Arguing with a leftist

I realize arguing with leftists on social media is futile as their ideology is usually so ingrained that they are beyond help. 

However, I sometimes find it good mental exercise that can help my own reasoning and understanding of whatever the given situation is.

Occasionally, the opponents have valid points and I'm made aware of flaws in my arguments, which I'm not too proud to admit.

Anyway, here's today's exchange provoked by the meme above, which I publish here for the record verbatim.

Him:

"Why aren't christian extremists extremely forgiving?"

Me:

"This is about Islam. If you have issues with other religions, please ask them as I have little or no knowledge of extremists of other religions because compared to Islam such extremism is negligible and not a cancer on the world.

And even if there was any validity to your question, I'm surprised you advocate two wrongs making a right.

Him:

"I am not advocating two wrongs making a right. I am saying one question is ridiculous. There is plenty of extremist christianity.  George Bush even had the temerity to mention the crusades while he was bombing the shit out of Iraq.  Though I have the feeling he did so out of sheer oblivious lack of self awareness rather than actual intention to bring up the actual crusades (to give him the benefit of the doubt).  To single out Islam as a cancer while neglecting to note the influence of our "christian" based culture on the rest of the world is kind of amazing.  Or for that matter Zionists in Palestine.  I am in no way suggesting those wrongs make the others right.  I am just saying the premise that Islam is alone in this or even leading in the body count is beyond ridiculous.  Crack a history book."

Me:

"Indeed, I stand corrected and concede Zionism is an extant bloodthirsty extremist ideology. If we're in the genocide Olympics, socialism is statistically a gold medalist. 

Regarding Christianity, crack open the history books and look out for the following:

Renaissance 

Reformation 

Enlightenment 

The odd evangelical stopping me in the street or knocking on my door, or a Gideon's bible in a hotel room hardly compares to daily slaughter to cries of "Alluha Akbar!"

Indeed, examples of the liberal definition of Christian extremism are opposing the multi-million dollar industry of murdering unborn babies, and refusing to bake gay wedding cakes. While such a twisted leftist worldview prevails and the welcoming and apologizing for genocidal maniacs continues, more native Western folks will drift right into equally toxic ideologies as Islam and socialism, and the perpetuators of this unsustainable paradigm already have blood on their hands and seem intent on plenty more, either through ignorance or intent."

That's it for the time being; I'll add any updates should they occur.

Never May

The Conservative leadership battle has been very quickly whittled down to two candidates, both women and each on either side of the Brexit vote.

The left and feminists are supposedly writhing in the fact that the next prime minister of the UK will be a right wing women and only the second female prime minister since Thatcher, who was also from the right wing of the Conservative party.

Obviously, the fact that a woman has achieved greatness, the top job in the country, without playing the victim card and without requiring leftist positive discrimination is a massive blow to the socialist and feminist narratives.

However, May may not openly identity as a feminist but she is authoritarian and is responsible for some draconian legislation which doesn't specify men but is being used to attack the traditional male role as head of the family and adds further weight to the gynocentric judicial system.

May is an extreme statist as are most feminists; and as you all know, feminism (like statism) is about power and control over men AND women.

Moreover, May was pro-Remain in the EU which seems a betrayal of the majority electorate.

I confess I don't know enough about Leadsom yet but my initial thoughts are she's better than May.

Alimony is a guaranteed divided

When a high-earning woman's career is over and she can no longer earn millions from her looks or sex appeal, she'll steal wealth from a successful man with the full support of the gynocentric judiciary.

Wealthy men marry beautiful young women as a further sign of success to be displayed as a trophy but will obviously tire of them as they age; tempted no doubt by an abundance of younger more attractive women with greater sex appeal, adding more trophies to their collection.

To such successful young women who appear to be financially independent, wealthy men are an insurance policy for when they're on the scrap heap; such women will invest while the going is good because ultimately they're guaranteed a massive dividend; they can't lose; men will always lose, regardless of their status.

https://uk.yahoo.com/digest/20160708/ex-supermodel-wins-57m-divorce-settlement-meet-reasonable-needs-10263356

No guide dog in my taxi

Personally and as a libertarian and small business owner, I believe discrimination is my right; I should be able to choose my customers without government dictating otherwise.

However, it makes much better business sense to be inclusive in most cases.

If muslims are going to piss off the disabled community with intolerance in the name of religion, I'll turn a blind eye to the disability act (UK, 1995) and happily watch them have a go at the death cult.

I wonder whose side the SJW brigade will take, especially as discrimination against disabled people certainly seems to unite lots of folks in outrage, and unsurprisingly as they're usually the most vulnerable in society.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3673685/Muslim-taxi-driver-refuses-disabled-passenger-guide-dog-s-against-religion.html