Afghan immigrant is arrested in Germany after he drowned, raped and killed her

[Avani]

It will be a lie if i tell you, i didn't thought about it and women in western countries have more liberties than in our parts it might be the reason you gave or having more freedom but this guy is a Afghan immigrant probably he did had the same mind set that some males have in our parts and might've stalked her for opportunities ( as in many rape cases ) if this is her usual routine and it might looked like a idea of old times but it's done on purpose of bringing up that one must be cautious about their safety .

and as the saying goes in wild when predators are around the prey must be cautious about it's safety i think it goes same with men with wilder minds that doesn't have a control over them ( probably not every man have a control over their desires and morals to get what they want in right ways not in wrong ways ) and like that women must be cautious about their safety even though situation called for them to go out late like that .

btw what i used above is just a metaphor no intention of victimizing women .

.

Never mind. Really tired of the topic.

 

[Monxstaa]

It will be a lie if i tell you, i didn't thought about it and women in western countries have more liberties than in our parts it might be the reason you gave or having more freedom but this guy is a Afghan immigrant probably he did had the same mind set that some males have in our parts and might've stalked her for opportunities ( as in many rape cases ) if this is her usual routine and it might looked like a idea of old times but it's done on purpose of bringing up that one must be cautious about their safety .

and as the saying goes in wild when predators are around the prey must be cautious about it's safety i think it goes same with men with wilder minds that doesn't have a control over them ( probably not every man have a control over their desires and morals to get what they want in right ways not in wrong ways ) and like that women must be cautious about their safety even though situation called for them to go out late like that .

btw what i used above is just a metaphor no intention of victimizing women .



I guess it's normal on your country not so much in mine .

Where you from bro?
I've been to many places and that is a alright for adults..

 

[Sagebee]

Why bring the word up at all?

They have very good reasons for that. The very first being the inherent suggestion that the person was fully aware of the what would happen and yet followed that route knowing that.

The list of precautions for women never ends. There is always a next level and people are suggesting without realizing the added implications.

Spoiler

Rule 1- Be aware of shady area and environment all the time- that automatically means be aware of changes and of the areas that turn shady only recently -- be first to know and avoid them beforehand. That would also mean be apprehensive of new people moving in the area. But while people insist women be aware of it they also take offense when it's suggested that it's getting less safe with new people coming in.

And no it doesn't matter who these people are - more the population, the number of crime automatically increases too even if total crime rate per thousand remains the same. It's likely to be more disproportionately higher if the new population is made of uprooted people with different cultural values and poor socioeconomic conditions etc. If they are fewer in numbers they get absorbed and settled faster. Ot it may take a really long time before you can bridge the gap.

So the government who voluntarily took in refugees should have prepared themselves and their people - but obviously they didn't think it through. They opened border and made it free for all without checks. These countries will face visible changes in their surroundings and societies in coming time. There is no hiding from that truth. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Rule 2- Don't be out at night or at least not alone at night- meaning your opportunities to find work and better pay also decreases. Men of course insist that women get less pay and promotions and job opportunities because they work less and not do certain chores and at the same time they tell them to follow such safety rules that reduces their participation in work force and chances of promotion or better grade. Then they also resent when they are made to pay up support due to these very reasons. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Still so far it seems reasonable doesn't it? But when these factors are neutralized comes a third one-

Rule3- Dress modestly. Now it has no limit either. How modest is modest? Even if you are covered from head to toe there some suggest an outer covering to hide the physique 100% disregarding how uncomfortable/restrictive it maybe for the woman. People also forget that when all of them dressed up moderately some decades or a century ago there was still the idea of women not dressing appropriately- Dress in sober colours and wearing bright cloths is "flashy" and attention seeking.

And nope it doesn't end here either:

Rule 4: Don't talk. Don't talk loudly or argue with men- since it makes them feel stressed and become violent. Don't talk with them normally that may involve smiling because that sends wrong signals too. Better talk only when you must, in a low voice and very politely. Wait! The fact that you are talking to a guy at all may still send a wrong signal to other men seeing you are talking to a guy. So Don't talk to any guy in public at all. And nope no kidding.

I have heard more than one stories while growing up ( and narrated very proudly) like how one of the relatives daughter maintained very high standard of appropriate behaviour- when she joined college, one of his first cousins also attended the same college and said a hello when he saw her there. She slapped him soundly and told him not to talk her in college again. And when he complained at home his family told him he was in the wrong and that it could cause her problems if she was seen talking by other male students if she was seen talking to guys at all. People actually endorsed her and guys in the family were told not to approach her. Now these stories are from my mom's generation ( and there were many other variations of the same) so one would think these ideas are outdated now. Nope. These stories are told to repeatedly to girls of growing age to instill the code of conduct telling them how behaving like that help these women keep their 'reputation' safe previously.

No wonder when men from such regions go outside and see women moving and talking around freely, get all their brains fried up. Not that they have not been still perusing women before. But they have compartmentalized women who are "good" and women who are available. Completely disregarding her consent factor because by now they have established that women are not supposed to talk and accept the advances openly to keep the facade of " good person" forced upon them by the society and at the same time they perceive them sending hidden signals to all and sundry- even if they sent it to only one person or not at all and only they thought she was.

I find these rules asinine at this point but the list doesn't end here either. Talk to more people from more conservative communities and you will hear some more. But I think I made my point clear. The list of safety rules is just too damn long and most of you lecturing women on it don't even seem to realize why women react the way they do listening it.​

In short- don't assume such women being idiots who endangered themselves knowing there was a criminal lurking out there at that given time and location. They can be anywhere.

My point is whenever stories like this occur the discussion goes like it is now where a man puts out the message of precaution and a group of women fight against it as if it's a bad messages. To an extent I can understand women's aversion to this message feeling as if accepting this message means taking blame or means to disregard the crime that occurred. But even if some men give it in ill intent it doesn't change the message is about protecting people this not the only thing that needs to be done and there needs to be holistic initiatives to make sure things like this don't occur from top to bottom. But I feel like when some women fight against this message it's in the detriment of people and women especially. No one likes to live in a state of fear and have to be cautious about there surrounding so we have to figure out ways on how that doesn't have to be the case. Part of doing that is having proper surveillance which includes having armed forces is that a sexist concept no so if people have to walk together at times due to not having proper protection isn't either. As men we have women in our daily lives we want to protect am I wrong for giving an advice of being cautious and protected. This message we give to our entire family and friends especially if a circumstance warrants it.

No what you did was butting in a conversation I was having with another person. I had posted what I had because of how he formed his particular post. And you have been distracting without giving a thought to the context in my initial post to that person.

I'm confused what your point is, isn't this forum made to discuss with people in all honesty I was interested to see if you would argue against the point I made and why. Even though I don't agree with the "for a girl" part of his post what I think the point he was trying to make is in the time she was out alone and most likely secluded put her in a vulnerable situation. My thoughts on crime it's fundamentally done due to desire and opportunity you aren't going to take away an individuals desire to wrong you, but you can make sure to not give that person the opportunity to do it.

Your working under the assumption that people take all these precautions already so it's a none issue which, I'm not sure that's the case. From my personal upbringing I've seen a diversity of neighborhoods some that were bad but got cleaned up to good affluent neighborhoods that have started to see a crime presence. Me personally I was raised in a low income high crime area I was cautious not based on my enviroment but it was already in my nature to be so protecting me from many avoidable pitfalls growing up there. You would think in these high crime areas families would act with more precaution but knowing dangers of there own areas parents still allow there kids to move around these areas freely many of them succumbing to their environments in different ways.

I've even been around affluent neighborhoods through friends and family observing there lives and how many throw caution to the wind noticing at times how they leave garages open or don't leave home locked watching now these places experience higher rates of theft. Me seeing some of these things baffled at the lax attitude of security either not being exposed to and knowing these harsh realities or people thinking it won't be them.

In my college lately there's been a large of influx of cell phone thefts in response I started parking in more public busy area I started noticing more girls walking in groups and people have the option of calling campus police to escort them to their cars. You see most men walking alone to secluded areas because even we aren't cautious like we should be in life there's always wolves out there waiting to pounce if given the opportunity. This is a reality for both genders and it effects all people

You made a parallel while looking though a narrow window and seem to suggest media always works to disadvantage of such groups at large. You didn't have any point there to begin with.



You were the one who brought up the media.

Media does clickable news. But it's a myth that all the media in all the modern democratic countries works against minority groups and makes them look bad deliberately all the time. On top of it major minority groups which can harness international support from other countries often have strong and rich political and media houses and media lobbies of their own. They also tend to vote more cohesively organized way and thus many politicians see them as a mass vote bank. So factually they end up having the upper hand over many narratives in the media.

Maybe that's the case of your particular countries media , specifically US and UK media the coverage and dialogue is purposefully skewed at times to push political agendas. So are you of the opinion media disseminates information with no agendas or try to impose any views on the story. It's like in the presidential campaign on what and when certain information on the candidates were disseminated it's not random, but purposeful. Media over here isn't an honest balanced source that's independent of outside influences. Example is over here more white right wing men commit domestic terrorism over here, but these stories aren't covered by major news companies so based on this they willfully keep people ignorant of this fact. To your last point which interest groups do these war torn refugee have I'm not saying they don't exist but I'm honestly asking who are they and how are they helping them in any meaningful way because the media isn't definitely doing them any favors.

Denials and conspiracy stories may help in shifting the blame but in long term they don't benefit either side. Because when people refuse to acknowledge trouble within their community, shelter such troublemakers and find excuses for them the problematic people of the group act as cancer cells for the rest of the body too. The good people even if in majority of the community, end up feeling the effect. Often from within as well as from outside.



Maybe because that's exactly you are already doing it even if unconsciously. You are shifting focus from the crime to the idea that the young woman was wrong for being out there at that hour by not taking proper precaution. You give her benefit of doubt but you already shifted the topic to her and female responsibility towards their own safety instead of worsening law and order situation. And repeating it over and over implying that these women would have avoided the incident if they weren't there at that time.

What am I denying, and how is media coverage being biased and purposeful a conspiracy theory. But let's hypothetical say it didn't the net results of this story is the same where the discussion in one part will go with the opposite genders arguing about safety and second part some people that would blanketly blame the whole refugees. Then the discussion dwindles down to arguement imposing gender and ethnic bias without actually discussing constructive measures that help and benefit all effected parties. Again I'm not shifting blame or discussing female responsibilities, I keep saying what we should all do so things like this don't keep happening individual precautions is important across the board in all honesty arguing against it gives the message that there's no need for it . By saying this it doesn't mean what this criminal did is okay, but just telling them to be safe. If you hear crime going on isn't the natural and correct response to receive from someone is to stay safe, but by imposing these other things on the message you give the impression it's a bad message.

- Well I have news for you- there would be no victims of either gender in the world of any crime if they were not at a wrong place at a wrong time. But we don't live in a perfect world so people miscalculate the risk factors or have to still go on with their life just to be able to keep living. I agree on that it's still government's job to provide better law and order situation or own up their failure. That was my point to begin with.




Already replied to this part- info wars and narratives aren't one sided. Pretty often, in a bid to keep the majority docile and in control a lot of negative news against their interest is played down.

And for the nth time save your preaching about safety rules since bringing it up means you think women need to be told about it by you. News flash- they already know it. But one simply cannot go on with their daily life looking over their shoulder 24/7 and crimes happen despite that.



You are failing to even notice where your suggestions are going- you said she should have been with friends. What's your suggestion for the women who have to travel to and for on routine basis?

We have companies here which actually provide cabs to women and these cabs are monitored strictly to ensure safety of women returning home at odd hours. And still couldn't avoid all such cases. Stop assuming that victim needs a lecture about not following safety rules.

It's ironic that after every such incident people pop up lecturing women for not taking enough precautions and yet when an airlines doesn't let a lone child travel sitting beside a single male they complain that they are treating all men as a suspected criminal.

Yes in life crimes will keep happening that doesn't mean we can't do anything to keep ourselves safe or completely disregarding it as if it would of happened irregardless. Like I said I already admitted to not knowing the full realities to this situation as you don't either. But let's hypothetically say she didn't take any precautions does that make what the guy did any less vile or her death any less tragic. Like when watching a horror movie there some people who think it's funny how the person puts them in vulnerable situation and in that same vein that there are some men that might not be sympathetic to the woman due thinking she put herself in danger even though I find that person deplorable doesn't mean precautions shouldn't be taken. This has been my same message, but you like many other women discredit this message imposing on it things I never said, but even if I had ull intent doesn't change the merits of it.

Right now your point is that it's a none issue it's common sense and patronizing to women to say. Even though this is anecdotal from my experience I see that safety not being a major issue especially to individuals around my age group as people we walk countless times at night in secluded areas in areas we might not be familiar with. So I question the assumption how common sense safety is to people usually people think of danger when they are alerted to it. And your arguing against the idea of it being a good idea to be with someone in cases you will be alone at night turning it to a caricature of what I said as if it's a silly or sexist thing to say.

To your last point with the plane analogy I'm not familiar with this and plane polices, but I would like if they could make accommodations for these families and I'm assuming they would. I'm not really sure what's the morality of that situation is but I personally don't feel offended with that and I'm pleased with that policy.

 

[Lyke]

Did you miss "they probably have/had a better law and order situation than our parts"?

It would be really silly to assume only you have enough senses to decide what a vulnerable situation is and what isn't. If somebody has been following a routine for a long time, they usually do so because it's usually safe and they have been comfortable with the environment around. + You are suggesting that working women need an escort. So what about those who cannot afford one? They shouldn't work?

The archaic idea that 'it isn't time for a girl to be outside' is what makes trouble makers jump to idea of this girl is 'out and taking a risk knowingly by herself and thus putting herself out" and "giving us an opportunity". And often used for justifications after making violations in such a case. It's not something that's to be raised unless you are discussing safety precautions only. Otherwise why someone was at some place at a given time is not your concern- it could be anything but it doesn't give anyone a right to violate anybody.

-First of all, dont give me any infractions or ban me due to stating my opinion-

wtf is wrong with you? A girl shouldnt be out alone at night,thats common sense. Women are weaker than men and easy prey to idiotic man out there. Do you really want women to be that equal to man that their safety shouldnt matter anymore?

 

[Avani]

-First of all, dont give me any infractions or ban me due to stating my opinion-

wtf is wrong with you? A girl shouldnt be out alone at night,thats common sense. Women are weaker than men and easy prey to idiotic man out there. Do you really want women to be that equal to man that their safety shouldnt matter anymore?

Problem is idiotic men are everywhere and including inside homes. You shouldn't reply to posts, you don't have patience to read.

 

[Avani]

My point is whenever stories like this occur the discussion goes like it is now where a man puts out the message of precaution and a group of women fight against it as if it's a bad messages. To an extent I can understand women's aversion to this message feeling as if accepting this message means taking blame or means to disregard the crime that occurred. But even if some men give it in ill intent it doesn't change the message is about protecting people this not the only thing that needs to be done and there needs to be holistic initiatives to make sure things like this don't occur from top to bottom. But I feel like when some women fight against this message it's in the detriment of people and women especially. No one likes to live in a state of fear and have to be cautious about there surrounding so we have to figure out ways on how that doesn't have to be the case. Part of doing that is having proper surveillance which includes having armed forces is that a sexist concept no so if people have to walk together at times due to not having proper protection isn't either. As men we have women in our daily lives we want to protect am I wrong for giving an advice of being cautious and protected. This message we give to our entire family and friends especially if a circumstance warrants it.





I'm confused what your point is, isn't this forum made to discuss with people in all honesty I was interested to see if you would argue against the point I made and why. Even though I don't agree with the "for a girl" part of his post what I think the point he was trying to make is in the time she was out alone and most likely secluded put her in a vulnerable situation. My thoughts on crime it's fundamentally done due to desire and opportunity you aren't going to take away an individuals desire to wrong you, but you can make sure to not give that person the opportunity to do it.

Your working under the assumption that people take all these precautions already so it's a none issue which, I'm not sure that's the case. From my personal upbringing I've seen a diversity of neighborhoods some that were bad but got cleaned up to good affluent neighborhoods that have started to see a crime presence. Me personally I was raised in a low income high crime area I was cautious not based on my enviroment but it was already in my nature to be so protecting me from many avoidable pitfalls growing up there. You would think in these high crime areas families would act with more precaution but knowing dangers of there own areas parents still allow there kids to move around these areas freely many of them succumbing to their environments in different ways.

I've even been around affluent neighborhoods through friends and family observing there lives and how many throw caution to the wind noticing at times how they leave garages open or don't leave home locked watching now these places experience higher rates of theft. Me seeing some of these things baffled at the lax attitude of security either not being exposed to and knowing these harsh realities or people thinking it won't be them.

In my college lately there's been a large of influx of cell phone thefts in response I started parking in more public busy area I started noticing more girls walking in groups and people have the option of calling campus police to escort them to their cars. You see most men walking alone to secluded areas because even we aren't cautious like we should be in life there's always wolves out there waiting to pounce if given the opportunity. This is a reality for both genders and it effects all people



Maybe that's the case of your particular countries media , specifically US and UK media the coverage and dialogue is purposefully skewed at times to push political agendas. So are you of the opinion media disseminates information with no agendas or try to impose any views on the story. It's like in the presidential campaign on what and when certain information on the candidates were disseminated it's not random, but purposeful. Media over here isn't an honest balanced source that's independent of outside influences. Example is over here more white right wing men commit domestic terrorism over here, but these stories aren't covered by major news companies so based on this they willfully keep people ignorant of this fact. To your last point which interest groups do these war torn refugee have I'm not saying they don't exist but I'm honestly asking who are they and how are they helping them in any meaningful way because the media isn't definitely doing them any favors.



What am I denying, and how is media coverage being biased and purposeful a conspiracy theory. But let's hypothetical say it didn't the net results of this story is the same where the discussion in one part will go with the opposite genders arguing about safety and second part some people that would blanketly blame the whole refugees. Then the discussion dwindles down to arguement imposing gender and ethnic bias without actually discussing constructive measures that help and benefit all effected parties. Again I'm not shifting blame or discussing female responsibilities, I keep saying what we should all do so things like this don't keep happening individual precautions is important across the board in all honesty arguing against it gives the message that there's no need for it . By saying this it doesn't mean what this criminal did is okay, but just telling them to be safe. If you hear crime going on isn't the natural and correct response to receive from someone is to stay safe, but by imposing these other things on the message you give the impression it's a bad message.



Yes in life crimes will keep happening that doesn't mean we can't do anything to keep ourselves safe or completely disregarding it as if it would of happened irregardless. Like I said I already admitted to not knowing the full realities to this situation as you don't either. But let's hypothetically say she didn't take any precautions does that make what the guy did any less vile or her death any less tragic. Like when watching a horror movie there some people who think it's funny how the person puts them in vulnerable situation and in that same vein that there are some men that might not be sympathetic to the woman due thinking she put herself in danger even though I find that person deplorable doesn't mean precautions shouldn't be taken. This has been my same message, but you like many other women discredit this message imposing on it things I never said, but even if I had ull intent doesn't change the merits of it.

Right now your point is that it's a none issue it's common sense and patronizing to women to say. Even though this is anecdotal from my experience I see that safety not being a major issue especially to individuals around my age group as people we walk countless times at night in secluded areas in areas we might not be familiar with. So I question the assumption how common sense safety is to people usually people think of danger when they are alerted to it. And your arguing against the idea of it being a good idea to be with someone in cases you will be alone at night turning it to a caricature of what I said as if it's a silly or sexist thing to say.

To your last point with the plane analogy I'm not familiar with this and plane polices, but I would like if they could make accommodations for these families and I'm assuming they would. I'm not really sure what's the morality of that situation is but I personally don't feel offended with that and I'm pleased with that policy.

You need to re-read my previous replies to you. Twice, thrice as many times as it takes you too understand what I said. Because I have already addressed issue you raised and yet you asked the same again. You probably missed it because of the length of the post.

As for airplane policy- some airlines have a policy that if a minor child is traveling without a guardian airline staff prefers to give him/her a seat beside a female traveler instead of letting him sit beside a male stranger. The reason they cite is personal safety of the minor. A couple of NB members posted about some cases where male passengers were mad at this sexist policy and claimed that by doing so the airlines was making all men look like perverted rapists and someone also sued an airlines for it. And these members were mad sympathizing with them. I mentioned those cases because I find ironic that when people lecture adult women on safety assuming they need to be taught about it and in doing so indirectly telling them that men around them are highly likely to be a security risk but then get annoyed and angry when these airlines use the same logic and apply it on them. Then it becomes personal.

In the case we were discussing here it comes up again - the administration is not willing to increase police petrol because they think it would be politically incorrect and make them look like they are suspicious of the immigrants. So they won't take up increased responsibility and instead tell women to fend for themselves and give up their own civil liberties if need be for their safety.

Of course women will end up being more cautious in these areas ( the same way you were alerted "after increased cases of theft", but they will be paying for it themselves only by reducing their freedom of movements and other liberties etc. While administration is deliberately looking away to avoid being labeled racist and refuses to own failure of preparing the people and themselves for the situation.


If you cannot see anything wrong with this picture, and only keep harping on how women need to take care of themselves, I cannot help you.

PS: @ RED: pay attention at " after" not before. People should have known thefts occur but still many cases happened BRFORE you became more conscious of the increased problem.

 

[Sagebee]

You need to re-read my previous replies to you. Twice, thrice as many times as it takes you too understand what I said. Because I have already addressed issue you raised and yet you asked the same again. You probably missed it because of the length of the post.

As for airplane policy- some airlines have a policy that if a minor child is traveling without a guardian airline staff prefers to give him/her a seat beside a female traveler instead of letting him sit beside a male stranger. The reason they cite is personal safety of the minor. A couple of NB members posted about some cases where male passengers were mad at this sexist policy and claimed that by doing so the airlines was making all men look like perverted rapists and someone also sued an airlines for it. And these members were mad sympathizing with them. I mentioned those cases because I find ironic that when people lecture adult women on safety assuming they need to be taught about it and in doing so indirectly telling them that men around them are highly likely to be a security risk but then get annoyed and angry when these airlines use the same logic and apply it on them. Then it becomes personal.

In the case we were discussing here it comes up again - the administration is not willing to increase police petrol because they think it would be politically incorrect and make them look like they are suspicious of the immigrants. So they won't take up increased responsibility and instead tell women to fend for themselves and give up their own civil liberties if need be for their safety.

Of course women will end up being more cautious in these areas ( the same way you were alerted "after increased cases of theft", but they will be paying for it themselves only by reducing their freedom of movements and other liberties etc. While administration is deliberately looking away to avoid being labeled racist and refuses to own failure of preparing the people and themselves for the situation.


If you cannot see anything wrong with this picture, and only keep harping on how women need to take care of themselves, I cannot help you.

PS: @ RED: pay attention at " after" not before. People should have known thefts occur but still many cases happened BRFORE you became more conscious of the increased problem.

I've reread your posts as requested and I'm assuming when you bring up again individual safety when I made specific responses to your reply and you dismiss my points as you've been dismissing the whole topic.

And again you misrepresent the point made I never said safety is only an individual responsiblity, but govt has a responsiblity to assure the safety of its citizens and no one's going to take offense if they are doing a proper job.

Also there's situations where we aren't alerted to danger, but the circumstance itself has inherent dangers or risks that people don't consider.

Its not me harping on the topic, but you keep arguing against this basic topic at every turn than your confused when I'm asking you how could you possibly argue against this. Where you inject sexist undertones as if it's absurd idea, then in the same breath say it's a none issue.

Like you advised me to reread your post I advice you to reread mine because in all honesty your biases are stopping you from seeing and accepting what I'm telling you and if you really feel discussing safety isn't relevant to this topic instead of outright dismissing it then address my points showing why it's really a none issue.

 

[Avani]

I've reread your posts as requested and I'm assuming when you bring up again individual safety when I made specific responses to your reply and you dismiss my points as you've been dismissing the whole topic.

And again you misrepresent the point made I never said safety is only an individual responsiblity, but govt has a responsiblity to assure the safety of its citizens and no one's going to take offense if they are doing a proper job.

Also there's situations where we aren't alerted to danger, but the circumstance itself has inherent dangers or risks that people don't consider.

Its not me harping on the topic, but you keep arguing against this basic topic at every turn than your confused when I'm asking you how could you possibly argue against this. Where you inject sexist undertones as if it's absurd idea, then in the same breath say it's a none issue.

Like you advised me to reread your post I advice you to reread mine because in all honesty your biases are stopping you from seeing and accepting what I'm telling you and if you really feel discussing safety isn't relevant to this topic instead of outright dismissing it then address my points showing why it's really a none issue.

Let me be more direct- Your single point is about how women should be taking more precautions and then you added that they do not appreciate when you impart such highly intellectual wisdom to them. And you are unable to process when I told you why it's like that and I don't feel like continue explaining myself over and over.

It's inappropriate to stretch this particular argument this far and disrespectful to the murdered student, anyway.

 

[Sagebee]

Let me be more direct- Your single point is about how women should be taking more precautions and then you added that they do not appreciate when you impart such highly intellectual wisdom to them. And you are unable to process when I told you why it's like that and I don't feel like continue explaining myself over and over.

It's inappropriate to stretch this particular argument this far and disrespectful to the murdered student, anyway.

No its general safety precautions people should be mindful of, and my issue isn't with women not wanting to be "imparted intellectual wisdom" but how in these type of discussions they try to shut it down and make the guy look bad or sexist for saying it.

Really safety in these type of topics isn't relevant or necessary and women should be offended for bringing it up these type of wolves exist everywhere what do we do ignore them is that really helping these women

At the core this is a rape story and one of the more gruesome kinds there's constant stories of college campuses girls being intoxicated and taken advantage of for any of these type of issues it's best to be ahead of them and alerted to the potential dangers but when women continue with this rhetoric they desensitize these girls to these dangers precaution is always the best medicine of course it still can happen to you, but it reduces the chances should this message really be demonized by women is this message anti women

 

[Avani]

No its general safety precautions people should be mindful of, and my issue isn't with women not wanting to be "imparted intellectual wisdom" but how in these type of discussions they try to shut it down and make the guy look bad or sexist for saying it.

Really safety in these type of topics isn't relevant or necessary and women should be offended for bringing it up these type of wolves exist everywhere what do we do ignore them is that really helping these women

At the core this is a rape story and one of the more gruesome kinds there's constant stories of college campuses girls being intoxicated and taken advantage of for any of these type of issues it's best to be ahead of them and alerted to the potential dangers but when women continue with this rhetoric they desensitize these girls to these dangers precaution is always the best medicine of course it still can happen to you, but it reduces the chances should this message really be demonized by women is this message anti women

Actually seeing how you persist on repeating it over and over, ignoring my attempt to explain the other side and (my) subsequent refusal to continue this discussion on it, I can see the wisdom in shutting down people who make this argument in the beginning itself.

 

[Sagebee]

Actually seeing how you persist on repeating it over and over, ignoring my attempt to explain the other side and (my) subsequent refusal to continue this discussion on it, I can see the wisdom in shutting down people who make this argument in the beginning itself.

In the end of the day if women choose to do that that's their choice, but honestly it's in the detriment of women and no you haven't addressed my points and actually shown your confusing it by saying my issue with these women who do this is because they don't want to be imparted "intellectual wisdom"

And again I'm not persisting I've asked you a simple question should women not hear these messages. And my resent question is this message anti women is to talk safety in the detriment of women?

 

[Frois]

What happened to her is certainly tragic, but I would like to leave my two cents on the matter of immigration.

While I certainly do think it is important to help these people who are suffering at the hands of their government and the country-wide rebellions, it is not okay to go into a country that has adopted you and disrespect them. Once you do that, you do not deserve your citizenship and you have forsaken the trust of said country. With religions like Islam that promote killing of people who do not follow their religion, it is not compatible with western culture, which is far more open to varied religions and different cultures than the Arabian Peninsula is. Especially with America, I can not envision a future where there is a 500% increase of Muslim immigrants, which will heavily clash with the Christian population and create divide.