigeons and people attacked him for those beliefs... so people grab him and force him to see a psychologist and this addresses that fear so people don't attack him anymore...

do you see what has happened here? i'll just state that i don't think muslims should be attacked this just an example

I'm not sure what this analogy is supposed to be. It sounds like the shooter is the pigeon hating guy?

"I only brought any of this up because the shooter seems to think that. He DEFINITELY should step away from the internet."

no he should be hung from the neck until dead in my opinion, he killed tens of people

Agreed. I was joking of course. The time for him to step away from the internet was before he committed mass murder.

"You obviously aren't aware how much of a problem it is in Japan."

i think its overblown because people have this idea that men have to serve society and the men there appear to be rebuffing that

but yeah japan is probably fucked

the point i'm making is that your idea that women selecting for men with greater resources is culturally inspired is not in sync with reality, this is partially why the idea of absolute equality between the sexes is a joke as we will continue to see

Oh it definitely happens in other cultures, but it gets justified by different values each time. And each time, to solve the problem, examination of those values needs to happen.

"There are movements within Islam towards respect for women and respect for other religions."

fair enough, that's good

"Lol, I definitely want it to become more democratic. I recognize it's not a direct democracy, but I would love for it to be."

ok lets say it does and the majority of the population decide chrisitianity must be abolished because of its problematic elements... you'd just be ok with that?

people don't really understand what democracy breeds and its just funny to see how the media just keeps beating it into people's heads without those people taking the time to really analyse what is being suggested

I maintain that I want a direct democracy, it just would need to have a constitution that gave the same rights as ours and with similar checks and balances. A simple majority of the population shouldn't be able to decide certain things, like rights. Having constitutionally guaranteed rights that require high hurdles to overcome in order to make constitutional changes to undo ensures that a populace doesn't just act rashly when they're angry at one part of the society and in doing so endanger themselves in the future by setting dangerous precedents.

" Like I said, though, I don't blame Candace."

if you don't think she holds any responsibility how did we get here?

You assumed I was SpokenTruth maybe? Or assumed I shared his precise opinions? Hell, I'm not even sure you're right about his opinions on Candace. You can have a more nuanced opinion beyond "The killer mentioned her name! Burn the witch!" and "We should never ask ourselves anything about how we talk about anything on the internet or how it might influence others to act." Or whatever you'd consider the opposite extreme to be. I doubt you occupy the one I just named either, you are just concerned about the potential consequences to free speech if people were to be penalized for what they said if even a loose connection to another person's violence could be made. Right? At least that's what I think you're trying to say. If that's the case, I understand your concern. As for my part in how we got here, you asked me questions and I answered them to be polite.

candace owens was arguing that essentially she does not want the influence of islam to increase in the west, are you in disagreement with that and think the opposite? that the influence of islam should grow in the west?

I don't think it is a question of "should".

but you think it will and you think its a good thing?

are you muslim yourself?

"A religion is not its holy book."

it has to be otherwise what is there to separate you from the muslims for example since you both believe in god?

It's beliefs? Like, independent of the holy book? For example, Christians believe in the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. Every copy of the Bible and Quran could disappear and that would still be true.

"That's not how implying works lol,"

ok show me where i implied that i didn't remember her doing that

Yeah you continue to make me think you don't know how implying works, so I won't waste my time.

"And you can change their minds."

and then they cease holding those values and you redirect your attention to the others who do

this is why candace did not talk about middle eastern people, she specified muslims - people who hold certain values

Agreed. However, I don't think Candace's tweet accomplishes that. She specifies Muslims, yes, but there's not much substance there that's actually critical of the specific values, just the people in general.

"Oh it definitely happens in other cultures, but it gets justified by different values each time."

justified?

Yep. Not in an absolute sense, obviously, but in an "this is what they used to try to justify it in this case" kind of way.

"And each time, to solve the problem, examination of those values needs to happen."

what problem?

women are freely choosing the mates they want to have, why would that ever be a problem?

Not necessarily that, just any problem caused by a societies values. But as to why it might be a problem, it becomes a problem if the society struggles as a result of a cultural trend within it, with Japan's demographic problems just being one example.

" it just would need to have a constitution that gave the same rights as ours and with similar checks and balances."

so a constitutional republic... which is what exists now

Nope. Because it wouldn't have representatives, but be a direct democracy.

" A simple majority of the population shouldn't be able to decide certain things, like rights. "

but this is what democracy is

Nope.

"Having constitutionally guaranteed rights that require high hurdles to overcome in order to make constitutional changes "

this is not democracy

Yeah it is.

"in doing so endanger themselves in the future by setting dangerous precedents."

like what? give me an example

why would the majority of people in a country vote for policies that ultimately harm them in the long run?

Emotions. Probably fear specifically. That's usually why people vote to harm themselves in the long run. Example? Well imagine if they voted to make what Candace did illegal (aka, if they make it illegal to express her opinion if someone uses it as reason to do something else illegal), and to make it legal to lay the blame on her for the massacre? Hence why you'd have a constitution that prevented them from acting on emotion without thinking out the consequences.

"you are just concerned about the potential consequences to free speech if people were to be penalized for what they said if even a loose connection to another person's violence could be made. Right?"

free speech means people should be able to freely discuss ideas outside of calls for violence

it is how people think - by exchanging and weighing ideas, the minute you start messing with that then you are setting up a situation where you'll breed stupidity

Sounds like I understood you correctly then.