Topic: Men wouldn’t hate women so much if…
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #117,176
Every man had a loving wife.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Indie the Grate joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 26 minutes later[^] [v] #1,291,386
@OPenis
Your red flag is showing. Thanks.
Your red flag is showing. Thanks.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,388
Feminists think being paired up with their looksmatch is slavery and rape.
They'll never settle for anything other than harems and hypergamy, they want a large pool of desperate men who have to dedicate their lives just to "win" a narcissistic fat wife.
Monogamy means they'd actually have to put some work in.
They'll never settle for anything other than harems and hypergamy, they want a large pool of desperate men who have to dedicate their lives just to "win" a narcissistic fat wife.
Monogamy means they'd actually have to put some work in.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 33 seconds later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,389
Women wouldn't hate men so much if men would stop raping and murdering people
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 30 seconds later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,390
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,391
I've been married 17 years to the same one.
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 year ago, 52 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,392
@1,291,389 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Women wouldn't hate men so much if men would stop raping and murdering people
And women don't do the same sir?
> Women wouldn't hate men so much if men would stop raping and murdering people
And women don't do the same sir?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,393
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 40 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,399
@1,291,390 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
When there's multiple men chasing one woman, women don't need to find a comparable guy they can date up.
Monogamy means the average woman is stuck with marrying the average man or just staying single.
When there's multiple men chasing one woman, women don't need to find a comparable guy they can date up.
Monogamy means the average woman is stuck with marrying the average man or just staying single.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 31 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,400
@previous (C)
A. Men can stop doing that and choose not to
B. More women are single than have ever been and we see contant clucking about the "male loneliness crisis"
C. You still don't understand how looksmatching and the reproductive market works
D. Also, disturbingly, men give away their seed willingly and for free
A. Men can stop doing that and choose not to
B. More women are single than have ever been and we see contant clucking about the "male loneliness crisis"
C. You still don't understand how looksmatching and the reproductive market works
D. Also, disturbingly, men give away their seed willingly and for free
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,401
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Also, disturbingly, men give away their seed willingly and for free
Also, disturbingly, women spread their legs for the seed willingly, and for free
You're not very good at a counter argument.
> Also, disturbingly, men give away their seed willingly and for free
Also, disturbingly, women spread their legs for the seed willingly, and for free
You're not very good at a counter argument.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,402
@previous (E)
You're not intelligent at all
Women need men less now. They can get free sex and free babies whenever they want
And so men are losing some of their power (and value on the reproductive market) by giving away sperm for free
You're not intelligent at all
Women need men less now. They can get free sex and free babies whenever they want
And so men are losing some of their power (and value on the reproductive market) by giving away sperm for free
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,406
@1,291,400 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> A. Men can stop doing that and choose not to
No, behavior is determined by natural laws that humans cannot control.
Men are biologically programmed to pursue mates who show signs of being fertile. There are exceptions, where those pressures don't cause that behavior, because of changes in the environment, genetic mutation, or because behaviors that evolved to reproduce no longer work. It doesn't matter, these anomalies are weeded out over time.
> B. More women are single than have ever been and we see contant clucking about the "male loneliness crisis"
Those women could get a relationship easily if they seriously look for one while they are in their fertility window.
Women say they are single because they understand their tinder hookup wasn't a real relationship, but refuse to accept that they'll never lock down a 1% man.
Other women blew past their fertile years, and genuinely can't find a half-decent man as a result.
Men are single and lonely because they have never had the chance to form a long-term relationship with a decent woman. The average man has no options when he's young, and is expected to grind for years to become acceptable. By the time he reaches that point, his options are expired women, or obese insane women.
> C. You still don't understand how looksmatching and the reproductive market works
You've said that twice now, but offer no alternate theory.
> D. Also, disturbingly, men give away their seed willingly and for free
What's disturbing about that?
It's easy for a man to give away their seed. It's how it works across the animal kingdom, it's not something exclusive to humans or any particular human culture.
Sperm is cheap and abundant. Access to a womb is limited. The result is most women reproduce, and most men don't. Women can be selective when there's plenty of men available, and they choose to be hypergamous because they can.
> A. Men can stop doing that and choose not to
No, behavior is determined by natural laws that humans cannot control.
Men are biologically programmed to pursue mates who show signs of being fertile. There are exceptions, where those pressures don't cause that behavior, because of changes in the environment, genetic mutation, or because behaviors that evolved to reproduce no longer work. It doesn't matter, these anomalies are weeded out over time.
> B. More women are single than have ever been and we see contant clucking about the "male loneliness crisis"
Those women could get a relationship easily if they seriously look for one while they are in their fertility window.
Women say they are single because they understand their tinder hookup wasn't a real relationship, but refuse to accept that they'll never lock down a 1% man.
Other women blew past their fertile years, and genuinely can't find a half-decent man as a result.
Men are single and lonely because they have never had the chance to form a long-term relationship with a decent woman. The average man has no options when he's young, and is expected to grind for years to become acceptable. By the time he reaches that point, his options are expired women, or obese insane women.
> C. You still don't understand how looksmatching and the reproductive market works
You've said that twice now, but offer no alternate theory.
> D. Also, disturbingly, men give away their seed willingly and for free
What's disturbing about that?
It's easy for a man to give away their seed. It's how it works across the animal kingdom, it's not something exclusive to humans or any particular human culture.
Sperm is cheap and abundant. Access to a womb is limited. The result is most women reproduce, and most men don't. Women can be selective when there's plenty of men available, and they choose to be hypergamous because they can.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,408
@previous (C)
So don't blame women for acting as nature has designed them
I never said woman couldn't get relationships. I've stated the opposite and you are retarded
Women are dropping out from relationships and sex because they can. They don't need men like they used to because much of that prior need was artificially imposed by men. And its partially because men give away dick and sperm for free
Many single mothers have an easier time without a man being involved in child rearing
The sexual market works as all do. What someone is willing to pay is its true value. If you believe that you're a 5 and you can't get a woman who is a 3, you're not actually a 5
So don't blame women for acting as nature has designed them
I never said woman couldn't get relationships. I've stated the opposite and you are retarded
Women are dropping out from relationships and sex because they can. They don't need men like they used to because much of that prior need was artificially imposed by men. And its partially because men give away dick and sperm for free
Many single mothers have an easier time without a man being involved in child rearing
The sexual market works as all do. What someone is willing to pay is its true value. If you believe that you're a 5 and you can't get a woman who is a 3, you're not actually a 5
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 36 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,409
@1,291,402 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> And so men are losing some of their power (and value on the reproductive market) by giving away sperm for free
Sperm has always been free, or near-free.
If 90% of men agreed to a sex strike (absurd, no group has this level of solidarity) the remaining women could just get sperm from the other 10%.
Sperm is inherently abundant, and it's not something men could ever change.
> And so men are losing some of their power (and value on the reproductive market) by giving away sperm for free
Sperm has always been free, or near-free.
If 90% of men agreed to a sex strike (absurd, no group has this level of solidarity) the remaining women could just get sperm from the other 10%.
Sperm is inherently abundant, and it's not something men could ever change.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,410
@previous (C)
More men used to die in wars and we didn't used to have a way to bank sperm
Men used to use force to make women dependent on them, and now that's falling away
Sex is riskier for women and they are less likely to orgasm from it
On the sexual market, a level 5 man is really a 2. He just won't accept it
More men used to die in wars and we didn't used to have a way to bank sperm
Men used to use force to make women dependent on them, and now that's falling away
Sex is riskier for women and they are less likely to orgasm from it
On the sexual market, a level 5 man is really a 2. He just won't accept it
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,411
@1,291,408 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> So don't blame women for acting as nature has designed them
Acknowledging facts isn't the same thing as "blaming women".
You're acting like the only way someone can accept women are acting rationally, or the only way men can respect female autonomy is to embrace the lie that men and women have the same leverage in the sexual marketplace. It's a false dichotomy.
> I never said woman couldn't get relationships. I've stated the opposite and you are retarded
You said women are more single than ever as a counterpoint to the idea that men are experiencing a loneliness epidemic, implying that women are struggling too.
Women are single by choice. Men are single because nothing they do will change it.
> Women are dropping out from relationships and sex because they can. They don't need men like they used to. Partially because men give away dick and sperm for free
Again, men don't choose the abundance of dick/sperm. It's an inherent part of all creatures in the animal kingdom.
> Many single mothers have an easier time without a man being involved in child rearing
Cope.
> The sexual market works as all do. What someone is willing to pay is its true value. If you believe that you're a 5 and you can't get a woman who is a 3, you're not actually a 5
OkCupid showed this is how most women see it. Anyone outside the top 20% of men was rated as "below average".
When I say 5, I'm talking about a man who's better than half, and worse than half of all men. When women say 5, they are talking about a man who is better than 80% of other men, and worse than 20% of men.
No amount of self-improvement, by any number of men, will ever change those dynamics. It will just raise the standards again, and 80% of men will be considered below average still.
Sperm is always abundant, so women will always be pickier. Feminism would be less insufferable if they could admit what biology accepts about every other species. Instead there is a narcissistic need to insist most men are just horrible, and most women are just great. It's a lie to stroke the ego of women.
> So don't blame women for acting as nature has designed them
Acknowledging facts isn't the same thing as "blaming women".
You're acting like the only way someone can accept women are acting rationally, or the only way men can respect female autonomy is to embrace the lie that men and women have the same leverage in the sexual marketplace. It's a false dichotomy.
> I never said woman couldn't get relationships. I've stated the opposite and you are retarded
You said women are more single than ever as a counterpoint to the idea that men are experiencing a loneliness epidemic, implying that women are struggling too.
Women are single by choice. Men are single because nothing they do will change it.
> Women are dropping out from relationships and sex because they can. They don't need men like they used to. Partially because men give away dick and sperm for free
Again, men don't choose the abundance of dick/sperm. It's an inherent part of all creatures in the animal kingdom.
> Many single mothers have an easier time without a man being involved in child rearing
Cope.
> The sexual market works as all do. What someone is willing to pay is its true value. If you believe that you're a 5 and you can't get a woman who is a 3, you're not actually a 5
OkCupid showed this is how most women see it. Anyone outside the top 20% of men was rated as "below average".
When I say 5, I'm talking about a man who's better than half, and worse than half of all men. When women say 5, they are talking about a man who is better than 80% of other men, and worse than 20% of men.
No amount of self-improvement, by any number of men, will ever change those dynamics. It will just raise the standards again, and 80% of men will be considered below average still.
Sperm is always abundant, so women will always be pickier. Feminism would be less insufferable if they could admit what biology accepts about every other species. Instead there is a narcissistic need to insist most men are just horrible, and most women are just great. It's a lie to stroke the ego of women.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,412
@1,291,410 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> they are less likely to orgasm from it
That’s on them for not having sex with me.
> they are less likely to orgasm from it
That’s on them for not having sex with me.
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,413
@1,291,411 (C)
They are acting rationally
Nope. Women want to be single. I was very clear on that
Men as a whole have made their own bed and must lie in it. I never said anything would change
It's not cope to acknowledge that many women prefer being single mothers. It's sad men have made it that way
Yes that's how the sexual marketplace works. Most men are not the rating they assume they are. Even just gping by appearance alone
Whole I do think many men are horrible, they don't need to be as bad as that to be unbearable. Men have had to remove artifical restrictions that made women less picky, and haven't figured out how to make up for them
What's narcissistic is men who are 2 or below, claiming that they're 5s but women just can't see it. Men think they are competing with other men, but they aren't
They are acting rationally
Nope. Women want to be single. I was very clear on that
Men as a whole have made their own bed and must lie in it. I never said anything would change
It's not cope to acknowledge that many women prefer being single mothers. It's sad men have made it that way
Yes that's how the sexual marketplace works. Most men are not the rating they assume they are. Even just gping by appearance alone
Whole I do think many men are horrible, they don't need to be as bad as that to be unbearable. Men have had to remove artifical restrictions that made women less picky, and haven't figured out how to make up for them
What's narcissistic is men who are 2 or below, claiming that they're 5s but women just can't see it. Men think they are competing with other men, but they aren't
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 19 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,414
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,415
For someone with a husband, Kook sure does hate men.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,419
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 57 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,420
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I guess all it takes is chopping your dick off and finding a fatass gold digger.
I guess all it takes is chopping your dick off and finding a fatass gold digger.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 51 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,421
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,422
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,423
@1,291,413 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> They are acting rationally
Yes, never said otherwise. Never "blamed" women.
> Nope. Women want to be single. I was very clear on that
Still sounds like you're putting the male loneliness epidemic at the fault of men, as if they had some power to change the dynamics here.
> Men as a whole have made their own bed and must lie in it. I never said anything would change
No, men didn't create the situation, that situation existed before humans even existed.
Clearly you still deny the basic facts of natural selection.
> It's not cope to acknowledge that many women prefer being single mothers. It's sad men have made it that way
If women ignore all but the top 20% of men, then they will have a much harder time getting the man to stick around to raise the kid.
Those men have multiple partners, they can't possibly be there for all their spawn.
Women could get a man to stick around and provide resources for the child, but that would require abstaining from the chads and finding someone at their own level.
We live in a society where women are free to do either. If they pick genes over a stable father, that's their choice.
> Yes that's how the sexual marketplace works. Most men are not the rating they assume they are. Even just gping by appearance alone
Only the top men reproduce across the animal kingdom, but you're still acting like it's a choice men make.
Men have no choice in this, it's the natural law.
> Whole I do think many men are horrible, they don't need to be as bad as that to be unbearable. Men have had to remove artifical restrictions that made women less picky, and haven't figured out how to make up for them
There's no way to make up for them. If every man could just become fitter, smarter, and more charming it wouldn't change the underlying dynamic.
Average women would still have to pick between a top man, who is attainable, or an average man who is also attainable. They'll pick the former, even if both of those are significant improvements on the past.
Hypergamy doesn't disappear when men improve themselves.
> What's narcissistic is men who are 2 or below, claiming that they're 5s but women just can't see it. Men think they are competing with other men, but they aren't
That's not the actual claim.
There's data that shows women rate average men as well below average, and rate men in the 80th percentile in ratings as average.
There are ugly, terrible men who think they are average. They're wrong, but it doesn't change anything about what I said previously. Overconfident men isn't proof hypergamy doesn't exist.
The actual way to test it is to have millions of men and women rate each other and compare the results. That's been done, and it confirms hypergamy is real.
> They are acting rationally
Yes, never said otherwise. Never "blamed" women.
> Nope. Women want to be single. I was very clear on that
Still sounds like you're putting the male loneliness epidemic at the fault of men, as if they had some power to change the dynamics here.
> Men as a whole have made their own bed and must lie in it. I never said anything would change
No, men didn't create the situation, that situation existed before humans even existed.
Clearly you still deny the basic facts of natural selection.
> It's not cope to acknowledge that many women prefer being single mothers. It's sad men have made it that way
If women ignore all but the top 20% of men, then they will have a much harder time getting the man to stick around to raise the kid.
Those men have multiple partners, they can't possibly be there for all their spawn.
Women could get a man to stick around and provide resources for the child, but that would require abstaining from the chads and finding someone at their own level.
We live in a society where women are free to do either. If they pick genes over a stable father, that's their choice.
> Yes that's how the sexual marketplace works. Most men are not the rating they assume they are. Even just gping by appearance alone
Only the top men reproduce across the animal kingdom, but you're still acting like it's a choice men make.
Men have no choice in this, it's the natural law.
> Whole I do think many men are horrible, they don't need to be as bad as that to be unbearable. Men have had to remove artifical restrictions that made women less picky, and haven't figured out how to make up for them
There's no way to make up for them. If every man could just become fitter, smarter, and more charming it wouldn't change the underlying dynamic.
Average women would still have to pick between a top man, who is attainable, or an average man who is also attainable. They'll pick the former, even if both of those are significant improvements on the past.
Hypergamy doesn't disappear when men improve themselves.
> What's narcissistic is men who are 2 or below, claiming that they're 5s but women just can't see it. Men think they are competing with other men, but they aren't
That's not the actual claim.
There's data that shows women rate average men as well below average, and rate men in the 80th percentile in ratings as average.
There are ugly, terrible men who think they are average. They're wrong, but it doesn't change anything about what I said previously. Overconfident men isn't proof hypergamy doesn't exist.
The actual way to test it is to have millions of men and women rate each other and compare the results. That's been done, and it confirms hypergamy is real.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,424
@1,291,415 (A)
Hating men is an essential part of feminism.
Rather than just accepting that dating is easier as a woman, and enjoying that benefit, they feel the narcissistic need to define worth by sexual access.
Since women are always going to have more access to sex, it conveniently means that women are always good and men are bad.
Feminism would be much more respectable if they accepted natural selection and sex dynamics, and justified it as "good for the species" rather than stubbornly repeating a lie about men having control over fundamental forces of nature.
Hating men is an essential part of feminism.
Rather than just accepting that dating is easier as a woman, and enjoying that benefit, they feel the narcissistic need to define worth by sexual access.
Since women are always going to have more access to sex, it conveniently means that women are always good and men are bad.
Feminism would be much more respectable if they accepted natural selection and sex dynamics, and justified it as "good for the species" rather than stubbornly repeating a lie about men having control over fundamental forces of nature.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 24 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,426
@1,291,423 (C)
Men spent eons putting artifical restrictions onto women and putting them into castes where one group is for fucking and one is for marriage. Now, sex has less risk for women and men reward women for being promiscuous. Men across the board do this, and then bitch when they see how it turns out
I'm not denying natural selection
Women don't need men to help them raise children any longer. So why shouldn't they get pregnant by men with the best genes, Eben if he won't stick around?
Men could choose to not care if their partner is promiscuous/carrying someone else child. Literally why does it matter? People with bad genes shouldn't mate, but they can fuck
But men are jealous and covetous and violent. That is also natural law. If they can no longer use violence to keep women constrained, this is how life looks for jealous or covetous men.
Men reward promiscuousity for a class of women they believe are below them and not worth breeding with. That doesn't work any more
They also have a much harder time walking away from a mistake baby because of genetic testing. They can choose to see things differently than they do or not
Also, average men aren't average if women rank them as below average
Men spent eons putting artifical restrictions onto women and putting them into castes where one group is for fucking and one is for marriage. Now, sex has less risk for women and men reward women for being promiscuous. Men across the board do this, and then bitch when they see how it turns out
I'm not denying natural selection
Women don't need men to help them raise children any longer. So why shouldn't they get pregnant by men with the best genes, Eben if he won't stick around?
Men could choose to not care if their partner is promiscuous/carrying someone else child. Literally why does it matter? People with bad genes shouldn't mate, but they can fuck
But men are jealous and covetous and violent. That is also natural law. If they can no longer use violence to keep women constrained, this is how life looks for jealous or covetous men.
Men reward promiscuousity for a class of women they believe are below them and not worth breeding with. That doesn't work any more
They also have a much harder time walking away from a mistake baby because of genetic testing. They can choose to see things differently than they do or not
Also, average men aren't average if women rank them as below average
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 52 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,427
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC triple-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,428
Some facts of natural law
1. People with bad genes shouldn't produce children
2. People with bad genes have a chance to have sex
3. Men reward certain types of women for promiscuousity and have always done this
4. Women should pick people with the best genes to have children with
1. People with bad genes shouldn't produce children
2. People with bad genes have a chance to have sex
3. Men reward certain types of women for promiscuousity and have always done this
4. Women should pick people with the best genes to have children with
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,429
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,431
@previous (A)
Men believe that every dick that a woman touches ruins her body and soul, but they still try to have casual sex and watch porn
Thanks
Men believe that every dick that a woman touches ruins her body and soul, but they still try to have casual sex and watch porn
Thanks
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,432
@1,291,426 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Men spent eons putting artifical restrictions onto women and putting them into castes where one group is for fucking and one is for marriage. Now, sex has less risk for women and men reward women for being promiscuous. Men across the board do this, and then bitch when they see how it turns out
Right-wing groups have promoted monogamy while left-wing groups promote sex work.
Of course there were authoritarian men who abused their power to build harems, but that didn't come to the benefit of the average men.
It wasn't men as a group making these rules, it was an elite that only cared about their upper caste.
Feminists today push women away from stable families and fulfilling lives in favor of hedonism, and it's led to a lot of women being disappointed when the elites they all compete for care nothing for them. Instead of learning and changing, feminists doubled down and portray family men as creeps.
> I'm not denying natural selection
Yes you are, because you keep saying men did it to themselves. Men didn't invent the laws of natural selection, and have no power to undo them.
> Women don't need men to help them raise children any longer. So why shouldn't they get pregnant by men with the best genes, Eben if he won't stick around?
I didn't say what they should do, I pointed out they have a choice and have no right to complain if they choose to pick the absent chad over the fatherly average joe.
> Men could choose to not care if their partner is promiscuous/carrying someone else child.
No, they cannot.
Men's desires and behaviors are selected by natural selection. The idea that people are free to do anything flies in the face of what we know about natural selection. Feminism is just as much a faith-based, science-denying religion as Christianity or any other.
I remember when the left used to say you can't pick who you love, but you say all the time that men should just choose to be gay or that they should just magically choose to stop caring about the desires natural selection instilled in them.
> Literally why does it matter? People with bad genes shouldn't mate, but they can fuck
Why do feminists feel the need to lie so much alongside this?
Why not just say the truth, and chose to be picky?
Every single time this comes up feminists insist that the laws that apply to every other animal don't apply to humans, and keep repeating the lie that men have the ability to pick a mate if they put the work in. Why does that matter so much?
> But men are jealous and covetous and violent. That is also natural law. If they can no longer use violence to keep women constrained, this is how life looks for jealous or covetous men.
Yes.
> Also, average men aren't average if women rank them as below average
A man of average height, average facial symmetry, and average income won't suddenly shrink, see his facial bones contort, and his paystubs recalculate just because a woman considers him below average.
Average women could acknowledge average men are average, and still chose not to date them. Instead they feel the need to lie about what average is. Maybe because it makes it easier to justify, or because it gives them an excuse to hate average men.
> Men spent eons putting artifical restrictions onto women and putting them into castes where one group is for fucking and one is for marriage. Now, sex has less risk for women and men reward women for being promiscuous. Men across the board do this, and then bitch when they see how it turns out
Right-wing groups have promoted monogamy while left-wing groups promote sex work.
Of course there were authoritarian men who abused their power to build harems, but that didn't come to the benefit of the average men.
It wasn't men as a group making these rules, it was an elite that only cared about their upper caste.
Feminists today push women away from stable families and fulfilling lives in favor of hedonism, and it's led to a lot of women being disappointed when the elites they all compete for care nothing for them. Instead of learning and changing, feminists doubled down and portray family men as creeps.
> I'm not denying natural selection
Yes you are, because you keep saying men did it to themselves. Men didn't invent the laws of natural selection, and have no power to undo them.
> Women don't need men to help them raise children any longer. So why shouldn't they get pregnant by men with the best genes, Eben if he won't stick around?
I didn't say what they should do, I pointed out they have a choice and have no right to complain if they choose to pick the absent chad over the fatherly average joe.
> Men could choose to not care if their partner is promiscuous/carrying someone else child.
No, they cannot.
Men's desires and behaviors are selected by natural selection. The idea that people are free to do anything flies in the face of what we know about natural selection. Feminism is just as much a faith-based, science-denying religion as Christianity or any other.
I remember when the left used to say you can't pick who you love, but you say all the time that men should just choose to be gay or that they should just magically choose to stop caring about the desires natural selection instilled in them.
> Literally why does it matter? People with bad genes shouldn't mate, but they can fuck
Why do feminists feel the need to lie so much alongside this?
Why not just say the truth, and chose to be picky?
Every single time this comes up feminists insist that the laws that apply to every other animal don't apply to humans, and keep repeating the lie that men have the ability to pick a mate if they put the work in. Why does that matter so much?
> But men are jealous and covetous and violent. That is also natural law. If they can no longer use violence to keep women constrained, this is how life looks for jealous or covetous men.
Yes.
> Also, average men aren't average if women rank them as below average
A man of average height, average facial symmetry, and average income won't suddenly shrink, see his facial bones contort, and his paystubs recalculate just because a woman considers him below average.
Average women could acknowledge average men are average, and still chose not to date them. Instead they feel the need to lie about what average is. Maybe because it makes it easier to justify, or because it gives them an excuse to hate average men.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,434
@1,291,428 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Some facts of natural law
>
> 1. People with bad genes shouldn't produce children
>
> 2. People with bad genes have a chance to have sex
>
> 3. Men reward certain types of women for promiscuousity and have always done this
>
> 4. Women should pick people with the best genes to have children with
This contradicts what you said about men being able to find partners by improving themselves.
There's a high % of men that will not be able to succeed, regardless of their effort.
You are going back and forth, insisting one thing, and then the opposite.
> Some facts of natural law
>
> 1. People with bad genes shouldn't produce children
>
> 2. People with bad genes have a chance to have sex
>
> 3. Men reward certain types of women for promiscuousity and have always done this
>
> 4. Women should pick people with the best genes to have children with
This contradicts what you said about men being able to find partners by improving themselves.
There's a high % of men that will not be able to succeed, regardless of their effort.
You are going back and forth, insisting one thing, and then the opposite.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,435
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,436
@1,291,431 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Men believe that every dick that a woman touches ruins her body and soul
Men want an exclusive partner. Devoting your life to raising another man's kids was genetic suicide, so the men that didn't realize or didn't care about this were bred out of the gene pool. The men who were jealous were much more likely to send their resources to their own spawn.
This is just a natural consequence of how life evolves. Men didn't get to choose the rules any more than women did. Yet you still act like men are responsible for it. Another one of your ideas that directly contradicts natural selection, not that any of these contradictions seems to bother you at all.
> but they still try to have casual sex and watch porn
Men look for outlets for pent up sexual frustration. What about that contradicts the previous thing?
A man who chooses not to do those things won't find a monogamous partner waiting for him as a reward.
The real question is whether men would support a change in law that prevents them from having casual sex, or watching porn, in exchange for a lifelong partner that they are expected to have fidelity for. Right-wing (male-dominated) politics advocates for that. Left-wing (female-dominated) politics is against that, and wants "sexual liberation" and uses art as an excuse for pornography.
Men are for stable monogamous relationships, and women are against them. That's a general rule. The 1%er chad prefers the left-wing system, because like all the other men and women, his behavior is determined by natural selection.
> Men believe that every dick that a woman touches ruins her body and soul
Men want an exclusive partner. Devoting your life to raising another man's kids was genetic suicide, so the men that didn't realize or didn't care about this were bred out of the gene pool. The men who were jealous were much more likely to send their resources to their own spawn.
This is just a natural consequence of how life evolves. Men didn't get to choose the rules any more than women did. Yet you still act like men are responsible for it. Another one of your ideas that directly contradicts natural selection, not that any of these contradictions seems to bother you at all.
> but they still try to have casual sex and watch porn
Men look for outlets for pent up sexual frustration. What about that contradicts the previous thing?
A man who chooses not to do those things won't find a monogamous partner waiting for him as a reward.
The real question is whether men would support a change in law that prevents them from having casual sex, or watching porn, in exchange for a lifelong partner that they are expected to have fidelity for. Right-wing (male-dominated) politics advocates for that. Left-wing (female-dominated) politics is against that, and wants "sexual liberation" and uses art as an excuse for pornography.
Men are for stable monogamous relationships, and women are against them. That's a general rule. The 1%er chad prefers the left-wing system, because like all the other men and women, his behavior is determined by natural selection.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 29 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,437
@1,291,434 (C)
The vast majority of all humans have sex at least once in their lives. How do you think humanity has survived and grown to over 8 billion people? Just because you can't get laid does not mean you are a normal representative of humanity.
The vast majority of all humans have sex at least once in their lives. How do you think humanity has survived and grown to over 8 billion people? Just because you can't get laid does not mean you are a normal representative of humanity.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 46 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,438
@1,291,432 (C)
Both of those groups are run by men trying to use women's bodies to benefit men
Many many women find that being a housewife is not fulfilling and regret having children
Men dud it to themselves by spending millenia putting flash restraints on women and creating a subclass of women that just existed for fucking. And that wasn't just done by the elites
Anyone can complain about anything. Men complain about women fulfilling natural law
People with bad genes shouldn't breed and that's the truth
Wen are currently choosing to be picky and are men handling it well?
Average men in those categories doesn't men average on the sexual market. Once again men are not competing with other men
Both of those groups are run by men trying to use women's bodies to benefit men
Many many women find that being a housewife is not fulfilling and regret having children
Men dud it to themselves by spending millenia putting flash restraints on women and creating a subclass of women that just existed for fucking. And that wasn't just done by the elites
Anyone can complain about anything. Men complain about women fulfilling natural law
People with bad genes shouldn't breed and that's the truth
Wen are currently choosing to be picky and are men handling it well?
Average men in those categories doesn't men average on the sexual market. Once again men are not competing with other men
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,439
@1,291,436 (C)
Men want an exclusive partner while trying to have casual sex themselves and also looking at porn
Men want a subclass of
women that exist to fuck, while they marry and have children with other, more worthy women. They have always done this. That is not compatible with monogamy or a stable homelife
Even when women had almost no rights, married men still fucked hookers
It's harder for men to make this subclass now and I love that
Men want an exclusive partner while trying to have casual sex themselves and also looking at porn
Men want a subclass of
women that exist to fuck, while they marry and have children with other, more worthy women. They have always done this. That is not compatible with monogamy or a stable homelife
Even when women had almost no rights, married men still fucked hookers
It's harder for men to make this subclass now and I love that
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC triple-posted this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,440
It's natural law for men to fuck around and hate for women to do the same
So? I know men hate it and I don't care. I hope even more men never have sex
So? I know men hate it and I don't care. I hope even more men never have sex
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 36 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,441
@1,291,435 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> They can find partners by improving themselves.
Not in any meaningful sense.
They have to find a partner they are naturally not attracted to because the person is of the wrong sex, is infertile, or is a very unhealthy woman prone to promiscuity.
Men that are OK with that get bred out of the gene pool. Jealous men looking for younger member of the opposite sex are much more likely to stay in it.
So what you are really saying here is that men could find a partner if they settled for someone they could never truly love. What's the point in saying that? Anyone knows that. Any redpilled manosphere right-winger could tell you that's true.
When people say men are experiencing a loneliness crisis, they are saying that they have negative feelings that they cannot get rid of. Trying to adopt homosexuality, or finding an abusive obese woman too old to have children won't fix those feelings.
The only way you could truly believe this loneliness could go away for those men is if you implicitly reject natural selection.
> That doesn't mean they should breed
Maybe not, but the question still remains: why do feminists feel the need to tack on all the lies to this idea?
Why not just say "these men are doomed to be lonely, but that's a necessary evil"? What good does it do to deny natural selection, and insist men could find someone they'd be happy with when a modern understanding of biology makes it clear that it doesn't work that way?
> They can find partners by improving themselves.
Not in any meaningful sense.
They have to find a partner they are naturally not attracted to because the person is of the wrong sex, is infertile, or is a very unhealthy woman prone to promiscuity.
Men that are OK with that get bred out of the gene pool. Jealous men looking for younger member of the opposite sex are much more likely to stay in it.
So what you are really saying here is that men could find a partner if they settled for someone they could never truly love. What's the point in saying that? Anyone knows that. Any redpilled manosphere right-winger could tell you that's true.
When people say men are experiencing a loneliness crisis, they are saying that they have negative feelings that they cannot get rid of. Trying to adopt homosexuality, or finding an abusive obese woman too old to have children won't fix those feelings.
The only way you could truly believe this loneliness could go away for those men is if you implicitly reject natural selection.
> That doesn't mean they should breed
Maybe not, but the question still remains: why do feminists feel the need to tack on all the lies to this idea?
Why not just say "these men are doomed to be lonely, but that's a necessary evil"? What good does it do to deny natural selection, and insist men could find someone they'd be happy with when a modern understanding of biology makes it clear that it doesn't work that way?
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,442
@1,291,440 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> It's natural law for men to fuck around and hate for women to do the same
I've heard right-wing types say exactly this.
Meanwhile left-wingers will insist this is 100% cultural.
> So?
So why tack on all the lies?
> I know men hate it and I don't care. I hope even more men never have sex
Do you see any irony in a movement that preaches against sexism and then revels in hating men for their natural, unchangeable condition?
> It's natural law for men to fuck around and hate for women to do the same
I've heard right-wing types say exactly this.
Meanwhile left-wingers will insist this is 100% cultural.
> So?
So why tack on all the lies?
> I know men hate it and I don't care. I hope even more men never have sex
Do you see any irony in a movement that preaches against sexism and then revels in hating men for their natural, unchangeable condition?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,443
@1,291,441 (C)
I'll say it. Many men are doomed to be lonely and that's probably for the best
You're welcome
I'll say it. Many men are doomed to be lonely and that's probably for the best
You're welcome
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 55 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,444
@1,291,442 (C)
Its not hateful if it follows natural law, right?
Many men shouldn't breed and it's great when they don't. That's not hateful, it's natural
Its not hateful if it follows natural law, right?
Many men shouldn't breed and it's great when they don't. That's not hateful, it's natural
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,446
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Its not hateful if it follows natural law, right?
I never said that.
> Many men shouldn't breed and it's great when they don't. That's not hateful, it's natural
It's natural for women to bleed every month, but if a man took joy in a woman ruining her pants that would be unnecessarily hateful.
The answer to "why do feminists insist on adding lies into their ideology" is that those lies allow them to hate people for things that have nothing to do with their character. Because feminism doesn't stop at personal autonomy for women, and demands hatred towards men.
Right-wing women don't look for low-status males in an attempt to give them all a chance to breed. They are picky too, but they manage to do it without lying and adding in unnecessary hate like leftist women.
> Its not hateful if it follows natural law, right?
I never said that.
> Many men shouldn't breed and it's great when they don't. That's not hateful, it's natural
It's natural for women to bleed every month, but if a man took joy in a woman ruining her pants that would be unnecessarily hateful.
The answer to "why do feminists insist on adding lies into their ideology" is that those lies allow them to hate people for things that have nothing to do with their character. Because feminism doesn't stop at personal autonomy for women, and demands hatred towards men.
Right-wing women don't look for low-status males in an attempt to give them all a chance to breed. They are picky too, but they manage to do it without lying and adding in unnecessary hate like leftist women.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,448
@previous (C)
The vast majority of all humans have sex at least once in their lives. How do you think humanity has survived and grown to over 8 billion people? Just because you can't get laid does not mean you are a normal representative of humanity.
The vast majority of all humans have sex at least once in their lives. How do you think humanity has survived and grown to over 8 billion people? Just because you can't get laid does not mean you are a normal representative of humanity.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,449
@previous (F)
> The vast majority of all humans have sex at least once in their lives.
implying I said otherwise.
> How do you think humanity has survived and grown to over 8 billion people?
Humanity doesn't need every man to have sex to grow, or to grow fast.
If our culture castrated 90% of men at birth, we could still grow the population rapidly.
> Just because you can't get laid does not mean you are a normal representative of humanity.
Acknowledging the truth about sexual dynamics doesn't mean someone can't get laid, and repeating lies about how the natural world works doesn't mean you're a stud.
How often I have sex changes nothing about the laws that have been observed in every animal species. These were around before I was born, and before humans were a species.
> The vast majority of all humans have sex at least once in their lives.
implying I said otherwise.
> How do you think humanity has survived and grown to over 8 billion people?
Humanity doesn't need every man to have sex to grow, or to grow fast.
If our culture castrated 90% of men at birth, we could still grow the population rapidly.
> Just because you can't get laid does not mean you are a normal representative of humanity.
Acknowledging the truth about sexual dynamics doesn't mean someone can't get laid, and repeating lies about how the natural world works doesn't mean you're a stud.
How often I have sex changes nothing about the laws that have been observed in every animal species. These were around before I was born, and before humans were a species.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,450
Anonymous G double-posted this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,451
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,452
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,453
@1,291,446 (C)
Why is enjoying that natural law is working, hateful?
Ruining pants doesn't help society, but filtering the gene pool definitely does
No they lie because men's hypocrisy plus the falsehoods of religion has made it so they needed to do so. Less women are lying about it now
Why is enjoying that natural law is working, hateful?
Ruining pants doesn't help society, but filtering the gene pool definitely does
No they lie because men's hypocrisy plus the falsehoods of religion has made it so they needed to do so. Less women are lying about it now
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,454
@1,291,451 (G)
But of course
It's interesting because women have created their own subclass of men who aren't breedable. Incels
It's the mirror of what men have done for so long
But of course
It's interesting because women have created their own subclass of men who aren't breedable. Incels
It's the mirror of what men have done for so long
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,457
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Another interesting thing is how this incel subclass feels it's been "cucked" despite having no partners in the first place.
Another interesting thing is how this incel subclass feels it's been "cucked" despite having no partners in the first place.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,458
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,460
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Human birthrates have been in global decline for several decades now; hopefully we won't need another world war to eliminate the excess male population in the near future.
Human birthrates have been in global decline for several decades now; hopefully we won't need another world war to eliminate the excess male population in the near future.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 19 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,464
@1,291,452 (F)
Having a lot of sex has never been the goal.
I've seen a lot of guys that want a boring, stable relationship and they refrain they get from hysterical leftists is that they are shit because it's easy to get sex.
The idea that some of us aren't degenerate hedonists seems lost on a lot of people.
Having a lot of sex has never been the goal.
I've seen a lot of guys that want a boring, stable relationship and they refrain they get from hysterical leftists is that they are shit because it's easy to get sex.
The idea that some of us aren't degenerate hedonists seems lost on a lot of people.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,466
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 9 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,467
@1,291,453 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Why is enjoying that natural law is working, hateful?
You clearly take joy in male suffering for its own sake, and I don't just mean in this thread.
> Ruining pants doesn't help society, but filtering the gene pool definitely does
These are men who are already filtered out.
Leftists insist on taking it further, and gaslighting these men about their experience. Telling someone who's tried everything they must be an asshole because they can't overcome what is set in stone isn't doing any good, it's just being an asshole.
I've lost count of the guys that try to talk about being lonely or having a hard time dating and hear this. Not even bad guys, just small guys, or poor guys who haven't quite figured out how the world works yet and have to deal with women and simps who want to feel superior.
Meanwhile frumpy, boring women get constant validation from everyone.
> No they lie because men's hypocrisy plus the falsehoods of religion has made it so they needed to do so.
What about any of that makes lying necessary?
> Why is enjoying that natural law is working, hateful?
You clearly take joy in male suffering for its own sake, and I don't just mean in this thread.
> Ruining pants doesn't help society, but filtering the gene pool definitely does
These are men who are already filtered out.
Leftists insist on taking it further, and gaslighting these men about their experience. Telling someone who's tried everything they must be an asshole because they can't overcome what is set in stone isn't doing any good, it's just being an asshole.
I've lost count of the guys that try to talk about being lonely or having a hard time dating and hear this. Not even bad guys, just small guys, or poor guys who haven't quite figured out how the world works yet and have to deal with women and simps who want to feel superior.
Meanwhile frumpy, boring women get constant validation from everyone.
> No they lie because men's hypocrisy plus the falsehoods of religion has made it so they needed to do so.
What about any of that makes lying necessary?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,470
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,472
@1,291,467 (C)
Suffering is natural
Right wingers lie about natural law and religion
Lying is necessary because of how men have treated women for millenia
If a sex worker subclass is okay, so is an incek subclass
Suffering is natural
Right wingers lie about natural law and religion
Lying is necessary because of how men have treated women for millenia
If a sex worker subclass is okay, so is an incek subclass
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 32 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,473
@1,291,466 (F)
> So you have no sex. Figures.
This is the only way leftists know how to determine value.
I don't envy men who spend all their time and money banging low value women.
> That's why you are so angry at women.
I'm annoyed by people who have no concern for the truth.
There are women out of my league who don't feel the need to lie and demean others. Those women are fine in my book.
The men and women who call themselves feminists are usually trash.
> So you have no sex. Figures.
This is the only way leftists know how to determine value.
I don't envy men who spend all their time and money banging low value women.
> That's why you are so angry at women.
I'm annoyed by people who have no concern for the truth.
There are women out of my league who don't feel the need to lie and demean others. Those women are fine in my book.
The men and women who call themselves feminists are usually trash.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,474
@1,291,470 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> This has literally never happened
You've never met a man who just wanted a stable relationship?
> This has literally never happened
You've never met a man who just wanted a stable relationship?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,476
@previous (C)
You dont know a man who wanted a stable relationship and was talked out of it by liberals
You dont know a man who wanted a stable relationship and was talked out of it by liberals
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,477
@1,291,472 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Suffering is natural
I never said natural = good.
> Right wingers lie about natural law and religion
There are creationists that deny evolution on the right, and that's it's own problem.
In the modern political divide, it's the right-wing that's more in line with the truth that men have to compete for women, and many men will fail regardless.
It's only the left that claims this is entirely under the control of men, or a purely cultural issue. Most leftists are vocally opposed to the idea that there are innate biological differences in how men and women experience dating. At most, a leftist will say men are physically stronger and use that to oppress women. Acknowledging that women have the leverage to be picky, and some men are destined to fail regardless is anathema to leftist theory.
> Lying is necessary because of how men have treated women for millenia
Women were mistreated for a long time, so now they are forced to deny natural laws?
What happens if a low status man says he can't find a date, and a woman just says "oh, that's too bad"? Literally nothing. She could also say "I don't care" without adding in all the lies, nothing requires any of that.
> If a sex worker subclass is okay, so is an incek subclass
I never said a sex worker subclass is okay, in fact I pointed out it was leftists pushing this. Implying I'm not OK with it.
> Suffering is natural
I never said natural = good.
> Right wingers lie about natural law and religion
There are creationists that deny evolution on the right, and that's it's own problem.
In the modern political divide, it's the right-wing that's more in line with the truth that men have to compete for women, and many men will fail regardless.
It's only the left that claims this is entirely under the control of men, or a purely cultural issue. Most leftists are vocally opposed to the idea that there are innate biological differences in how men and women experience dating. At most, a leftist will say men are physically stronger and use that to oppress women. Acknowledging that women have the leverage to be picky, and some men are destined to fail regardless is anathema to leftist theory.
> Lying is necessary because of how men have treated women for millenia
Women were mistreated for a long time, so now they are forced to deny natural laws?
What happens if a low status man says he can't find a date, and a woman just says "oh, that's too bad"? Literally nothing. She could also say "I don't care" without adding in all the lies, nothing requires any of that.
> If a sex worker subclass is okay, so is an incek subclass
I never said a sex worker subclass is okay, in fact I pointed out it was leftists pushing this. Implying I'm not OK with it.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,478
@1,291,476 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Correct. Which is why I never said that.
Every single response you've made in this thread involves putting words in my mouth.
If you are unable to respond to what I actually said, and have to make up a strawman each time, that's a clear indication your ideology is indefensible.
Correct. Which is why I never said that.
Every single response you've made in this thread involves putting words in my mouth.
If you are unable to respond to what I actually said, and have to make up a strawman each time, that's a clear indication your ideology is indefensible.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,479
@1,291,477 (C)
Men aren't competing with other men, not anymore
Women have to lie and deny natural law because men have done so forever
Is a sex worker subclass natural law or not? If not, men should follow natural law
Men aren't competing with other men, not anymore
Women have to lie and deny natural law because men have done so forever
Is a sex worker subclass natural law or not? If not, men should follow natural law
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 31 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,480
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 21 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,481
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,483
@1,291,479 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Men aren't competing with other men, not anymore
What does this even mean?
> Women have to lie and deny natural law because men have done so forever
Women have to do what men have done? Why? Who or what is forcing women to repeat what men have done?
> Is a sex worker subclass natural law or not? If not, men should follow natural law
No, natural laws don't require a subclass of sex workers, why would it?
> Men aren't competing with other men, not anymore
What does this even mean?
> Women have to lie and deny natural law because men have done so forever
Women have to do what men have done? Why? Who or what is forcing women to repeat what men have done?
> Is a sex worker subclass natural law or not? If not, men should follow natural law
No, natural laws don't require a subclass of sex workers, why would it?
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,484
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 29 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,485
@1,291,483 (C)
Men are competing with the peace of solitude. Many women would rather be alone than with a man
Yes because women have been tortured and gaslit into accepting these lies for a very long time
Men certainly act as though a sex worker subclass is part of natural law
Men are competing with the peace of solitude. Many women would rather be alone than with a man
Yes because women have been tortured and gaslit into accepting these lies for a very long time
Men certainly act as though a sex worker subclass is part of natural law
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 57 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,486
@1,291,480 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
If that were true you could quote me, and show where I phrased something that matched your interpretation.
I've picked my words carefully. You didn't know how to respond, or couldn't follow the conversation, and pretended I said something else. That's entirely your responsibility.
If that were true you could quote me, and show where I phrased something that matched your interpretation.
I've picked my words carefully. You didn't know how to respond, or couldn't follow the conversation, and pretended I said something else. That's entirely your responsibility.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 38 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,487
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,488
@1,291,485 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Men are competing with the peace of solitude. Many women would rather be alone than with a man
Even if that's the case, it doesn't change the fact that when a man finds a single woman looking for a man, he will be competing with other men.
> Yes because women have been tortured and gaslit into accepting these lies for a very long time
The lies feminists are repeating are not the same lies that religious institutions gaslit women of the past into.
Your grandmother being lied to about god punishing women for Eve's mistake doesn't force you to lie to some lonely guy who just acknowledged that dating is hard for men.
> Men certainly act as though a sex worker subclass is part of natural law
For example?
You can find men that like to abuse those women, and those men are bad people, but none of those men are saying that biology requires an underclass of prostitutes.
> Men are competing with the peace of solitude. Many women would rather be alone than with a man
Even if that's the case, it doesn't change the fact that when a man finds a single woman looking for a man, he will be competing with other men.
> Yes because women have been tortured and gaslit into accepting these lies for a very long time
The lies feminists are repeating are not the same lies that religious institutions gaslit women of the past into.
Your grandmother being lied to about god punishing women for Eve's mistake doesn't force you to lie to some lonely guy who just acknowledged that dating is hard for men.
> Men certainly act as though a sex worker subclass is part of natural law
For example?
You can find men that like to abuse those women, and those men are bad people, but none of those men are saying that biology requires an underclass of prostitutes.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,489
@1,291,487 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Here's the full quote:
> Having a lot of sex has never been the goal.
> I've seen a lot of guys that want a boring, stable relationship and they refrain they get from hysterical leftists is that they are shit because it's easy to get sex.
> The idea that some of us aren't degenerate hedonists seems lost on a lot of people.
Nowhere there did I say men were "talked out of a relationship by liberals", so how you came to that conclusion is a mystery.
What I was saying is that many men want a stable relationship, but are accused by leftists of only wanting sex.
Any of those guys could do the rounds and find someone to fuck, ergo the liberals insist they must be absolute shit if they can't manage it.
These guys aren't trying to do that to begin with, so it's idiotic to use that standard.
Here's the full quote:
> Having a lot of sex has never been the goal.
> I've seen a lot of guys that want a boring, stable relationship and they refrain they get from hysterical leftists is that they are shit because it's easy to get sex.
> The idea that some of us aren't degenerate hedonists seems lost on a lot of people.
Nowhere there did I say men were "talked out of a relationship by liberals", so how you came to that conclusion is a mystery.
What I was saying is that many men want a stable relationship, but are accused by leftists of only wanting sex.
Any of those guys could do the rounds and find someone to fuck, ergo the liberals insist they must be absolute shit if they can't manage it.
These guys aren't trying to do that to begin with, so it's idiotic to use that standard.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 23 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,490
@1,291,488 (C)
That is the case
No, they're lies to protect themselves from men
Why do you need examples of things that have always occurred? If it isn't oart of natural law, they shouldn't do it. Since they did create that subclass, women should do similar
In fact, it makes more sense to have an incel subclass
That is the case
No, they're lies to protect themselves from men
Why do you need examples of things that have always occurred? If it isn't oart of natural law, they shouldn't do it. Since they did create that subclass, women should do similar
In fact, it makes more sense to have an incel subclass
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,491
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 39 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,494
@1,291,490 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> they're lies to protect themselves from men
Yes you said that earlier. can you explain how gaslighting a man makes the woman safer? showing apathy or empathy will get a dangerous reaction, but if you deny and demean him you become protected. That doesn't make sense to me.
Would you accept a bot to settle some disagreements between us? copypaste an interaction to ask it a question.
Anyone here would be biased, but a bot shouldn't. I would even concede for you to pick any chatbot you felt you trusted the most.
> they're lies to protect themselves from men
Yes you said that earlier. can you explain how gaslighting a man makes the woman safer? showing apathy or empathy will get a dangerous reaction, but if you deny and demean him you become protected. That doesn't make sense to me.
Would you accept a bot to settle some disagreements between us? copypaste an interaction to ask it a question.
Anyone here would be biased, but a bot shouldn't. I would even concede for you to pick any chatbot you felt you trusted the most.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,495
@OParthenos is a virgin.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,496
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,497
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
We both just established that we agree on who would be validated most of the time.
You could screenshot it yourself to start, your choice of chatbot.
We both just established that we agree on who would be validated most of the time.
You could screenshot it yourself to start, your choice of chatbot.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,498
@previous (C)
I don't have a trusted chatbot. Why would I have that?
You have trusted chatbots?
I don't have a trusted chatbot. Why would I have that?
You have trusted chatbots?
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,499
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
It would take a minute to find a website comparing a few of the big ones, or maybe you already use one that you think is unbiased enough to be a reliable judge.
They are everywhere, you could use a customer service agent on a random website, or a celebrity character bot if the person was agreeable.
It would take a minute to find a website comparing a few of the big ones, or maybe you already use one that you think is unbiased enough to be a reliable judge.
They are everywhere, you could use a customer service agent on a random website, or a celebrity character bot if the person was agreeable.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,500
@previous (C)
I don't use a chatbot, I talk to people
How did you determine that your preferred chatbot is trustworthy?
I don't use a chatbot, I talk to people
How did you determine that your preferred chatbot is trustworthy?
(Edited 28 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,501
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I think if we show any chatbot a conversation between a sane person, and a person with delusional, incoherent speech the chatbot would validate the sane person.
If you suggested we use a Roxcy Bolton character bot I would take issue in the bias. I'm open to most of them.
I think if we show any chatbot a conversation between a sane person, and a person with delusional, incoherent speech the chatbot would validate the sane person.
If you suggested we use a Roxcy Bolton character bot I would take issue in the bias. I'm open to most of them.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,503
@previous (C)
I think it's a very odd idea to suggest using a bot in the first place
The bot wouldn't be able to judge the content of the argument
Do you frequently use chatbots?
I'm disturbed to know you think I have a selection of chatbots on deck, to try and referre my conversations with diagnosed autists
I think it's a very odd idea to suggest using a bot in the first place
The bot wouldn't be able to judge the content of the argument
Do you frequently use chatbots?
I'm disturbed to know you think I have a selection of chatbots on deck, to try and referre my conversations with diagnosed autists
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,504
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)Why would the bot not be able to judge?
I can ask it several test questions and they all come out like common sense to me.
> I'm disturbed to know you think I have a selection of chatbots on deck
Again, I'm only saying that you can pick any one you feel is probably unbiased.
I think you would know of one or two.
> to try and referre my conversations with diagnosed autists
Are you saying the bots have autistic symptoms? They were designed to dutifully answer questions, so they won't talk like a normal person.
Do you think any bot would agree with me?
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,505
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,506
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,507
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,508
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,509
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,510
@previous (F)
You feel good and bad for a reason.
Rigging it to good as much as you can is just breaking your reward system. It doesn't seem like it, because that reward system is part of how you understand right and wrong.
You feel good and bad for a reason.
Rigging it to good as much as you can is just breaking your reward system. It doesn't seem like it, because that reward system is part of how you understand right and wrong.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,511
@previous (C)
Explain more. I am interested. So, if I do things that make me feel good, I will require more and more stimulation to feel good, like a drug addict? How, in turn, does that affect my sense of right and wrong exactly?
Explain more. I am interested. So, if I do things that make me feel good, I will require more and more stimulation to feel good, like a drug addict? How, in turn, does that affect my sense of right and wrong exactly?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,512
@previous (F)
> So, if I do things that make me feel good, I will require more and more stimulation to feel good, like a drug addict?
The treadmill is part of it.
> How, in turn, does that affect my sense of right and wrong exactly?
That would depend on the form of hedonism and the situation the person is in.
> So, if I do things that make me feel good, I will require more and more stimulation to feel good, like a drug addict?
The treadmill is part of it.
> How, in turn, does that affect my sense of right and wrong exactly?
That would depend on the form of hedonism and the situation the person is in.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,513
@previous (C)
I think the treadmill example is funny. Get lots of money, and you will be no happier. LOLOL tell that to a poor person. It's the sort of condescending crap that rich people always say.
I think the treadmill example is funny. Get lots of money, and you will be no happier. LOLOL tell that to a poor person. It's the sort of condescending crap that rich people always say.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,514
@previous (F)
> Get lots of money, and you will be no happier.
After a certain point it's true. Before that point it reduces stress levels.
A poor person is going to see improvements, but reducing stress is not the same thing as being hedonistic. Hedonists want to reduce stress, but they also want to maximize pleasure.
You can be in favor of reducing stress, and not maximizing pleasure.
> Get lots of money, and you will be no happier.
After a certain point it's true. Before that point it reduces stress levels.
A poor person is going to see improvements, but reducing stress is not the same thing as being hedonistic. Hedonists want to reduce stress, but they also want to maximize pleasure.
You can be in favor of reducing stress, and not maximizing pleasure.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,515
@previous (C)
Total bullshit. Money does buy happiness. If someone has so much that they can never spend it, then they should enjoy the happiness of giving to the poor.
Total bullshit. Money does buy happiness. If someone has so much that they can never spend it, then they should enjoy the happiness of giving to the poor.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,516
@previous (F)
> Money does buy happiness
I already said that money would benefit a poor person.
You aren't going to hear me say it makes no difference.
The Hedonistic treadmill just shows that a millionare who can afford all the heroin he wants, and a billionaire that can do the same thing are going to get the same experience even though one is 1000x richer.
> Money does buy happiness
I already said that money would benefit a poor person.
You aren't going to hear me say it makes no difference.
The Hedonistic treadmill just shows that a millionare who can afford all the heroin he wants, and a billionaire that can do the same thing are going to get the same experience even though one is 1000x richer.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,517
@previous (C)
I disagree. The billionaire can help so many more people, travel more, have better experiences, have access to important people whom they can influence for good, etc. I hate Musk, but at least he is expanding space exploration, which a millionaire could not do. All of those things bring pleasure.
I disagree. The billionaire can help so many more people, travel more, have better experiences, have access to important people whom they can influence for good, etc. I hate Musk, but at least he is expanding space exploration, which a millionaire could not do. All of those things bring pleasure.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,518
@previous (F)
Would a brain scan show Musk happier?
There are people nodding off in parks that are happier than him.
Billionaires are rarely hedonists, and the people shitting themselves in public parks often are.
Would a brain scan show Musk happier?
There are people nodding off in parks that are happier than him.
Billionaires are rarely hedonists, and the people shitting themselves in public parks often are.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,519
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,520
@previous (F)I gave a specific example of how you could, and you didn't.
It's not a coincidence that I can be specific every time, and you always have to be vague.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 18 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,524
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,525
@previous (F)
Someone who just shot heroin is happy, Musk is raging in public on a regular basis.
Billionaires aren't happier.
Someone who just shot heroin is happy, Musk is raging in public on a regular basis.
Billionaires aren't happier.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,526
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 27 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,527
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 19 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,529
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 42 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,535
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 54 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,544
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,547
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,548
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,549
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 19 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,553
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 40 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,555
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 19 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,557
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,558
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,291,559
Rider of Rohan joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 days later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,292,143
@Anonymous C
Quite amazing people resort to insults to shoot down someone they have a disagreement with.
It's also quite interesting the thorough effective brainwashing of woman in the Anglo sphere of what happened in the past between men and women. But fortunately for them they will in the coming decades will get what they have been demanding/wishing for the past century. But we all know the adage, 'be careful what you wish for. Lest you receive it.'
And the obvious deflections and false equivalencies by this Kooko character. Seems to be more interested in revenge then what is best for people in a given society.
Quite amazing people resort to insults to shoot down someone they have a disagreement with.
It's also quite interesting the thorough effective brainwashing of woman in the Anglo sphere of what happened in the past between men and women. But fortunately for them they will in the coming decades will get what they have been demanding/wishing for the past century. But we all know the adage, 'be careful what you wish for. Lest you receive it.'
And the obvious deflections and false equivalencies by this Kooko character. Seems to be more interested in revenge then what is best for people in a given society.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 24 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,292,146
@previous (Rider of Rohan)
Wow, you're so string and intelligent. You must have scores of spawn by now
Wow, you're so string and intelligent. You must have scores of spawn by now