Topic: This lady destroys a creationist!
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #112,231
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 16 minutes later[^] [v] #1,245,186
"lady"
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,187
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,188
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,191
This "thing" makes me so fucking mad. I would kick his ass if I ever saw him in public. Fucking delusional peace of shit.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,196
@previous (C)
That "thing" would likely kill you, drunken ass. Then again, a 3-year-old girl could physically abuse you.
That "thing" would likely kill you, drunken ass. Then again, a 3-year-old girl could physically abuse you.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 52 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,197
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,201
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,204
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,205
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,210
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,224
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 38 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,229
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 7 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,282
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,283
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 26 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,288
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 41 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,294
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,299
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Trannies are literally ruining America. Drag shows for children, bathroom peeping, the list goes on.
Trannies are literally ruining America. Drag shows for children, bathroom peeping, the list goes on.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,300
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,302
@1,245,299 (C)
I'd rather have my kids attend a drag show than be exposed to creepy perverts like Bert or Matt or even Syntax.
I'd rather have my kids attend a drag show than be exposed to creepy perverts like Bert or Matt or even Syntax.
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 34 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,303
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,308
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,318
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,332
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 23 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,333
@previous (G)
Pedos want acceptance and if they're denied that then they drag everyone down with them. Tools used: projections.
Pedos want acceptance and if they're denied that then they drag everyone down with them. Tools used: projections.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,341
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,344
@1,245,333 (D)
In the words of your idol Greta, "how dare you" try n diagnost me when you have no clue what your talking about.
In the words of your idol Greta, "how dare you" try n diagnost me when you have no clue what your talking about.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 23 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,354
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,356
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 57 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,370
TRANNY FAGGOT TRANNY FAGGOT
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 16 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,375
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 2 years ago, 35 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,376
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 33 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,405
@1,245,375 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Most people are straight men.
More men are born than women, by a small margin.
Most people identify as straight.
Most people are straight men.
More men are born than women, by a small margin.
Most people identify as straight.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,410
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,412
@1,245,405 (I)
> More men are born than women, by a small margin.
That is a recent trend. It used to swing the other way, with far more women being born. And there are still more women than men.
> More men are born than women, by a small margin.
That is a recent trend. It used to swing the other way, with far more women being born. And there are still more women than men.
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,413
@1,245,410 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
So wouldn't you expect that most people commit most crimes?
Did you know that cis han people commit most crimes in China?
Or that almost all crime in Saudi Arabia is committed by Muslims?
Mormon taxpayers are the majority of criminals in Utah.
So wouldn't you expect that most people commit most crimes?
Did you know that cis han people commit most crimes in China?
Or that almost all crime in Saudi Arabia is committed by Muslims?
Mormon taxpayers are the majority of criminals in Utah.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,416
@previous (I)
On earth, men might outnumber women by a margin, but they commit 90% of all violent crime
On earth, men might outnumber women by a margin, but they commit 90% of all violent crime
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,421
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Men are forced into strict competition if they want their genes to survive, and women are not. Unregulated, that leads to crime because that's the only chance many men have to keep their genetic line going.
The proceeds from the winners are given as dowry's to women. the losers have nothing.
then there's the crimes of passion. men being defrauded by women for years, dead bedrooms where ungrateful fiances refuse to just lay back and let their betrothed suck on some titties after a long day making rent money.
some guy finds out all his sacrificies were for a hoe who gives it out to the neighborhood boys, her smacks her, and lazy bitch calls the cops. now he's stuck in prison, and in legal debt. she's got welfare and societal support.
men get stuck dying and slaving away because that's the best life has for most men. women get freebies, and pretend muscle is what matters when the family courts have an army.
in your mind, did men just chose to be bad, and make themselves and everyone suffer? in what view of the world do people act that way?
Men are forced into strict competition if they want their genes to survive, and women are not. Unregulated, that leads to crime because that's the only chance many men have to keep their genetic line going.
The proceeds from the winners are given as dowry's to women. the losers have nothing.
then there's the crimes of passion. men being defrauded by women for years, dead bedrooms where ungrateful fiances refuse to just lay back and let their betrothed suck on some titties after a long day making rent money.
some guy finds out all his sacrificies were for a hoe who gives it out to the neighborhood boys, her smacks her, and lazy bitch calls the cops. now he's stuck in prison, and in legal debt. she's got welfare and societal support.
men get stuck dying and slaving away because that's the best life has for most men. women get freebies, and pretend muscle is what matters when the family courts have an army.
in your mind, did men just chose to be bad, and make themselves and everyone suffer? in what view of the world do people act that way?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,423
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 34 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,425
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Why did this occur en mass among men, and not women?
do you think one sex is inherently more moral than the other?
Why did this occur en mass among men, and not women?
do you think one sex is inherently more moral than the other?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,428
@previous (I)
I think men oppresses each other so badly that they give each other mental issues and that bleeds over onto hurting women
I think men oppresses each other so badly that they give each other mental issues and that bleeds over onto hurting women
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,429
@1,245,421 (I)
> then there's the crimes of passion. men being defrauded by women for years, dead bedrooms where ungrateful fiances refuse to just lay back and let their betrothed suck on some titties after a long day making rent money.
>
> some guy finds out all his sacrificies were for a hoe who gives it out to the neighborhood boys, her smacks her, and lazy bitch calls the cops. now he's stuck in prison, and in legal debt. she's got welfare and societal support.
Ok Dennis prager/matt Walsh/ect
> then there's the crimes of passion. men being defrauded by women for years, dead bedrooms where ungrateful fiances refuse to just lay back and let their betrothed suck on some titties after a long day making rent money.
>
> some guy finds out all his sacrificies were for a hoe who gives it out to the neighborhood boys, her smacks her, and lazy bitch calls the cops. now he's stuck in prison, and in legal debt. she's got welfare and societal support.
Ok Dennis prager/matt Walsh/ect
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 28 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,430
@1,245,428 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Why do men do that to each other? Why don't women?
There has to be some root cause that has caused this, and caused it in so many different places so frequently.
Why do men do that to each other? Why don't women?
There has to be some root cause that has caused this, and caused it in so many different places so frequently.
Anonymous I double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,433
@1,245,429 (G)
More inspired by Attenborough.
Evolution applies to all species.
The mainstream consensus seems to be that it only applies to 99.99% of species, and humans are special and divinely excepted from this.
The Catholic church fought this idea hard when it came out, and now irreligious woke cultists insist that believing in evolution is fascist.
More inspired by Attenborough.
Evolution applies to all species.
The mainstream consensus seems to be that it only applies to 99.99% of species, and humans are special and divinely excepted from this.
The Catholic church fought this idea hard when it came out, and now irreligious woke cultists insist that believing in evolution is fascist.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,436
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 35 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,437
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Humans are Great Apes. Among animals, the males are usually more aggressive. It's that simple.
Humans are Great Apes. Among animals, the males are usually more aggressive. It's that simple.
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 2 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,438
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,439
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,440
@previous (G)
So the common force that guides the behavior of all the species you might see in a nature doc stops short of one species?
So the common force that guides the behavior of all the species you might see in a nature doc stops short of one species?
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,442
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,443
@1,245,437 (A)
Not always though right?
And if men run that hard on instinct, and cant control themselves, maybe something should be done about it
Not always though right?
And if men run that hard on instinct, and cant control themselves, maybe something should be done about it
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,444
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Not always, correct. It's just a trend that's based on testosterone. And humans can control ourselves for the most part.
Not always, correct. It's just a trend that's based on testosterone. And humans can control ourselves for the most part.
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,445
@1,245,443 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I have a feeling "something should be done" means anything but fix the underlying cause.
Because if that cause is men are exploited for their labor to the benefit of women, then why stop it?
Also, you refused to acknowledge that saying it's testosterone is believing it's inherent. All feminists have this contradiction: start by claiming men and women are equal, make a strong case men are inherently bad, and then refuse to explain how you reconcile the two. It's necessary to change the subject, or ignore the point (as all feminists do) if it's also part of the ideology that men are fascists for believing in any inherent differences.
I have a feeling "something should be done" means anything but fix the underlying cause.
Because if that cause is men are exploited for their labor to the benefit of women, then why stop it?
Also, you refused to acknowledge that saying it's testosterone is believing it's inherent. All feminists have this contradiction: start by claiming men and women are equal, make a strong case men are inherently bad, and then refuse to explain how you reconcile the two. It's necessary to change the subject, or ignore the point (as all feminists do) if it's also part of the ideology that men are fascists for believing in any inherent differences.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,446
@previous (I)
I think we should geld a certain amount of the male population at birth, since men cant control themselves by nature
I think we should geld a certain amount of the male population at birth, since men cant control themselves by nature
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,447
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,450
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,451
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
It's usually the incels that "dont care if women want to have consenting sex".
It's usually the incels that "dont care if women want to have consenting sex".
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,452
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,453
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You think testosterone makes people inherently bad, and you also consider yourself to not be sexist, correct?
You think testosterone makes people inherently bad, and you also consider yourself to not be sexist, correct?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,464
@previous (I)
Oh I dont necessarily think Im not sexist
Also whats the problem with sexism against men when they spend so much time telling women that males cant control their violent nature?
Oh I dont necessarily think Im not sexist
Also whats the problem with sexism against men when they spend so much time telling women that males cant control their violent nature?
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,465
@1,245,447 (I)
> And what of the women who are hardwired to be unaccountable whores?
dude, if you're saying it's all just nature you can't be all assmad at society that you can't get laid
> And what of the women who are hardwired to be unaccountable whores?
dude, if you're saying it's all just nature you can't be all assmad at society that you can't get laid
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,468
@1,245,464 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Denying reality makes it harder to fix.
Liberal men who say it's not a natural reaction haven't created a world free of men abusing women.
Whoring isn't banned in most societies by accident, it causes social unrest. The social fabric is frayed so women can consume more without exerting themselves.
Denying reality makes it harder to fix.
Liberal men who say it's not a natural reaction haven't created a world free of men abusing women.
Whoring isn't banned in most societies by accident, it causes social unrest. The social fabric is frayed so women can consume more without exerting themselves.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 42 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,469
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 17 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,470
@1,245,468 (I)
Where do you live? I need to make sure not to go near any movies theaters or malls there.
Where do you live? I need to make sure not to go near any movies theaters or malls there.
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 49 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,471
Anonymous I double-posted this 2 years ago, 42 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,472
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 years ago, 43 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,473
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 45 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,475
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 58 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,476
@1,245,473 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Hopefully the alternative is full of people who got their ideas about romance from Disney movies.
Hopefully the alternative is full of people who got their ideas about romance from Disney movies.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous I double-posted this 2 years ago, 38 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,477
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 18 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,478
@1,245,471 (I)
You don't even need to get laid to propagate your genes, give up that excuse for your BS
You don't even need to get laid to propagate your genes, give up that excuse for your BS
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 23 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,479
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,480
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,483
@1,245,479 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I know those laws aren't 100% effective, I didn't say anything to the contrary.
They banned it for a reason. Whether they accomplished their goals is another story.
I know those laws aren't 100% effective, I didn't say anything to the contrary.
They banned it for a reason. Whether they accomplished their goals is another story.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 37 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,484
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,486
@1,245,478 (J)
Do people adapt so fast they have already lost their instinct to find a mate because of alternative fertility treatments?
Instincts that were built over millions of years don't disappear the moment a new technology becomes available.
Do people adapt so fast they have already lost their instinct to find a mate because of alternative fertility treatments?
Instincts that were built over millions of years don't disappear the moment a new technology becomes available.
Anonymous I double-posted this 2 years ago, 24 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,488
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 36 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,489
@1,245,483 (I)
They banned them to try and control women and it still flourished because of mens nature
They banned them to try and control women and it still flourished because of mens nature
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 46 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,490
@1,245,486 (I)
Have you tried it? Maybe you won't be so desperate to get laid once you have a little Anon I pattering around the house
Have you tried it? Maybe you won't be so desperate to get laid once you have a little Anon I pattering around the house
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,495
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,498
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,513
Anonymous G double-posted this 2 years ago, 41 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,514
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,525
@1,245,513 (G)
Never said it was the sole cause of human behavior, but it is the primary driving force like any other species.
It's very self-important to think humans are somehow special and exempt from the forces that mold all other species.
Never said it was the sole cause of human behavior, but it is the primary driving force like any other species.
It's very self-important to think humans are somehow special and exempt from the forces that mold all other species.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 51 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,527
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,534
@1,245,300 (F)
Anonymous M double-posted this 2 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,535
?(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous M triple-posted this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,536
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,538
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,541
@1,245,527 (G)
Right, because evolution and natural selection are not conservative ideas, they come from naturalism.
Believing in science shouldn't be partisan.
Right, because evolution and natural selection are not conservative ideas, they come from naturalism.
Believing in science shouldn't be partisan.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 44 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,544
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,563
@1,245,541 (I)
None of what I initially cited you about had anything to do with evolution. It was all social and with a conservative slant. Humans ARE different than all other animals, if you can't see that, you cant be helped.
None of what I initially cited you about had anything to do with evolution. It was all social and with a conservative slant. Humans ARE different than all other animals, if you can't see that, you cant be helped.
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,575
@previous (G)
> Humans ARE different than all other animals
This is religious thinking.
Humans are more complex than other animals, but that complexity has evolved to satisfy the same goals that the simplest lifeforms have.
You've made a claim that humans are somehow the exception, but can you actually prove anything is different? At the end of the day you do it the same way any church would: you just take it on faith.
Humans existing as part of the natural world, bound by the same forces as all species, is the scientific take.
> Humans ARE different than all other animals
This is religious thinking.
Humans are more complex than other animals, but that complexity has evolved to satisfy the same goals that the simplest lifeforms have.
You've made a claim that humans are somehow the exception, but can you actually prove anything is different? At the end of the day you do it the same way any church would: you just take it on faith.
Humans existing as part of the natural world, bound by the same forces as all species, is the scientific take.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,586
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,599
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,601
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,610
@1,245,599 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
It literally does not matter, both are correct, you're looking for reasons to correct people.
It literally does not matter, both are correct, you're looking for reasons to correct people.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 36 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,613
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,614
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Forgive my ignorance. Is there a difference in meaning between transwoman and trans woman?
Forgive my ignorance. Is there a difference in meaning between transwoman and trans woman?
Anonymous H replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,615
NIGGER..............NIGGERNIGGERNIGGER
NIGGER..............NIGGERNIGGERNIGGER
NIGGER..............NIGGERNIGGERNIGGER
NIGGER..............NIGGER
NIGGER..............NIGGER
NIGGER..............NIGGER
NIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGER
NIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGER
NIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGER
.........................…NIGGER.............NIGGER
.........................…NIGGER.............NIGGER
.........................…NIGGER.............NIGGER
NIGGERNIGGERNIGGER.............NIGGER
NIGGERNIGGERNIGGER.............NIGGER
NIGGERNIGGERNIGGER.............NIGGER
NIGGER..............NIGGERNIGGERNIGGER
NIGGER..............NIGGERNIGGERNIGGER
NIGGER..............NIGGER
NIGGER..............NIGGER
NIGGER..............NIGGER
NIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGER
NIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGER
NIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGER
.........................…NIGGER.............NIGGER
.........................…NIGGER.............NIGGER
.........................…NIGGER.............NIGGER
NIGGERNIGGERNIGGER.............NIGGER
NIGGERNIGGERNIGGER.............NIGGER
NIGGERNIGGERNIGGER.............NIGGER
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,617
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,618
@1,245,614 (A)
@previous (I)
"The difference" is that you wouldn't use other descriptors in this way
Thats why you say chinese man instead of chinaman
@previous (I)
"The difference" is that you wouldn't use other descriptors in this way
Thats why you say chinese man instead of chinaman
(Edited 7 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 2 years ago, 53 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,619
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,620
@1,245,618 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
The way I can see it, "transwoman" makes her seem like a thing, whereas "trans woman" makes her seem like a woman who happens to be trans. Fair enough.
The way I can see it, "transwoman" makes her seem like a thing, whereas "trans woman" makes her seem like a woman who happens to be trans. Fair enough.
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,623
Anonymous M replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,626
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,627
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 8 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,672
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
And I hope you know that a man is more than his profession, and you should add a space to make them two words.
And I hope you know that a man is more than his profession, and you should add a space to make them two words.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,680
@previous (I)
A person is more than their profession
Also at least one of those are outdated. We now say postal worker
A person is more than their profession
Also at least one of those are outdated. We now say postal worker
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 25 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,683
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> A person is more than their profession
Then you shouldn't have a problem adding a space.
> A person is more than their profession
Then you shouldn't have a problem adding a space.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,704
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,705
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Don't virtue signal when you refer to unhoused persons as "the homeless".
Don't virtue signal when you refer to unhoused persons as "the homeless".
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,708
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,709
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,710
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,711
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I never wrote homeless man, let alone as one word.
You're missing the point. Is "illegal" an ok term to refer to undocumented members of society because it's not joined to -man or -woman?
Making someone's entire identity one feature is the dehumanizing problem. You can chose to stop being a bigot.
I never wrote homeless man, let alone as one word.
You're missing the point. Is "illegal" an ok term to refer to undocumented members of society because it's not joined to -man or -woman?
Making someone's entire identity one feature is the dehumanizing problem. You can chose to stop being a bigot.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,714
@previous (I)
This is where I'm refusing to call you a retardman, and instead calling you special needs
This is where I'm refusing to call you a retardman, and instead calling you special needs
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 52 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,715
Kook groomed Catherine, a naive depressed individual, into going trans. Now, Catherine regrets transitioning and chooses to go by Cato.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 49 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,716
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 53 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,721
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Is misgendering actually funny when someone comes out as cis?
You aren't being accepting if you try to force people to be something they are not.
Is misgendering actually funny when someone comes out as cis?
You aren't being accepting if you try to force people to be something they are not.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,722
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 34 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,723
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 16 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,877
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,878
@1,245,721 (I)
> Is misgendering actually funny when someone comes out as cis?
You are aware a lot of cisgender women get called men a lot and it all comes down to bullshit beauty expectations set by the beauty industries which most are ran by straight men.
There are a lot of black women who had to deal with the fact that they were called men. Let’s not forget the female hunters in Africa that doesn’t fit the mold of the soft and vulnerable white European girl and who could rip your dick off to put on display.
Yeah, you’re fucking retarded, dude. Are you sure you’re not Bert?
> Is misgendering actually funny when someone comes out as cis?
You are aware a lot of cisgender women get called men a lot and it all comes down to bullshit beauty expectations set by the beauty industries which most are ran by straight men.
There are a lot of black women who had to deal with the fact that they were called men. Let’s not forget the female hunters in Africa that doesn’t fit the mold of the soft and vulnerable white European girl and who could rip your dick off to put on display.
Yeah, you’re fucking retarded, dude. Are you sure you’re not Bert?
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,893
@1,245,877 (D)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio
> The human sex ratio is the ratio of males to females in a population in the context of anthropology and demography. In humans, the natural sex ratio at birth is slightly biased towards the male sex. It is estimated to be about 1.05[2] or 1.06[3] or within a narrow range from 1.03 to 1.06[4] males per female.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio
> The human sex ratio is the ratio of males to females in a population in the context of anthropology and demography. In humans, the natural sex ratio at birth is slightly biased towards the male sex. It is estimated to be about 1.05[2] or 1.06[3] or within a narrow range from 1.03 to 1.06[4] males per female.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,896
@previous (I)
Thats at birth, but males die earlier than females for a variety of reasons
Thats at birth, but males die earlier than females for a variety of reasons
(Edited 7 seconds later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 34 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,899
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,901
@previous (I)
For one thing, they kill each other at alarming rates
They die in car accidents due to higher amounts of speeding, not using seat belts, and drunk driving
They're also less likely to visit a doctor for mental or physical health problems
For one thing, they kill each other at alarming rates
They die in car accidents due to higher amounts of speeding, not using seat belts, and drunk driving
They're also less likely to visit a doctor for mental or physical health problems
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 23 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,907
@1,245,893 (I)
Still seems iffy. I was told it was the other way around and I was told that by a man.
Also,
> Wikipedia
LOL
Still seems iffy. I was told it was the other way around and I was told that by a man.
Also,
> Wikipedia
LOL
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 18 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,912
@1,245,901 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> For one thing, they kill each other at alarming rates
Caused by the same biological imperative all creatures have.
Harems and feminist hypergamy create shortages, which triggers genetic survival instincts, and leads to male violence. No different than any other physical reaction, except there's more complexity, and no one blames individual chemicals or stones for the predictable ways they interact with their environment.
> They die in car accidents due to higher amounts of speeding, not using seat belts, and drunk driving
> They're also less likely to visit a doctor for mental or physical health problems
Is it your view that they do these harmful things for no reason, hurt themselves and others, and there's no underlying cause?
> For one thing, they kill each other at alarming rates
Caused by the same biological imperative all creatures have.
Harems and feminist hypergamy create shortages, which triggers genetic survival instincts, and leads to male violence. No different than any other physical reaction, except there's more complexity, and no one blames individual chemicals or stones for the predictable ways they interact with their environment.
> They die in car accidents due to higher amounts of speeding, not using seat belts, and drunk driving
> They're also less likely to visit a doctor for mental or physical health problems
Is it your view that they do these harmful things for no reason, hurt themselves and others, and there's no underlying cause?
Anonymous I double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,913
@1,245,907 (D)
Wikipedia is not the source itself, but compiles data from other sources.
The three sources listed for those figures were:
1. The World Health Organization
2. The British Medical Journal
3. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
All three are reliable sources.
Wikipedia is not the source itself, but compiles data from other sources.
The three sources listed for those figures were:
1. The World Health Organization
2. The British Medical Journal
3. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
All three are reliable sources.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,914
@1,245,912 (I)
Biology doesn't dictate men going to war. It never did. That's a conscience decision based on survival factors. and we found that women during early tribal days also hunted and fought. Nice try, fagbert.
Biology doesn't dictate men going to war. It never did. That's a conscience decision based on survival factors. and we found that women during early tribal days also hunted and fought. Nice try, fagbert.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,917
@1,245,912 (I)
Well my point is, you acting like because men are born at a slightly higher rate than women, and how that explains the massive crime rate difference between the sexes, is embarrassing and becomes more so when you look at the longevity of both sexes
Also you bringing it up was an attempt at smoke and mirrors when you personally believe that men do the things they do purely because of biology
Well my point is, you acting like because men are born at a slightly higher rate than women, and how that explains the massive crime rate difference between the sexes, is embarrassing and becomes more so when you look at the longevity of both sexes
Also you bringing it up was an attempt at smoke and mirrors when you personally believe that men do the things they do purely because of biology
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 2 years ago, 55 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,918
@1,245,913 (I)
But these numbers mean way less when mens choices mean that they die way more frequently during their sexual peak
But these numbers mean way less when mens choices mean that they die way more frequently during their sexual peak
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 7 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,919
@1,245,914 (D)
> Biology doesn't dictate men going to war. It never did.
Then why do so many biological organisms have war?
And why do the males do most of that fighting?
I'm sure you find that to be an insignificant coincidence that we shouldn't examine. That's the most convenient belief.
> Biology doesn't dictate men going to war. It never did.
Then why do so many biological organisms have war?
And why do the males do most of that fighting?
I'm sure you find that to be an insignificant coincidence that we shouldn't examine. That's the most convenient belief.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,921
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 25 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,922
@1,245,918 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Not at all, these numbers *explain* why men die way more frequently during their sexual peak.
Again, you haven't given your own explanation for why men would happen to be more violent, you gloss over that.
Not at all, these numbers *explain* why men die way more frequently during their sexual peak.
Again, you haven't given your own explanation for why men would happen to be more violent, you gloss over that.
Anonymous I double-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,923
@1,245,921 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You're getting into meaningless semantic distinctions, not really posing a scientific question.
Wars are conflicts. Conflicts, when they reach a certain arbitrary significance, get called wars.
Other animals fight, and it's generally the males that do that fighting. That isn't a unique human characteristic.
If your worldview requires you to ignore, or gloss over, why males always do the fighting there might be a problem with the coherence of your worldview. To anyone that's familiar with evolution, sexual selection, and how animals behave in resource scarcity it's plainly clear why males would be the ones to fight.
You're getting into meaningless semantic distinctions, not really posing a scientific question.
Wars are conflicts. Conflicts, when they reach a certain arbitrary significance, get called wars.
Other animals fight, and it's generally the males that do that fighting. That isn't a unique human characteristic.
If your worldview requires you to ignore, or gloss over, why males always do the fighting there might be a problem with the coherence of your worldview. To anyone that's familiar with evolution, sexual selection, and how animals behave in resource scarcity it's plainly clear why males would be the ones to fight.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 58 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,924
@1,245,922 (I)
You bringing up the birth rates of the sexes was not an attempt to explain why men die early
You bringing up the birth rates of the sexes was not an attempt to explain why men die early
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 2 years ago, 32 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,925
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,926
@1,245,924 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Yes, it was. More men than women means men need to take risks to guarantee their genes make it.
That can take the form of risky stunts to gain status, fighting other men to get resources or establish dominance, or any other risk that might elevate their chances.
Women don't need to compete, they can play it safe and still pass down their genes.
Excess males -> conflict
Yes, it was. More men than women means men need to take risks to guarantee their genes make it.
That can take the form of risky stunts to gain status, fighting other men to get resources or establish dominance, or any other risk that might elevate their chances.
Women don't need to compete, they can play it safe and still pass down their genes.
Excess males -> conflict
Anonymous I double-posted this 2 years ago, 55 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,927
@1,245,925 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Biologists don't have a strict definition for "war" vs a regular "conflict", you're acting like I used a technical term to distract from the fact that your worldview is incoherant.
Biologists don't have a strict definition for "war" vs a regular "conflict", you're acting like I used a technical term to distract from the fact that your worldview is incoherant.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,931
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 2 years ago, 40 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,932
@1,245,927 (I)
Biologists dont use the term war for non humans animals. Start using a different term if you want to be taken seriously
Biologists dont use the term war for non humans animals. Start using a different term if you want to be taken seriously
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,934
@1,245,931 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
So you do understand that this is a physical process, following deterministic rules?
Then why so misandryist?
So you do understand that this is a physical process, following deterministic rules?
Then why so misandryist?
Anonymous I double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,936
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,938
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,940
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,943
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,944
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
At this point it's clear you aren't discussing in good faith.
You had me for a bit, goodbye. 👋
At this point it's clear you aren't discussing in good faith.
You had me for a bit, goodbye. 👋
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 34 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,951
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,992
Anonymous G double-posted this 2 years ago, 56 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,245,993
@1,245,944 (I)
> At this point it's clear you aren't discussing in good faith.
Wow, you summed up your whole participation in this thread in one projection post
> At this point it's clear you aren't discussing in good faith.
Wow, you summed up your whole participation in this thread in one projection post
(Edited 10 seconds later.)