patrick.net

https://www.vibesofindia.com/no-muslim-ownership-in-any-area-where-there-are-hindu-temples-gujarat-town-sprinkles-gangajal-to-purify-area/

Patrick says

Yes! This is good news.

Judging people based on their race is racist.

Judging people based on their sex is sexist.

Judging is ok. Women are weaker is a judgement, but it’s accurate, it’s not sexist.
Treating people like shit based on those is racist.

Just felt like clarifying view.

Fortwaynemobile says

Patrick says

Yes! This is good news.

Judging people based on their race is racist.

Judging people based on their sex is sexist.

Judging is ok. Women are weaker is a judgement, but it’s accurate, it’s not sexist.
Treating people like shit based on those is racist.

Just felt like clarifying view.

Not every woman is weaker than man.
Any one on this page will knock down most of the men.
https://americantopteam.com/fighters/women-fighters/

On what basis you say woman are weaker than men?

DonewithDebate says

On what basis you say woman are weaker than men?

Most women are weaker than most men.

All woman are weaker than the strongest 10% of men.

But by "judging" I meant judging negatively. I don't mean anything negative by the fact that women are on average weaker than men. They just are.

I also tried it myself and found no ill effects.

I figure about 1/7 of the horse dose is appropriate for a man weighing about 1/7th of a horse.

Patrick says

DonewithDebate says

On what basis you say woman are weaker than men?

Most women are weaker than most men.

All woman are weaker than the strongest 10% of men.

But by "judging" I meant judging negatively. I don't mean anything negative by the fact that women are on average weaker than men. They just are.

Majority of men are weaker than in shape athletic women.
With age based on what I see , Most women last men are more functional 50+ .

It is very misleading to say women are weaker. If a random meat eating white/black American woman is pitched against random vegetarian Hindooo guy, I will bet woman to come on top.

DonewithDebate says

It is very misleading to say women are weaker.

Not at all. It's the truth on average, and it's universal across all cultures.

Patrick says

Not at all. It's the truth on average, and it's universal across all cultures.

I think your assumption here is all things equal, Which are never in reality.
The variation in DNA,Diet and age are big factor.
As an example I provided that a "random meat eating black/white woman" will come on top of "random Hindooo vegetarian men".
I am saying based on both DNA and diet.

I think men peak too early in strength compared to women. Based on what I have observed woman fare better in later years.

DonewithDebate says

Majority of men are weaker than in shape athletic women.

Then why do they need me to open jars?

Onvacation says

DonewithDebate says

Majority of men are weaker than in shape athletic women.

Then why do they need me to open jars?

If they can push child out they can open jars too.
I guess some women have this disease to give "petty work" to men to feel superior.

Men need higher hand grip to keep them from squirming away in the midst of intercourse. It's a direct Darwinian feature called 'lock them down' grip strength.

And the stronger women got away and had fewer children.

DonewithDebate says

The variation in DNA,Diet and age are big factor.

Given the same parents, same diet, and same age, men are almost always stronger than women.

Taller, too.

It's just basic human biology.

Patrick says

And the stronger women got away and had fewer children.

May be that's against Darwinism to escape... Women tend to seek physically stronger men in general.

Patrick says

DonewithDebate says

The variation in DNA,Diet and age are big factor.

Given the same parents, same diet, and same age, men are almost always stronger than women.

Taller, too.

It's just basic human biology.

I would say that DNA/Diet is bigger factor than gender.
Do You disagree?

Ceffer says

Men need higher hand grip to keep them from squirming away in the midst of intercourse. It's a direct Darwinian feature called 'lock them down' grip strength.

I disagree, When women want kids they will hold men even stronger to not let them escape.
Rape is separate matter. Hindooo men typically do "gang rape" as they will have their "toto" chopped if alone.

Ceffer says

Men need higher hand grip to keep them from squirming away in the midst of intercourse.

Yes, and just how did you acquire that higher hand grip?

DonewithDebate says

On what basis you say woman are weaker than men?

On biological basis of facts

DonewithDebate says

When women want kids they will hold men even stronger to not let them escape.

?? Since when do women rape men to get sex? All a babe has to do smile and undo a blouse button.

HeadSet says

DonewithDebate says

When women want kids they will hold men even stronger to not let them escape.

?? Since when do women rape men to get sex? All a babe has to do smile and undo a blouse button.

Not rape, But holding tight the men running away from having kids.
Need strong arms to keep them there as "woke men" are very scared of kids.

DonewithDebate says

I would say that DNA/Diet is bigger factor than gender.
Do You disagree?

Well, men and women have significantly different DNA and that accounts for the enormous and unmistakable difference in strength between the sexes.

I think I actually understated the case. From the grip strength graph below, it looks like the very strongest women are not even at the median strength for a man:

Patrick says

I've just ordered it, sounds like he knows what he's talking about!

Kurt Smithpeters

5.0 out of 5 stars comprehensive survey of the administrators, researchers, and survivors of homeless camps
Reviewed in the United States on October 18, 2021
Verified Purchase
"Sanfransicko chronicles the increase of homeless persons and changing policies in San Francisco and Los Angeles since the 1970s, and similar patterns in Seattle and Portland. There is much comparative analysis and insider interviews with principle administrators of homeless related programs, homeless advocates, and a number of survivors. Contrary to good intentions, the facts indicate that huge and growing expenditure is attracting more and more people into a miserable life of violent beatings, addiction, mental illness, unsheltered concrete, and for a very large percentage death on the street.

The author interviews social workers in Netherlands and Portugal where opposite policies - contingency management, operant conditioning, and assertive case management - have eliminated what they call Open Drug Scenes (aka 'Homeless Camps' in the US) and maintain high rates of addicts staying off drugs. Both European and US experience shows that most addicts and mentally ill respond to incentives -- only the incentives are leading them down opposite paths, re-entering society vs trapped on the streets.

The book advocates a plan 'Cal-Psych' for implementing the European method.

The book goes further and explores the structures fueling this constant growth. Politically, progressive politicians and administrators are afraid to change policy because when they try they are labeled as heartless and racist by advocate groups and drummed out of office. The advocate groups are anchored by the ACLU and believe that involuntary treatment of addiction and mental illness is a violation of civil rights.

The author locates the root cause not in politics but in culture and provides a thought provoking tour of sociological and psychological thinkers and critics. He explores the mechanics of victimology/victimhood and the opposing phenomenon of agency and heroism of recovery, and the interaction of social trends such as police violence, homicide, vice, and shifting perceptions of state legitimacy. He suggests a broader trend of declining responsibility and coddling, and a still broader environment of the effect on moral foundations caused by the transition from strenuous pre industrial labor and traditional religion, to leisure and non traditional secular religion. A number of trends brought progressive voters to dominance on the west coast in recent decades and they are ultimately the enforcers of the current policy."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka_Sirhind

HunterTits says

https://patrick.net/post/1341903/2021-10-14-reading-recommendations-thread

Thanks! I remember this one now and am going to delete mine!

Don't know why Wahabbis so interested.

https://twitter.com/FaridQureshi_UK/status/1454812707648114689
Latest: Thousands of Sikhs waiting in the queues to vote for their free country #Khalistan

The food thing makes more sense now.

If Punjab provides a lot of India's food, and Punjab becomes independent, then India has a big problem.

So I can imagine that India is illegally expropriating land in Punjab and trying to undermine any Sikh independence movement.

Patrick says

The food thing makes more sense now.

If Punjab provides a lot of India's food, and Punjab becomes independent, then India has a big problem.

So I can imagine that India is illegally expropriating land in Punjab and trying to undermine any Sikh independence movement.

@Patrick
I suggest you to find a random Sikh guy, lesser the education and better it is.
Follow his trajectory of income growth and business ownership, You will see that most of them become fastest millionaires... fastest of anyone.

The reason is similar to Jewish(although skills are different) is hard work and lack of discrimination. Sikhs will be least bothered to not engage with any community and become successful quickly. Having a "open mind" is very congenial to success... Plus in most cases Sikhs are fun to work with and helps them in long run.

What worries Hindoo/Wahhabi cult is that:
1) Sikhs will become very successful soon and create headache for these exploitation based cults. Their citizens will also demand high level of living standard what Sikhs independent nation will have.
2) Hindooo has additional problem that "Hindoo cult" is generally cowards and have no ability to fight war. They will be decimated pretty quickly by China.

I think Hindoo cult can arrange food from elsewhere.
I am not in favor of religion based countries, Instead Sikhs try to finish off "Hindoo and Wahhabi" cult's hold on Bharat and deliver prosperity and justice.
I don't like that as Sikhs in past we need to migrate to USA to burden the labor markets here... It would be best to create additional engine of growth.

Patrick says

I suppose creating famine could be almost as effective as billions of injections in killing vast numbers of people for the delight of Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab.

@patrick
Its the same shit everywhere. Make commoners become dependent for "control" .
It is not easy for elites to let people control their destiny. You will see lot of your commentators over here have hard time letting people to think for themselves.. Imagine how hard it will be for politician of govt technocrat.
That's where Sikhi shines. It lets people to chose your path as long as it is righteous path.

https://reclaimthenet.org/delhi-high-court-tells-twitter-to-remove-objectionable-comments-about-hindu-deity/

Twitter is hypocritical. They say one thing and do another.

Criticism of The Toxxine Religion is censored, but criticism of Hinduism is not.

Tyrants can try hard. Sikhs will keep singing songs and making films of fighters for common man.
Hope some day other Bhartis will grow backbone to join Sikhs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNpb4gGOO64

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/08/21/india-bans-film-accused-of-glorifying-indira-gandhis-assassination/
India blocks release of film accused of glorifying Indira Gandhi’s assassination

Patrick says

https://reclaimthenet.org/delhi-high-court-tells-twitter-to-remove-objectionable-comments-about-hindu-deity/

Twitter is hypocritical. They say one thing and do another.

Criticism of The Toxxine Religion is censored, but criticism of Hinduism is not.

There are always two choices " spread hate" or "create unity" among masses.
As as a Sikh we believe in unity among common man and resistance to tyranny.

Why insult a Hindoo God, Which is in fact appropriated from Bharati culture and glorious past of good society.
Fight should only be with colonists(Whether British,Hindoo or Wahabbi).

I am not in favor of creating deliberate insult of faith of large number of people.. It simply plays in hands of tyrants and divisive forces.

I agree, deliberate insults are counterproductive. But all speech worth protecting is necessarily offensive to someone, and so to have free speech we must protect insults too.

Patrick says

I agree, deliberate insults are counterproductive. But all speech worth protecting is necessarily offensive to someone, and so to have free speech we must protect insults too.

The objectionable comments are about women deities. People talk about raping and other such degrading terms. I dont think such words are free speech.

I think they are indeed free speech as they are not threats against specific people.

We need to hold the line or we will not even be allowed to criticize the toxxine.

Patrick says

I think they are indeed free speech as they are not threats against specific people.

We need to hold the line or we will not even be allowed to criticize the toxxine.

The problem is some people may have sentiments hurt to extent that they are willing to take a punishment for violence they do against so called blasphemy guy. It still results in curtailing of free speech as you can't jail everyone before crime is committed.

Wahaabi threatens and kills people and Bhartis were tolerating it.
End result is Bharti Gods are insulted and Islamic ones are not..... It is still lopsided free speech.

DonewithDebate says

Wahaabi threatens and kills people and Bhartis were tolerating it.

Still, free speech must be protected or we lose everything.

DonewithDebate says

That's where Sikhi shines. It lets people to chose your path as long as it is righteous path.

But what if people disagree on what a righteous path is?

Patrick says

DonewithDebate says

That's where Sikhi shines. It lets people to chose your path as long as it is righteous path.

But what if people disagree on what a righteous path is?

Everybody has their own.. and it hold as long as they allow "everyone else to also have their own too".

Patrick says

DonewithDebate says

Wahaabi threatens and kills people and Bhartis were tolerating it.

Still, free speech must be protected or we lose everything.

We lose everything also when all our citizens are fighting each other and elites funding the "hate propaganda" in name of free-hateful-speech.