Total posts: 866
-->
@AdaptableRatman
You realise anglophones can often only talk fluent in 1 language? What kindnof IQ argument is it to diss bi, tri and further multilinguals?
Learning multiple languages requires a lot of effort (effort that can be put into alternative topics to learn about). You only have a finite quantity of academic hours annually, so it makes sense to rapidly get the world to become anglophones via bilingually immersing the existing kids and 15 years from now, teaching in English only globally so the language bridge is solved, allowing for alternative topics to be learned to fill the void.
Created:
1. When people say they are willing to die for ANY cause, they have no clue what they're talking about.
2. If your religion calls on you to die for that religion, then you know in advance that you won't be willing to die for your religion, so you should view that religion as crazy.
3. If you view religion as crazy, then you become an atheist.
4. If everyone worldwide willingly becomes an atheist, then you have no more religious wars. If it wasn't for religion, then Israel/Palestine wouldn't be fighting. What would they fight over? If everyone becomes Anglophone (not by genociding the non-Anglophones, but by having non-Anglophones learn English and if they reproduce, then attempt to get their kids to become Anglophones), then wars over language differences are gone.
Homogeneity often prevents massive death and economic wartime waste, helping to pave the way for a one world nation, where wars are no longer required as well as people obtaining unconditional freedom of movement to move to any place they choose. Increased education funding can make sure we don't be replaced by low IQ people because they wouldn't stay low IQ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
When something is official, then it's more likely to be done.
For example, in Quebec, French is the sole official language. As a result, people there are pressured to speak French there. If they were officially bilingual (French/English), then people there (JUST from something being official as a statement), then people there are more willing to speak English.
Official standards carry some level of weight. It doesn't mean you are going to be arrested in Quebec for speaking in English, but you are way less likely to do it than if it was officially bilingual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
But you're not policing the women themselves, you're policing how everyone else responds to them. It's not like anyone can control if someone else treats them like a child.
It's not policing as much as it is a recommendation. Think MyPlate. The government says you should eat a certain # of fruit servings, and if you don't, then you violate the guidelines and there is no legal penalty. The guidelines are there solely for recommendation purposes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think that some women sometimes say things, just to wind up some men.And some people ask dumbass questions.And other people answer them.
Since women can vote, the ideological stuff they say must be taken seriously. Children can say stupid political opinions and it's the parent's job to correct them. Children don't get to vote for that reason; they are stupid.
1. Equal rights to men = equal responsibilities to men.
2. Equal responsibilities to child = equal rights to child.
A man's words and opinions matter; a child's don't. You take a man seriously; not a child.
Women don't deserve the best of both worlds. Take your pick.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You take women too seriously, they really just say things
They have voting rights, they MUST be taken seriously because of that.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
The aim is to reduce abortions. I don't care how many kids get born (factoring out recourses).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
In that case, they're not dying for their religion, though. They're dying to satisfy your bloodlust. Might as well go around asking parents "are you willing to die for your children?" and then shoot the ones who say yes.
Incorrect. The children never wanted their parents to die for them with the promise of eternal heaven supplied by the children. But there are people that will die for Allah under those circumstances (Allah rewards them with 72 virgins).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
You know, freedom of speech doesnt mean you have to say most offensive things all the time.
It's 2025; there are people on this site who are pro Hitler (who killed people who didn't consent to die). I'm pretty tame by comparison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Are you willing to go to prison for spreading terrorist propaganda like you are right now?
Nope. If a consenting person wants to die, then I'm fine with them dying (just like I think adults should be allowed to commit suicide). Your body, your choice. If you don't want to die for your religion, then just say so and you wouldn't be a martyr (and btw; stick to your word and don't do suicide bombings). I'd rather kill the suicide bomber BEFORE he kills anyone else. Anyone who isn't willing to die for their religion will be spared.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Men and women in nursing homes have their lives prolonged. What are you talking about?
They could prolong them indefinitely I think, but it's too expensive and eventually you have to pull the plug.
They would not remain in the Middle East if they were not willing to die for Christianity.
Maybe they can't afford to leave; a lot of Lebanese did.
What would you die for?
Empty set. There is not a single entity that I would die for. I wouldn't reproduce; so kids aren't involved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Palestinians could leave and die for ever. This death would be the end of a claim to a land Muslims had to themselves for 600 years. Not just any land, but the Holy Land.
Claiming a modern day area is the holy land is like claiming a modern day area is Mesopotamia. They are old borders; and therefore irrelevant today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
There are Palestinians Catholics which were always the primary Gazan opposition to Hamas the entire reign.
Then you ask them, "Are you willing to die for Christianity?" and if they say yes, then kill them for Christianity because it's what they would will for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Autism
Many people in Gaza do want to live. Don't you think it is extremely immoral to kill those against their wishes who want to live?
Yes; that's why you ask the Gazans if they are so religiously Muslim that they would die for Islam. If they say yes, then shoot them (as then they would die for Islam, which is what they wanted). if they say no, then they would be spared. I estimate 95% of the Gazans would be willing to die for Islam.
Genocide is a gift to only those muslims who wish to become martyrs, not every muslim.
So then give the people that wish to be martyrs that gift (which I estimate is 95%).
Created:
Posted in:
P1: Anyone that wishes to die and has a good reason should be allowed to die (this is why we don't keep elderly people on life support for hundreds of years, so there already is a genocide of people who are like 95 year olds in nursing homes).
P2: A good enough reason to want to die is medical expenses.
P3: Gazans (and many Muslims more broadly) have a reason that they think is good for wanting to die (they want to go to heaven as a martyr). This reason is arguably better than the elderly person's reason.
C1: Genocide is a gift to Muslims who wish to become martyrs.
We should kill anyone who wishes to die become a martyr for their religion; we are doing them a favor. American "Christians" aren't really Christain because they aren't willing to die if God told them to die for their religion. They are atheists with the Christain title. I'd like it if they dropped the title and came as advertised.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Since you're encouraging people to respond to women in this way, is that sufficient to afford women the right to vote? Or does the majority of society need to be on board with this?
Kind of a mix of both of these answers.
Consider 3 situations:
- 25% of women agree to lose the right to vote in exchange for being allowed to form and say their opinions based on emotion without pushback from other people.
- 50% of women agree to lose the right to vote in exchange for being allowed to form and say their opinions based on emotion without pushback from other people.
- 75% of women agree to lose the right to vote in exchange for being allowed to form and say their opinions based on emotion without pushback from other people.
In situation 1, I don't want to punish the 75% who agree to form ideology emotion free based on the 25% who agree with losing their voting rights in exchange for free speech without verbal pushback. Similar for Situations 2 and 3.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
How do you enforce the way people respond to women?
You don't enforce it. You merely encourage others to respond like this. If I have a girlfriend, then I don't care how much I love her, if she says something to me that I don't agree with, then I'm going to call her out on it. I'm not going to assault her over it, but I'm also not going to smile and pretend to agree with her even if I don't.
If a woman says an opinion that I don't like, then I tell her to her face why I believe she's wrong. I treat women not like property or children and not like goddesses or helpless victims of xenophobia, but like adults, because they are adults (same thing with non white adults).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
@Sir.Lancelot
@AdaptableRatman
How is this misogynistic?
@AdaptableRatman
It seems like your Catholic forgiving phase is gone. It's a neutral statement (not positive or negative). I mean, look at your profile picture.
A woman's intuition can sometimes be wrong (same with a man). My instinct is wrong a lot of the time just like this woman's. But I own that; she lies and says she's perfect.
Women aren't perfect and neither are men, but women think they are and that's a problem.
Created:
Posted in:
Everyone read only the 1st comment here. The 1st is from some woman that claims women's intuition is never wrong.
A lot of stupid people will instinctively blindly accept that this is true with no thought behind it (and the reason is because the word, "woman" gives some level of serotonin in who reads that word in the moment and this is enough to make the stupid majority of this nation agree to it). A woman here thinks that a woman's intuition is never wrong. Imagine if a man says, "A man's intuition is never wrong". We'd think he's some cocky SOB. This woman here is also a cocky SOB.
Why do I call this statement stupid? Read the 2nd comment.
You reference the word, "woman" in a way that makes sense, you could say, "A woman should have the right to end the life of her 4 year old child if she feels it's the correct thing to do and she feels that she can't take of them" (not trying to make this about abortion). Replace "woman" with "man" and other required changes, and this sounds barbaric.
On the flip side, a woman can say, "A woman should have the right to become a pilot" and society reacts exactly the same way as the statement involving 4 year old homicide. If a man says, "A man should have the right to become a pilot", then society is like, "Facts".
A man's words matter; a woman's words right now DON'T.
Now, I am of the opinion that you should be treated like your words and opinions matter if we give you the right to vote.
So women should have to endure 2 options:
- Lose the right to vote. They can become like children that you can legally fuck and they get the privilege of their words not mattering (at the expense of their right to vote).
- Be given equal rights (and responsibilities) to a man. This means they both can vote, but this means if a woman says something, then treat it exactly the same way as if a man said it (so claim, "Facts" if the statement is undeniably accurate, claim, "Hmmm" if the statement might be accurate, and claim, "Bullshit" if the statement is inaccurate) and we should never produce serotonin for when you talk; you can have serotonin and no voting rights like a child or a trichotomy of options and voting rights like adult men right now get.
I think this standard should apply to everyone of all ages. So if you're 5 years old and want the right to vote, then you will get the right to vote (while at the same time, you will be judged by everything that you say because it matters now). If a 5 year old comes out in favor of free homes for all and they have voting rights, then treat them exactly the same way as if a 25 year old with voting rights said it. People should be expected to argue with that person on the streets.
Voting rights are for those with enough of a thick skin to accept the idea that they might be wrong regardless of age or gender and change their beliefs accordingly. Anyone with voting rights should have a lanyard around their neck indicating that they wish for their statements to be judged like a voter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If anything, the explosion of federal sprawl has weakened national unity, people feel ruled by strangers in D.C., not by representatives who know their communities.
DC has representatives who know their communities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
That's for people; not social media accounts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
BrotherD.Thomas, what's your verdict?
His account has been dead for months.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Loaded question unless you mean as safeguarders or potential perpetrators.
Well that is what I mean.
A woman can be fully covered and still be raped and if she gets raped while looking like a swimsuit model, then it's not her fault.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Nobody thinks this
I've met people (that I knew for years) that believe this.
I don't know what that means
Exactly what you would read (yes; people are that stupid).
Entitled Tate fans that think that it's ok for them to r@pe women.No they don't.
Are you an entitled tate fan?
MAGA trailer trash who will claim that strange undocumented men are scarier than bears (without mace).Border security has nothing to do with bears though we would also oppose Mexican bears coming through the border unrestrained
I've met people that would rather be with a bear than an illegal immigrant.
Any transgender that would equate misgendering to homicide.Strawman
They claim misgendering is hate speech and hate speech is equal to murder.
Any Matt Walsh supporter that would call transwomen not men, but animals.That doesn't happen
It happened at my work.
The beginning of wisdom is to stop taking what women think seriously.
Everything women say politically should be taken seriously because they have the right to vote. If they couldn't vote, then it wouldn't matter. But voting is power; and with power comes responsability.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
One cannot very successfully defend the idea that its okay to reduce number of persons.
You can on the grounds of consistency.
If you can't force a dude to endure a few days of vasectomy pain to prevent the death of an unborn kid, then you can't force a woman to endure even a few days of pregnancy pain for the same cause. Nobody will experience both a vasectomy and pregnancy; I'd rather weight both pains equally per unit of time.
If you want abortion banned, then get a vasectomy.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
He makes some underprivileged and tests the privileged in how well they sacrifice for the underprivileged and take care of them.
Privileged = right wing group. It has nothing to do with poverty.
If you do the crjme of murder to a 1 year old or an adult, cgold murder is seen as even worse by society. Fetal murder is one of the worst crimes.
1 year olds are not in a woman's body.
Then why is a fetal human treated identically if the mother says okay to slaughter that human?
Mainly because I'm wanting to be consistent. If you can't force a dude to endure a few days of vasectomy pain to prevent the death of an unborn kid, then you can't force a woman to endure even a few days of pregnancy pain for the same cause. Nobody will experience both a vasectomy and pregnancy; I'd rather weight both pains equally per unit of time.
If you want abortion banned, then get a vasectomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You want a more decentralized America? Maybe I agree, but if you decentralize us too much, then you get 50 separate countries and then America is dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
I think they fear the man also being a murderer.
Well, they've dealt with millions of encounters of men over the decades they've been alive and none have murdered them.
If these women believed what they said, then they would mace stranger men on sight; you would do that to a bear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
The odds of being attacked after seeing a bear r 1 in 1000 and this even assumes the a bear sighting. Whereas odds of a man being a rapist is 6 percent. I think I'm convinced a man is probably worse
Assuming your probability is correct:
- Odds of bear death if sighted: 1/1000.
- Odds of man rape if sighted: 60/1000 (in order for a man to rape you, he has to see you first).
A woman is probably millions of times as likely to see a man over the course of her life than a bear.
Assuming a woman would rather get murdered than r@ped, how many murders = one rape? 2? 3? Is it better for the city of Chicago to get nuked (assuming 2 million deaths) or for one woman to get raped? How many murders = one rape? I believe murder is worse; I would set 2.5 rapes = 1 murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@addvocate
theres also the fact that for women rape is the worst thing that can happen to you for a man its death and in this case a man is more likely to rape you then a bear sure there's a chance the man is a better option but there's also a chance the man is the worst option.
Then the woman can say, "I'd rather be with a bear than a rapist" and virtually no man would care.
Why would a man be in the woods to begin with? He might be hiking. He might be camping. Maybe he's hunting deer or fishing. He's not going to be interested in raping women. He likes the outdoors and that's how he was in the woods to begin with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Humans are animals if we talk physicality.
Sure, but humans are animals with morals.
I would say a demonic dabgerous man giving into base instincts is animalistic
So then a woman can say, "I'd rather be in the woods with a bear than a convicted rapist" and virtually no man would care.
Well, that doesn't happen and women know that virtually no vehicle is going to kidnap them. If leftist women are that afraid of random male strangers, then imagine if those male strangers were black.It does. It happens to younger girls far more than younger boys and adult women far more than adult men.
I guess then the GOP should welcome Jammal into the Republican party. The left tells Jammal that the GOP views him as an animal for being black, when in reality, the left views Jammal as worse than a very bad animal because he's a man.
I won't spell out all that gets done to the victim.
You can if you want too. If you don't, then a woman can rather be murdered than raped and I won't care. But if she assumes all men are rapists, then that's just dehumanizing to men.
You live in a cocoon of male privilege.
I don't care if I do or don't. If a woman really views a strange man as worse than a bear, then the next time she sees a strange man (even if he's just saying, "Hello"), she should mace him. She would if it was a bear. But the truth is, women that agree with you here have no clue what they're talking about; they are acting on emotion with their ideology, and emotional people should be banned from having the right to vote (the same is true of any MAGA person that thinks strange illegal immigrants are worse than bears).
When the Pope talks about welcoming immigrants, you do realize that the majority of immigrants are strange men (there's nothing wrong with that). But if a woman says they are worse than a bear, then it's flat out unchristian because the bible is anti ICE.
Created:
Posted in:
Any man with integrity picks the man.
Some current thing women will pick the bear. They will say the man rapes them, the bear eats them, and they would (at the end of the day) rather get murdered than raped.
If that's your argument, then say you would rather be in the woods with a bear than a rapist. That I won't agree with (I'd rather get raped than murdered), but at the end of the day, I'm not a murderer, I'm not a rapist, both people are very bad, but I don't know how the female brain works, so I'd be like, "whatever".
I can respect rather being with a bear over a rapist. I cannot respect being with a bear over a generic man.
Calling a man a bear at this point should be like calling a black person the N word. These crazy feminists have ruined it. Go back to advocating against the wage gap, at least then I could respect what you're saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
I should also add if a woman sees a strange man as worse than a scary wild animal, then she's dehumanizing men. But that's ok because it's the left that does it.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Christianity is the stage 2 of Judaism.
And Islam is stage 3 and Mormonism is stage 4. So are you going to convert to Mormonism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Imagine how much higher your fear woukd even be if every vehicle passing grabbing you to kidnap or assault (not just violence).
Well, that doesn't happen and women know that virtually no vehicle is going to kidnap them. If leftist women are that afraid of random male strangers, then imagine if those male strangers were black.
You have no idea what it is like as a a woman because in that regard you have male privilege.
Your religion supports male privilege (1 Timothy 2:12). This is Catholics; they can't think for themselves. On one hand, a woman says that a bear is not as scary as a strange man, the Catholic sheep are seduced by her soft and timid voice (as if those features are relevant). Then the bible says the main reason why misogyny gets justified in the western world, and because it's a voice in their head resembling a Monty python style god, the Catholics automatically assume that's true as well.
You people will believe anything if it's said with an acceptable tone in your head.
Is male privilege real? I could see times when men have it easier and harder than women. Men don't deal with 9 months of pregnancy, but they also can't make a living off of selling pictures of their feet and butthole on the internet without the fear of it ruining your life because even 85 year old women can do this and nobody will know it's them.
To be a good man, you need a 6 figure income. To be a good woman, you need makeup. This is why men can be arrogant and women can't.
What you are doing it saying assume good intentions from the man and worst from the bear.
I assume neutral intentions from the man and deadly intentions from the bear. A woman sees a strange man; the man might be hiking. He might have a wife; he might have kids. Even if neither are true, he will probably say something like, "Hello. Enjoying the hike?" and be on his merry way.
If a woman sees a bear in the woods, then the bear is getting maced. If she maces a strange man who is just hiking, then she should get prosecuted.
Men's feelings and women's feelings don't matter because they can vote. A child's feelings can matter; but that's why we don't let children vote.
Created:
Posted in:
Iggers are degenerate and their influence need to be eliminated.
I fucking hate Iggers (and I'm sure the word you guys know is a very similar word, but I dropped the 1st letter because I don't want to make it about race).
Examples of Iggers:
- People that think it's ok for a mentally ill person to commit a mass shooting if it, "gets it out of their system".
- People that would knock the crap out of you for saying, "I support desalination plants".
- Entitled Tate fans that think that it's ok for them to r@pe women.
- Feminists who will claim that strange men are scarier than bears (without mace).
- MAGA trailer trash who will claim that strange undocumented men are scarier than bears (without mace).
- Any transgender that would equate misgendering to homicide.
- Any Matt Walsh supporter that would call transwomen not men, but animals.
- Anyone of any demographic characteristic that would rather be in the woods with a bear than any generically innocent person (assuming no mace).
We need to cure the Igger disease that has impacted this nation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
"bad type of racism"There's "racism" and "racial" humor.No good or bad types of "racism" .
I see your point, but I also know the left will argue racial humor is racist. I don't care what you call it; deportations are bad; South Park is good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Elon musk is the firm state, not the deep state.
What is the difference between firm and deep?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
And what does I want abortion banned for all anti-abortion women, actually mean?
It means I would make female hypocrisy on abortion illegal. Don't get an abortion under conditions that you would ban it for others if you had power.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
The only way a born person who is very prochoice can say they had the right to be born and protected as a foetus and then baby and onwards is if they say the circumstances of 'luck', God's will or 'fate' led them there.
That is correct. I got lucky. I made it this far, therefore I deserve to be alive. Luck matters with how you deserve to be treated.
A smart person may study the same amount as a stupid person, they take a test, smart person gets a 100; stupid person gets a 70. They put in the same effort, but the smart person deserves to succeed because luck privilege exists (and that's good).
They inherently have a double standard where they barely ever would be willing to have been slaughtered as a foetus yet vote for it to be done to members of the identical species they are and deny it is murder.
If I was aborted as a fetus, then I wouldn't care. But I'm out of the womb now, so it's different. Just like if I was 8, then I wouldn't mind running around a lot recklessly; but I'm much older than that, so it's not my drip anymore.
Yes they do, for farm animals and insects especially.
No shit sherlock, a human is worth more than a chicken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Remy do you really think rape isn't a serious crime like you insinuate in your response to me?
Incorrect. If you r@pe or murder, then we should chop off your head without painkillers and use your organs to save the lives of American PATRIOTS! But the vast majority of undocumented immigrants don't r@pe or murder (just like Catholic Priests, drag queens, or AR 15 owners).
Collective punishment is a consistent bad whether it's done by the left or the right.
But merely being here without papers is like speeding; I don't care if you break the law to this minor extent (but there is a massive difference between being a criminal via speeding or driving without insurance vs being a criminal via r@pe or murder).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Do you think open borders would harm safety?
Probably not significantly, but if they r@pe or murder, then just chop off their head (same standard regardless of race) and use their organs to save people.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
The logic you use to say that a Communist has to be live as a Communist inside Capitalism, is akin to saying a born person who is very prochoice has to have been aborted.
I sort of see your logic, but I could make some tweaks:
The logic you use to say that a Communist has to be live as a Communist inside Capitalism, is akin to saying an unborn person who is very prochoice has to have been aborted.
The born person with abortion would be more akin to the retired person with the economy. People don't say the born should get killed or the elderly should have to work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I think this might be subconscious racism of the left at play. The being outraged at the deportation of criminals while simultaneously complaining about 50 people being saved from genocide.
Those people deported who are criminals are deported for no worse of a crime than these whites were (ie being undocumented). How about lets have Gazan and DRC refugees come in the country the same way the white South Africans did? Legally, and impossible to come illegally due to a consistent open border for everyone of any race.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What if Elon Musk turns into the deep state while being pro MAGA?
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Is it your right to be born?
Yes because it already happened.
Then I ask you, the system is capitalist so why force a communist to be communist inside the capitalist system?
Because it's what the communist wants.
The analogy is linked to logic that you say meaning you wod need to be aborted to be prochoice (again, not a threat, an analysis of a logical flaw in your thinking.
An aborted fetus that complains about abortion being banned is a hypocrite. But fetuses don't complain about anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Premarital sex is bad for your mental health regardless, so people shouldn't do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How is it different than mediciad?
Created: