Athias

I mean, the pope is working for the devil. Surely someone should do something about that.

You are interesting, that's all. 

All you had to say was that the devil was down here screwing with some shit lol. 

So what's your plan?

Your life sounds like the movie They Live. 

Yeah but why?

Is the Pope actually in some covenant with the devil?

Is the devil himself actually behind it all, though?

That's the fun part, being honest. 

What was Eminem's role? Role in what?

So do you think the devil is working through these Luciferians and Eminem and that Epstein was actually sacrificed to the devil?

Until the end of what you posted, I was following you.

Michael Jackson was accused of pedophilia only because of a leaked call where he made antisemitic remarks and because of a song where he did the same

Wylted is wrong. MJ really was a pedophile, the conspiracy is how the fucking piece of shit was able to get away with it legally speaking.

If it turns out suddenly based on later evidence that is revealed, that MJ was killed as opposed to it being an accident, I am not going to really bat an eyelid.

The fact Eminem was the only mainstream artist to have the guts to bash MJ and properly take a stance against him (music video of Just Lose It) is one of many reasons I respect Em despite him being a misogynistic narcissist.

I think that the Illuminati/Elite are behind their primary opposition in the conspiracy theory realm, havinf controlled opposition such as Alex Jones, David Icke and the likes give intentionally irrational and exaggerated outlooks (especially that the FILTHY RICH, CAPITALIST elite are somehow COMMUNISTS???).

-The official narrative surrounding the JFK assassination is BS, although I don't know what actually happened 

It was likely the CIA.

For what purpose?

COVID-19 was made in a lab

UFO's are a government psyop

-The official narrative behind the Las Vegas shooting is BS, but I don't know what actually happened

-Jeffery Epstein did not commit suicide, and may in fact still be alive

Joe McCarthy was right about almost everything

-The concept of "conspiracy theories" is itself a conspiracy to cause a reflexive rejection among the populace against any explanation of that contradicts the official narrative

-The official narrative around 9/11 is bunk

Well.

Suggesting that pro-choice is therefore always pro-abortion is disingenuous, especially when you're attempting to theo-politicize a personal human social dilemma.

Pro-choice, which mirrors my position, when expressed by the left-wing isn't really pro-choice.

I'm pro-choice and have no moral issues with early term abortion, though this does not necessarily make me pro-abortion.

Questioning "State" and "effective" is really just jumping on the media bandwagon, slagging off whosoever might currently be in power.

We are all "State"

On the other hand, we are not all singularly religious, so although a singular church maybe consistent in it's stance, it is not always representative of a State, and should not be allowed to dictate either Government policy,

or the right of an individual to choose.

Religion should be no more than the Sunday morning club.....Though with all  that bigotry , I know that's a lot to ask for.

Overpopulation is a fictitious problem.

Simultaneously, this is true and also a fictitious statement.

Though one assumes that there is a limit to sustainability.

Of course the best way to end single motherhood.

Is an  effective State contraception and abortion system.

Oh.....But then you've got to appease all those meddling GOD botherers.

Screen-Shot-2018-11-13-at-10.34.52-AM.png (1382×1092) (whyy.org) states that the single motherhood rates are basically at all time highs for all races.  This site also states that blacks and Hispanics are more likely to end up in single motherhood homes than whites.  This partially explains why blacks and Hispanics are more likely to end up in prison and why they are more likely to end up in poverty than whites. 

This isn't due to a racist police force that has as many minorities as a proportion of its population as the US population.  The lurking variable that many of our left leaning friends and family members fail to realize is the single motherhood epidemic that effects blacks and Hispanics more than it does whites.  Why this is the case is anyone's guess, but deadbeat African American dads not honoring their parental responsibilities is certainly not due to the perceived racism of society.

So this brings us to the question, how to reduce single motherhood so less people go to jail and less kids grow up in poverty.

  My idea is to punish deadbeat parents for abandoning their parental responsibilities.

This consists of deadbeat dads getting a mandatory vastectomy and deadbeat moms getting their tubes tied. 

The funds for this are paid for by the government and intended to be a deterrence to people to not abandon their parental responsibilities in order to provide their kids with hopefully a better life than they had.  If you abandon your parenting responsibilities once, you easily could do it again. 

This idea and deterrence reduces the foster kid count in addition to reducing the poverty and incarceration rate in the long term as anyone unwilling to get a vastectomy or their tubes tied would suck up the parenting responsibilities that they owe to their kids.

  If they have to set their kids up for adoption, this is fine if they get their tubes tied or a vastectomy before they set their kids up for adoption or decide to be a deadbeat parent.  Otherwise, you might make the same mistake again.  This also helps reduce overpopulation.

This idea also allows very horny people to get sterilized, and then have all the sex they want without the fear of becoming a parent.

I fail to see the problem with this idea.  It reduces long term poverty rates, incarceration rates, foster kid rates, it reduces overpopulation, it reduces the welfare state, and it allows horny players to get all the consensual sex they can get without fearing being a parent.

Let me address the entirety of your argument in one go, disjointed scattershot rebuttals that do not tie things back to a central premise or point drive arguments off the rails by introducing exponential numbers of points as the replies proceed.

Of course physical quantity is objective:

You have five fingers on one hand: the word/number is a description of a physical state

one that can be objectively determined independently by all observers

So in this respect physical quantity refers to the objective differences between distinct objective physical states - and is thus objective.

If numbers and physical quantities weren’t objective, then we could change the logic of maths change numbers arbitrarily on a whim if we do chose

(this is exactly what you’re argument implies and, even were it not - would be a straw man not a non-sequitur FYI). 

I can also convey the new meaning of 11 to someone else; because it is objectively reference to something outside my mind; and has that to validate any maths I use.

As these are objective, I could say 1 + 11 = 6;

if you knew the physical quantities I was referring to;

you could derive that relationship by placing stones - because it’s based on the real world.

It’s that anchoring, and the derivation from external things that allows you to determine that if is objective: “not dependent on the mind for existence; actual”.

As I showed, by placing stones, you can demonstrate the relationship between 1, 5 and 6 using the real world; but cannot do so with your example of colour. That demonstrates the difference between an objective and subjective conclusion. 

I explained this by showing you need not use numbers, but can use physical objects in their place - I will note you did not challenge this; but instead implied that because I didn’t do so in the following sentence, I can’t. 

That’s a particularly poor argument; as if let’s you suggest I can’t represent 2 or 6 with physical items without actually explicitly stating it and looking silly if I did (number of feet, number of protons in a carbon atom.)

I find this is a common argumentative tactic: to bury a fallacy deep in layers of abstraction in order to obfuscate where it is.

So to prevent equivocation; I can be more explicit, by clarifying exactly what objective means in P1 based upon why an objective basis makes science valid: what about objective things is it that drives the validity of science.

So let’s skip explicit definitions and approach the issue functionally.

We all have to start with two basic assumptions - that we’re all experiencing the same reality and that reasoning about that reality is valid.

This is to say that we’re both here talking to each other and basic stuff like true != false. Without making those two assumptions, there is no basis to have a conversation about anything; so they’re pretty fair.

Making these assumptions : To determine what is true - to make true claims about realty, we need the ability to correctly analyze reality as it is, without error.

If our inputs and quality of processing has errors - we cannot rely on the output to be true.

So to get at the truth, we have to ensure that we have removed error from our inputs and processing.

Because we can only calibrate ourselves using ourselves - we can’t really ever determine what is true, we can only tell what is true having nominally ruled out specific errors. 

The more errors you can rule out, the more confident that your output is true.

This brings us back to science - and “objectivity” that we’re talking about.

Science of all forms is at its simplest a way we have figured out for eliminating as many errors as we can from our thinking and our interpretation of reality to derive an accurate description of reality.

The inputs have to come from reality, the output has to be consistent with the inputs and itself. If a measurement contradicts the output, or there is an inconsistency; we can presume an error has occurred and needs to be tracked down. The error may be solved, or may cause the output to be discarded.

We apply Occam’s razor - limiting assumptions in order to minimize points of failure and number of places we could be wrong (more assumptions - more potential of being wrong)

We experiment - we use the output to predict inputs we haven’t seen, and to confirm inputs match what is expected. This is probably the most important - an explanation may require additional things to be true or false; if we find this is truly the case it’s more likely to be because the explanation is accurate rather than coincidentally correct.

If we cannot find and way to check whether the output is true or false; we discard it - as we can’t tell whether it is in error or not.

We can even validate whether the process works; the process allows us to exploit the world; split the atom, cure illness, etc; that our descriptions of the world lead to practical application raise confidence in the accuracy of those descriptions. Why should a pressurized water reactor work so consistently if the description of the physics is incorrect?

But, a big element of where we remove error; is by using objective information; or to be more specific - information that can be independently derived and validated from external things, without depending on our mind.

People lie, people are mistaken, people are deluded, mislead, etc - the source of input data cannot come from someone’s mind and be assumed to be without error. If we cannot tie inputs to reality, it cannot be expected that the output reflects reality.

Is the observation real, a fluke, or a delusion: the best way to have confidence in that is to have multiple people observing it; or agree on what is being observed.

We have to agree on meaning - what is a meter, what is a second, a gram, what is 5: (which is the error in your last argument, I can no more tell you how much 5 weighs than I can tell you how many meters a second is; they’re  all descriptions of different things).

So in this respect, even though you’re clearly wrong in your interpretation of what is objective and not; even were we to accept your implicit interpretation, it doesn’t even matter; as all the things we’re talking about clearly meet the functional requirements to minimize error and improve confidence in conclusions by removing our brain as an input - the reason these things are used to produce valid results.

Men Going their own way is just men who wish to remain single, not necessarily sexless though some do refrain from sex. 

I'm redpill. I love women, I love my nieces and my mom and sister. They are what they are. They are just different from men. Like ants are different from alligators. 

Women are even superior in some ways perhaps. G y the rational male website. Rollo Tomassi is one of the more intelligent members of the redpill community and actually argue against something he says, instead of strawmans.

None of those groups really criticize women at all, so no legitimate gripe would be correct.

They typically argue that some aspects of feminism are harmful to society, as well as both females and males. 

They do recognize that men are different than women both psychologically and physically. It's not a statement of superiority though. It's just a recognition of key differences.

None of those differences are used to villianize women. Also most of the differences talked about are around sexual dating strategy. 

I'm not sure how anyone can claim we're "participating" in a "capitalist" economy when a commodity can be so obviously price fixed by the oligarchs.

"Merit" in a modeling job is "looks".

I've never once suggested that every job should be available for every human.

never.

once.

What happens when the "privatized rules" inevitably become insular, raising anti-competitive barriers to entry?

How do you propose we protect the individual from the collective?

Do those interests include all citizens?

If your company serves the public, then they are within the public sphere.

I've been pretty clear on this from the word go.

NO NEPOTISM.

NO INHERITANCE.

Please provide your personally preferred definition of "oligarch".

Physical quantities are objective.

I don’t have to use numbers, I can use things like, the number of fingers a typical human has, or eyes (assuming you’re not disfigured in some way); I can describe pythagorous theory by drawing two squares and 6 triangles.

the logical rules of maths - are derived from Objective observable physical relationships.

2+2=4 not because of an arbitrary subjective whim

but because that’s the relationship between physical quantities.

As this seems to be the basis for you claiming that maths is not objective - your argument boils down to saying that maths is not objective, because if you made it not objective, it’s not objective.

An argument, by definition, utilizes logic. So when one claims logic is a value, and then criticizes another’s argument as “values based”, you’re right, there’s nothing left that person can possibly argue. This is what is called the nuclear method.

Aka the nuclear method.  The reason why this is a problem is because it is dishonest. No lie there. It’s been the point since the start.

I don’t understand why I need to explain this but clearly I do; in order for us to function as a civilization we have to share a common sense of reality so that we can solve our problems and advance our interests. The “nuclear method” is problematic because it seeks to undermine the very foundation that all of us sit on in our efforts to achieve that common sense of reality. In other words, it’s selfishly destructive.

Exactly. So when someone says the earth is flat, to say they’re wrong is to merely assert values. According to this kind of warped thinking we could never make progress on a disagreement because all it boils down to is our opinion. We might as well debate whether chocolate is better than strawberry.

It’s absurd, and we would never prosper as a society by adopting this kind of thinking.

It accomplishes removing the presumption of the indisputable.

That’s not a good thing. The concept of the indisputable is what, for example, holds democracies together. Once upon a time the guy who received more votes was indisputably the president. But now because we have had a president who saw the opening that you are trying to pry open, we live in a society where nearly half the population lives in a delusion that he really won, so instead of solving our problems were now in a war over reality itself.

To claim knowledge about something is to claim that you are right about that something. i.e. “I am right that the earth is round”. But your own value driven standards do not allow for you to be right because if knowledge is all subjective the there is no such thing as right.

It’s literally the prime example of an objective statement.

This is the point where one normally realizes the depths the logical hole they’ve dug themselves into so I’m just going to leave it there.

If you have this number of penguins x x and they meet this number of penguins x x  them there will be this many penguins x x x x.

That x x is demoted as 2, and x x x x is demoted as 4 is not abstract, but semantics. The physical quantity they are expressing is still a physical quantity; with no amount of abstract silliness will ever allow you to successfully make

x x x x x out of adding x x and x x.

While mathematical operations often get abstract, like a Laplace transform, mathematics is inherently falls down to a descriptive system of the physical world that may differ in representation (such as symbols used, or numeric base), but isn’t able to manifestly change what is being described.

The word of digits of pi, or prime numbers are a mathematical description of an aspect of the physical world; and any two individuals from any two cultures, including aliens could independently deduce then value of Pi, or the first 100 prime numbers and convey that information to the other.

In that respect, mathematics is absolutely objective.

You’re the guy who responds to someone saying the earth is round by saying “no, it’s an oblate spheroid” then when people react with annoyance, spend the next hour justifying your response by explaining how it *is* an oblate spheroid

Yes, thinking occurs inside our heads. Congratulations. I was trying to give you credit for having a greater point that you thought meaningful in your conversation with atheists but apparently that really is all there was to it.

I conceded that conclusions are value based, because that is what follows when we accept the very concept of logic as a value.

Engagement in any type of rational conversation presupposes that both parties value logic, so calling someone’s conclusions value-based is meaningless

and I also find it to be intellectually dishonest because it purports to to do something (raising the level of the conversation) that it’s not

But that last part of course assumes that there is a point to making this statement, which apparently is not always the case.

You’re the guy who responds to someone saying the earth is round by saying “no, it’s an oblate spheroid” then when people react with annoyance, spend the next hour justifying your response by explaining how it *is* an oblate spheroid

This isn’t my premise

I haven’t responded to it because it’s an absurd ask.

You don’t rationalize a category, you rationalize whether something belongs in that category.

2+2=4 is objective. That means that I have assessed it’s truth value as not subject to opinion. I used logic to arrive at that assessment because that is the only way this can be done. When we talk about objectivity, this is what we’re talking about. The fact that this  process takes place inside my head does not negate the fact that there is a big difference between this, and the problem of someone believing  things without evidence.

Your criticism of atheists being inconsistent is just plain wrong

because you are ignoring that difference in order to point to the similarity

That’s dishonest, which is and has been my point from the start.

This is the Bible's explanation of rainbows. Of course we now know that rainbows are a prismatic effect of raindrops.

The fact is, God had nothing to do with the creation of the universe

in the same way that God has nothing to do with the sun rising or rainbows appearing

Science does not have a complete explanation for the universe's creation, yet.

While it is true that science does not yet know everything there is to know about the universe, scientists will eventually figure it out.

When they do, what they will find is that nature created the universe, not an imaginary being.

No, it’s rendered through the conclusion that the point you keep making serves no purpose other than to equate belief without evidence to withholding belief in the absence of evidence, and you claim that’s not what you’re doing but your argument is that the latter cannot criticize the former because both are “inside their heads”

And once again, the equivalence I drew did not, and does not extend beyond the fact that both are inside one's head.

Knowledge is subjective--repetitive, I know . Why would one then suggest that "it all be blown up" because its subjective? One could still criticize the opinions of another on the grounds of his or her own values.

Pointing to the commonality between the two as a means of portraying them on equal footing is literally what it means to equate.

And once again, the equivalence I drew did not, and does not extend beyond the fact that both are inside one's head.

So to respond by essentially arguing “well reason is just your value” is absurd. No shit it’s my value and not yours, that’s the entire point of me telling you it’s inside your head.

A typical atheist argument is rather simplistic. It's easy to reduce and deconstruct. I have to neither guess at nor change its meaning. For example, why would one require evidence in accordance to the standards you've endorsed? To inform a notion's consistency with assumptions of that which lies outside one's head? That's all still inside one's head.

But stop trying to obfuscate by talking about whether objectivity is ultimately rational or whether it’s possible to arrive at a conclusion without value driven  bias. All of that is well beyond the point.

Knowledge is subjective--repetitive, I know . Why would one then suggest that "it all be blown up" because its subjective?

Calling it subjective is blowing it up. The point of the nuclear method is to get rid of the concept of right vs wrong when assessing statements about reality, thereby allowing the individual to believe anything they want. Arguing that anything we consider to be knowledge is subject to nothing more than value driven standards accomplishes exactly that.

No shit it’s my value and not yours, that’s the entire point of me telling you it’s inside your head. If you take issue with that then change it, if you don’t then own it.

No, they're stating that your standards of evaluation are different and/or undermine my standards of evaluation according to my standards of evaluation. The standards you accept are based on your values.

But stop trying to obfuscate by talking about whether objectivity is ultimately rational or whether it’s possible to arrive at a conclusion without value driven  bias. All of that is well beyond the point.

Calling it subjective is blowing it up. The point of the nuclear method is to get rid of the concept of right vs wrong when assessing statements about reality, thereby allowing the individual to believe anything they want. Arguing that anything we consider to be knowledge is subject to nothing more than value driven standards accomplishes exactly that.

HERE'S YOUR PRECIOUS EFFICIENT "FREE-MARKET" IN ACTION,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRg2WcABVmQ

So what? Why should anyone care that it comes down to a distinction of values?

What is your point?

My point is, levying the criticism that one's stance, belief, position, affirmation, and the like are based on that which is "insides one head" is not a consistent counterpoint, especially considering that the premises on which atheists base their stance, belief, position, affirmation, and the like are also based on that which is "inside their heads." The distinction between these positions is inextricably and inescapably one of value. This however has not sufficed for you since your contention operates on the assumption of objectivity, which I've already explained is irrational.

The reason it does not suffice to me is because you continue to argue that you are not equating these things as you are equating them.

I never claimed the capacity to "solve" solipsism. I pointed out the hypocrisy in rejecting God because he is allegedly based on a conception borne from "inside one's head" when the very standards which inform one's  rejection is based on conceptions borne "inside one's head." Now you can argue that there's no "equivalence" between the former and the latter, but that does not changed that these are still value-based.

And once again, the equivalence I drew did not, and does not extend beyond the fact that both are inside one's head.

Values are arbitrary

and subjective

so arguing that believing in something without evidence, and rejecting a claim because there is no evidence are both merely products of our values

serves no purpose other than to equate the two as just one person’s values against  another.

In other words... the nuclear method.

please explain how you managed to leap to this ridiculous conclusion

let's see if we can square this circle

do you believe there should be some rules to govern commerce ?

if you do believe there should be some rules to govern commerce, what moral theory

, and or what primary goal should those rules be aimed at ?

public sphere requires regulation

private sphere is private

parental focus may give someone an emotional advantage or disadvantage

training and or popular style may give a person a social advantage or disadvantage

personal and or parental and or social priority may give someone an intellectual advantage or disadvantage

are you suggesting that just as many oligarchs would exist in a world without NEPOTISM + INHERITANCE ?

and for the record, any "self-made" oligarchs that might arise from a provably-fair game, that could not gift their assets to their friends and or relatives would be 100% "acceptable".

what do you believe is the primary function of government ?

i never once suggested "no advantages", whatever gave you that idea ?

EQUALITY = PROVABLY FAIR

EQUALITY = NO "HEAD-STARTS"

NO GIFTS

NO INHERITANCE

NO NEPOTISM

NO CHEATING

OLIGARCHY IS THE ANTITHESIS OF ANARCHY

OLIGARCHY IS THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF NEPOTISM + INHERITANCE

now imagine someone told you that if you don't play the game, you will be deprived of food and shelter

your home is your castle

do what you wish in your own home

do what you think is best with your own family in your own home

nepotism only applies to businesses, and more specifically to management positions and executives

i'm pretty certain nobody's going to care if you hire your brother-in-law to mop the floors, unless he's getting paid more than your other floor moppers or gets away with being late or missing work more than your other floor moppers

you seem to be recoiling at the prospect of MERITOCRACY

You seem to have forgotten what this is about and how we got here.

This is about your criticism of atheists and why it is meaningless.

But your “challenge” is nothing more than an appeal to infinite regress.

Ultimately, we all have to rely on our own senses and reasoning to form conclusions. So what?

That does not equate a theist believing in something without evidence to an atheist rejecting a claim because there is no evidence.

You’ll probably respond by claiming you weren’t equating the two

and if so I ask, then what is your point?

think of it like a game of "monopoly"

would you participate in a game where your competitors already owned hotels on half the board and had vastly outsized cash reserves before you even rolled your first move?

forget the metaphor for a minute

would you play this board game ?

pLEASE eXPLAIN

Congratulations, you’ve discovered the problem of infinite regress.

The term semantics has an actual meaning, and that meaning is not “to argue”. How many times are you going to perfectly demonstrate the nuclear method while claiming you are not using it?

Point proven yet again.

Despite being written out of large parts of history, atheists thrived in the polytheistic societies of the ancient world – raising considerable doubts about whether humans really are “wired” for religion – a new study suggests.

The claim is the central proposition of a new book by Tim Whitmarsh, Professor of Greek Culture and a Fellow of St John’s College, University of Cambridge. In it, he suggests that atheism – which is typically seen as a modern phenomenon – was not just common in ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome, but probably flourished more in those societies than in most civilisations since.

As a result, the study challenges two assumptions that prop up current debates between atheists and believers: Firstly, the idea that atheism is a modern point of view, and second, the idea of “religious universalism” – that humans are naturally predisposed, or “wired”, to believe in gods.

The book, entitled Battling The Gods,  launched in Cambridge on February 16, 2016.

“We tend to see atheism as an idea that has only recently emerged in secular Western societies,” Whitmarsh said. “The rhetoric used to describe it is hyper-modern. In fact, early societies were far more capable than many since of containing atheism within the spectrum of what they considered normal.”

“Rather than making judgements based on scientific reason, these early atheists were making what seem to be universal objections about the paradoxical nature of religion – the fact that it asks you to accept things that aren’t intuitively there in your world. The fact that this was happening thousands of years ago suggests that forms of disbelief can exist in all cultures, and probably always have.”

This goes along with my theory that people who saw and heard gods speaking to them had numerous brain lesions.

What explains the 2500 gods Man has had?

The very essence of equality is loaded dice. Nothing is left to chance.

think of "society" as a game

think of being born as the pre-game character roll

think of legal adulthood as the start of gameplay

with no inheritance 

with no gifts

with no nepotism

your "resume" cannot include any of your private medical information (including what you look like naked and your genetic history and your chronology)

your "resume" can only be a demonstration of your skill specific to the job you're applying for

nobody wants to play a game that has loaded dice

ok, so, more specifically "social equality"

ANARCHY covers the first five sevenths or so of your preferred definition quite neatly

please explain to me how a fire can violate the law of cause-and-effect

Social equality is a state of affairs in which all people within a specific society have equal rights, liberties, and status, possibly including civil rights, freedom of speech, property rights, and equal access to certain social goods and social services.

the time and place of the "fire starter" determines the scope and longevity of the consequent fire

ANARCHY = NO KINGS

ANARCHY = NO GODS

ANARCHY = PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

You misunderstand. I acknowledge that the Sabbath is a recognition of Creation. At issue seems to be when and how long Creation occurred. I'm saying that it makes no difference when and how long Creation occupied to acknowledge that it occurred. Does God sit on a thrown with a stopwatch to count how long we spend in worship? No. He need not do that.

He will know the value of our devotion to him by the improvement we accomplish in our lives, primarily by how and why we are in service to one another as acts of appreciation for our creation.

God will not strike us dead if one of us believes he created in six days, and another believes he did it in 6 billion years. The duration just doesn't matter. The fact that it happened does.

Um... what's makes the fire starter different from the fire? The properties which it exhibits, in this case, consiousness, reasoning, experiential emotion, etc - fairly basic things. 

any ideology that focuses on asking "the state" to "rescue them" from something is CASH MUNY $$$

ANARCHY = EQUALITY

PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY = EQUALITY

The specific distinction? It is the result of physiological and chemical reactions that cause properties one would assign to the "mind", furthermore, it is not even the result itself, but properties that come as a result of the result. Like fire, a result of chemical reactions, causes human perception to warp thanks to specific gaseous results. 

Feminism liberated men from women. Men no longer have an obligation or any social responsibility to provide for any woman. Ever.

Families are completely optional at this point as well as an intact nuclear family thanks to feminism and the shattering of biologically constructed social roles.

Enjoy your cats feminazis.

because it is not a fault of reasoning - because mentality  - our mind - is an emergent property of your brain - it is not quite the same thing as your brain. There is a distinction