Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

You're going to be less inclined to see problems that exist when they aren't targeting you, that's how privilege works. 

I imagine left wing people get banned for making death threats. Them being censored for being left wing or feminist ? Not the case. 

It's less that social media platforms will shut down members of the left, and moreso bigoted intolerance being given enough of a platform to normalize into everyday conversation. 

 What's bigotry to you ?

It's literal definition, except in this case focusing on how the lives of marginalized groups stand to be treated worse for the time being. 

Like the straight white man, everyone is marginalized.

Not wanting men in the girls room ?

Expectation of using people's fake pronouns ? ( in some cases until they change their mind )

Homophobia for not being sexually attracted to crossdressers ?

See they're not even people to you, they're just the subject of right wing talking points that you can parrot. 

You're doing that thing again. Sure they're people.

I never needed any talking points to think something is wrong with men dunking on women at sports, or men in the women's changeroom. 

I don't believe in fake promouns. While I'm straight I have no desire to enable or participate in what strikes me as genuine gender-dysphoria.

I'd reckon these are people's boundaries being disturbed, and not bigotry. People can be how they are and still coexist as they have been, but to force society to progress in such a perverted way is unacceptable. 

Normalizing -isms is going to stand to do damage. 

While it's generally bad to suppress speech, it's mostly bad over the backlash that follows the attempt at said suppression. Over how strongly language was supressed by those who ascribe to -isms has been, people who'd now be at the butt end of that are going to have a worse time for a while. 

Unlike any time in nodern history, things were done in such a way, people will suffer over such things as they do now. It's a failed ideology.

---

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

 /mfw she's the comparison you make to compare men and women

Already you have thrown your argument in the trash. 

She's a prime example. Not liking her doesn't dismiss her as, ( are you ready for this ? I think not ) a real woman. 

Using a highly unstable mentally ill person as a general statistic is going to skew the outcome, and with it the legitimacy of your claim. 

It'd be like using me as a prime example of a man, it's going to not reflect the average. 

The mental illness supports my claim even more, cause she blew away her chances with multiple guys who offered her stability. None of the rules change with other female subjects who don't lose their grip.

In most cases, men are the prize. 

If you ask me, companionship is the prize. To be with someone else, and to feel seen by them, is basically the core of the yearning. 

Too soft. Can't make it about that with women. Her vagina will dry up and she'll go looking for some bad ass who'll spread her wide open. 

Sex is a form of communication, and communication generally is important in a healthy relationship based on the common ground both partners find when it comes to their communication styles. 

There is never case where men have to take on a traditional female role, but with no man around, women have to take on masculine roles, many of them cannot which is why I say in most cases, men are the prize. Especially if he's the one paying for everything which is often the case. 

I've seen more than enough cases where divvying the roles outside of expected norms has worked out for all involved. 

 Single women have to man up quite a bit in the traditional sense.

I discuss stuff like this with very feminin women and they by far don't want male traditional roles. They also hate having to work. Of course they do think they are the prize even when they are the takers in the relationship. 

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

I imagine left wing people get banned for making death threats. Them being censored for being left wing or feminist ? Not the case. 

 What's bigotry to you ?

It's literal definition, except in this case focusing on how the lives of marginalized groups stand to be treated worse for the time being. 

Like the straight white man, everyone is marginalized.

If you were to compare how hard white men have it compared to other marginalized groups, how comparable would you actually find them to be? 

A lot of what has white people flipping out is over how they're suddenly being treated equally. 

Not wanting men in the girls room ?

Expectation of using people's fake pronouns ? ( in some cases until they change their mind )

Homophobia for not being sexually attracted to crossdressers ?

See they're not even people to you, they're just the subject of right wing talking points that you can parrot. 

You're doing that thing again. Sure they're people.

Do you see how speaking in that way has them not really being treated as peers? 

It'd be like if I were to allude to among the worst among Christians to say how all Christians should be treated. 

I never needed any talking points to think something is wrong with men dunking on women at sports, or men in the women's changeroom. 

I don't believe in fake promouns. While I'm straight I have no desire to enable or participate in what strikes me as genuine gender-dysphoria.

...do you not know what talking points are? You're using talking points right there... to claim you don't use talking points.

It's not like you know the statistics, singular anecdotes are enough to cause an uproar apparently. 

I'd reckon these are people's boundaries being disturbed, and not bigotry. People can be how they are and still coexist as they have been, but to force society to progress in such a perverted way is unacceptable. 

Normalizing -isms is going to stand to do damage. 

While it's generally bad to suppress speech, it's mostly bad over the backlash that follows the attempt at said suppression. Over how strongly language was supressed by those who ascribe to -isms has been, people who'd now be at the butt end of that are going to have a worse time for a while. 

Unlike any time in nodern history, things were done in such a way, people will suffer over such things as they do now. It's a failed ideology.

This same rationale you just typed here could be used to rationalize slavery. We've had around 11,000 years of slavery, in the US it was only abolished around 158 years ago, and some countries still practice it. 

Through the lens of your logic typed above, would you say we should re-enslave black people over how modern their freedoms are? 

---

Spatial Mind said: 

She's a prime example. Not liking her doesn't dismiss her as, ( are you ready for this ? I think not ) a real woman. 

Using a highly unstable mentally ill person as a general statistic is going to skew the outcome, and with it the legitimacy of your claim. 

It'd be like using me as a prime example of a man, it's going to not reflect the average. 

The mental illness supports my claim even more, cause she blew away her chances with multiple guys who offered her stability. None of the rules change with other female subjects who don't lose their grip.

How does someone being atypical have them reflect a typical situation? 

To revisit the point above, should I be using Turquie's history with Christianity as an anecdote when talking about Christians in general? Not liking her doesn't dismiss her as, (are you ready for this ? I think not) a real Christian. 

I could say the same for your example too, she is a Christian, so she is an example of a 'real one'. Therefor, should I assume everything those two go on about should be taken as how other Christians act? 

In most cases, men are the prize. 

Bullshit, you don't see Men making as much cash on Onlyfans. When it comes to sexual marketplace value it's clear that women are more prized than men. A woman in society as it is now will also find it much easier to bag a man, even multiple men, than a man has chances with landing a woman, which to me demonstrates that men must be less valuable. 

In a Patriarchal structure, they try to justify infantilizing women before going on about how they have "inherent value" in ways a man does not. In a male-structured society, women are the prize, and our media dials that to 11.

There is never case where men have to take on a traditional female role, but with no man around, women have to take on masculine roles, many of them cannot which is why I say in most cases, men are the prize. Especially if he's the one paying for everything which is often the case. 

I've seen more than enough cases where divvying the roles outside of expected norms has worked out for all involved. 

Single women have to man up quite a bit in the traditional sense.

I discuss stuff like this with very feminin women and they by far don't want male traditional roles. They also hate having to work. Of course they do think they are the prize even when they are the takers in the relationship. 

I've had conversations with plenty of women who have embraced independence, and plenty of men who would prefer to tend to the home and raise the kids. Just hit a college campus, they're not hard to find. 

So we've talked with people who have a preference in opposite directions, so why not allow them the choice for which they'd prefer? If a woman (or a man) wants to go full on Tradwife there should be nothing stopping that, and if a woman (or man) wants to work in the workplace there shouldn't be obstacles there either. Rather than asigning people roles, people should be given choices when it comes to these things. 

Also... it's worth considering by the model of US culture at least that the idea of women not working is only as old as the 20th century, mostly as a byproduct of industrial labor turning towards factory work when it once wasn't as fixated on it. The issue with why dual income households or business success has become more of a focus is an economic issue more than one of gender. 

If you want to backstep women's rights far enough to push how they shouldn't feel like they need to work, then society needs to become more affordable so that a single income home is realistic enough to even consider. 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Normalizing -isms is going to stand to do damage. 

While it's generally bad to suppress speech, it's mostly bad over the backlash that follows the attempt at said suppression. Over how strongly language was suppressed by those who ascribe to -isms has been, people who'd now be at the butt end of that are going to have a worse time for a while. 

Unlike any time in modern history, things were done in such a way, people will suffer over such things as they do now. It's a failed ideology.

This same rationale you just typed here could be used to rationalize slavery. We've had around 11,000 years of slavery, in the US it was only abolished around 158 years ago, and some countries still practice it. 

Through the lens of your logic typed above, would you say we should re-enslave black people over how modern their freedoms are? 

 

I've seen more than enough cases where divvying the roles outside of expected norms has worked out for all involved. 

Single women have to man up quite a bit in the traditional sense.

I discuss stuff like this with very feminine women and they by far don't want male traditional roles. They also hate having to work. Of course they do think they are the prize even when they are the takers in the relationship. 

I've had conversations with plenty of women who have embraced independence, and plenty of men who would prefer to tend to the home and raise the kids. Just hit a college campus, they're not hard to find. 

So we've talked with people who have a preference in opposite directions, so why not allow them the choice for which they'd prefer? If a woman (or a man) wants to go full on Tradwife there should be nothing stopping that, and if a woman (or man) wants to work in the workplace there shouldn't be obstacles there either. Rather than assigning people roles, people should be given choices when it comes to these things. 

Also... it's worth considering by the model of US culture at least that the idea of women not working is only as old as the 20th century, mostly as a byproduct of industrial labor turning towards factory work when it once wasn't as fixated on it. The issue with why dual income households or business success has become more of a focus is an economic issue more than one of gender. 

If you want to backstep women's rights far enough to push how they shouldn't feel like they need to work, then society needs to become more affordable so that a single income home is realistic enough to even consider. 

 Glad you're the one stuck going in circles with this intensely dishonest person for that moment. He one hundred percent supports slavery, just as he supports capital but capitalism is easier to hide behind than the word slavery. Of course he's less likely to be openly pro slavery if it's going to be an inconvenience.

Notice how he immediately shut downs at the implication of actually supporting social structure (socialism) instead of just forcing and infantilizing women to be house maids with zero support (what he really wants as a fascist.)

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

It's literal definition, except in this case focusing on how the lives of marginalized groups stand to be treated worse for the time being. 

Like the straight white man, everyone is marginalized.

If you were to compare how hard white men have it compared to other marginalized groups, how comparable would you actually find them to be? 

Right now there are places that won't hire white men, because they are white men. Progressives called that progress.

A lot of what has white people flipping out is over how they're suddenly being treated equally. 

Untrue. White people are 70% of the US. Because of that more white people will be employed. It's also just as difficult for a white man as an individual to score in life as it is for a person of colour. 

It's not the 70% vs. the 30% that make up the rest. It's us as individuals vs. the 100%. 

The woke idology basically cancels the 70% ( the majority ) in favor of the 30%. They do this in the name of equality, and wrongfully so. 

The white person's greatest threat, are other white people. White people attacking white people, because those white people who attack whites for being white, unknowingly have a true white supremacist way of thinking, where they think it's up to them to take a knee so coloured people can have a chance. 

It's actually insulting for coloured people tbh, though if you're not white, it's not a bad idea to take advantage of the situation and score a good paying job either, since the white people seem to have have self destructive internal/race issues, might as well keep looking for work anyway. 

See they're not even people to you, they're just the subject of right wing talking points that you can parrot. 

You're doing that thing again. Sure they're people.

Do you see how speaking in that way has them not really being treated as peers? 

It'd be like if I were to allude to among the worst among Christians to say how all Christians should be treated. 

Men are stealing women's identities by claiming to be women, while real women are considered to be child bearers or cis-women with bonus holes. 

You ever wonder why most men don't box women or slap them silly even though they may deserve it ? It's something we frown on.

None of this has to do with how people with gender dysphoria are to be treated, it's more about how they should treat others and respect boundaries. If you have a dick, then use the men's room, and join male sports, otherwise you're disrespecting women. 

I never needed any talking points to think something is wrong with men dunking on women at sports, or men in the women's changeroom. 

I don't believe in fake promouns. While I'm straight I have no desire to enable or participate in what strikes me as genuine gender-dysphoria.

...do you not know what talking points are? You're using talking points right there... to claim you don't use talking points.

Language has been refined around this subject. 

In all my years, since I was a child I knew wearing a dress doesn't mean a man can use the girls room. Anyone with half a brain knows that. A child can see men are generally stronger than women and the ( TWO ) genders are separated in sports.

I know transexuals will only appeal to queer people sexually. They'll only be able to date queer people, and they are queer people. It's not bigotry to not be attracted to them, or not believe they are what they identify as.

It's a mental disorder. You say you're a female trapped in a males body, that's a disorder, so you're free to say what you want, but to expect others to validate your claims is overstepping boundaries, we don't exactly play along with mental disorders because they are dysfunctional. 

It's not like you know the statistics, singular anecdotes are enough to cause an uproar apparently.

You seem to think my outlook is based on what others say. That isn't the case. Of course you'll carry on thinking all of these lines and buzzwords is the reason why I'm, as you say, bigoted toward certain people. I'd tell you in the real world pretending or being weak is ineffective and will kill our success rate and bring us to poverty even of the richest of societies. We never built all of this technology because of bullshit, nor do we keep a job if we're unable to perform. 

Normalizing -isms is going to stand to do damage. 

While it's generally bad to suppress speech, it's mostly bad over the backlash that follows the attempt at said suppression. Over how strongly language was supressed by those who ascribe to -isms has been, people who'd now be at the butt end of that are going to have a worse time for a while. 

Unlike any time in nodern history, things were done in such a way, people will suffer over such things as they do now. It's a failed ideology.

This same rationale you just typed here could be used to rationalize slavery. We've had around 11,000 years of slavery, in the US it was only abolished around 158 years ago, and some countries still practice it. 

Through the lens of your logic typed above, would you say we should re-enslave black people over how modern their freedoms are? 

This is where I'd insult your intelligence, with your whole "This same rational "could" be  used to rationalize slavery. Your following question is then misguided by made up accusations.

Before I entertain your question, I really need you to explain to me how your perception of my logic suggest black people should be re-enslaved.

You know Nathan, it's funny how a white man such as yourself asks me that, while my entire family is black. But please explain your perception of my logic and how it suggests re-enslavement. 

---

Using a highly unstable mentally ill person as a general statistic is going to skew the outcome, and with it the legitimacy of your claim. 

It'd be like using me as a prime example of a man, it's going to not reflect the average. 

The mental illness supports my claim even more, cause she blew away her chances with multiple guys who offered her stability. None of the rules change with other female subjects who don't lose their grip.

How does someone being atypical have them reflect a typical situation? 

Because again, the rules doesn't change, and when it comes to Quintasia, she's an extreme cause with multiple revelations of hitting the floor each time she rejects a guy who brings stability. That was true with Chapo, and it was true with Tryptamine. A healthy minded woman wouldn't blow it as much as she did, but the cases remains the same. Some women "NEED" good men, or else their life will turn to shit and they'll suffer.  Yes, men are the bigger prize in most cases.

In most cases, men are the prize. 

Bullshit, you don't see Men making as much cash on Onlyfans. 

On Onlyfans, the men are the reward for the model. The model who has no men will remain poor, which in my opinion is more of a blessing in a disguise. The successful OF model has been destroyed, AND, she's a really bad catch. Imagine what she will put a guy through. She's best being a single childless whore until her beauty fades.

When it comes to sexual marketplace value it's clear that women are more prized than men.

Yes. Men have no inherent value. That's why I specify "a good man". 

A promiscuous woman doesn't bring value to the table, she brings poverty. Women are hypergamous in nature, she will leave a man if he loses his wealth. She won't respect him, she'll cheat and will always have one foot out the door. 

If she's too hot she's never his, it's just his turn. 

A woman in society as it is now will also find it much easier to bag a man, even multiple men, than a man has chances with landing a woman, which to me demonstrates that men must be less valuable. 

The multiple guys who rail her, are the same guys who are railing all the women who seek multiple sex partners. 

That type of woman is not a good catch. 

In a Patriarchal structure, they try to justify infantilizing women before going on about how they have "inherent value" in ways a man does not. In a male-structured society, women are the prize, and our media dials that to 11.

They sure used to be, but those days are long gone. Today I'm convinced a unicorn is a prize for men. The west is a diverse place with women from around the world, but, it did something to women.

In most cases, men have more to offer in relationships than women do. In most cases he's the gifted one. He can build. Provide. Pay. Protect. Entertain. Fix. He's the tank. The one who has to sacrifice himself in many ways. The one who has to go and die first under attack. 

All a man wants is respect from his partner, that's hard to come by more and more these days.  

I've seen more than enough cases where divvying the roles outside of expected norms has worked out for all involved. 

Single women have to man up quite a bit in the traditional sense.

I discuss stuff like this with very feminin women and they by far don't want male traditional roles. They also hate having to work. Of course they do think they are the prize even when they are the takers in the relationship. 

I've had conversations with plenty of women who have embraced independence, and plenty of men who would prefer to tend to the home and raise the kids. Just hit a college campus, they're not hard to find. 

Not saying they'll all be unhappy, but the most unhappy women you'll find are among them. They'll be alone when their old. 

So we've talked with people who have a preference in opposite directions, so why not allow them the choice for which they'd prefer? If a woman (or a man) wants to go full on Tradwife there should be nothing stopping that, and if a woman (or man) wants to work in the workplace there shouldn't be obstacles there either. Rather than asigning people roles, people should be given choices when it comes to these things. 

Hm Yeah. I'm not islamic y'know. If the soft guy wants to stay home all day and wait for the kids to come back from school, then who'll stop him ? Eventually his wife will leave him for someone who turns her on more though. Maybe she'll just stick around cause she's gotten old. Who knows. Statistics show us what women like, and it's never really those guys. 

Also... it's worth considering by the model of US culture at least that the idea of women not working is only as old as the 20th century, mostly as a byproduct of industrial labor turning towards factory work when it once wasn't as fixated on it. The issue with why dual income households or business success has become more of a focus is an economic issue more than one of gender. 

If you want to backstep women's rights far enough to push how they shouldn't feel like they need to work, then society needs to become more affordable so that a single income home is realistic enough to even consider. 

I never grew up in a world where women never worked. My generation has many names including the keylatch children, because we were the first generation in mass to carry house keys and return to our homes unsupervised on a weekday, because our parents were both working. 

The whole conversation about women and work, their progress and how far they've made it, isn't all that interesting. Its normal and nothing new.

Dragoonback said: 

Glad you're the one stuck going in circles with this intensely dishonest person for that moment.

He one hundred percent supports slavery, just as he supports capital but capitalism is easier to hide behind than the word slavery.

I was being rhetorically facetious, I don't actually think he'd support re-enslaving his own people over how that'd stand to hit his own privileges. 

Notice how he immediately shut downs at the implication of actually supporting social structure (socialism) instead of just forcing and infantilizing women to be house maids with zero support (what he really wants as a fascist.)

The guy's been told repeatedly that Socialism is Evil and Destroys Nations, using the frame of history as a guide for what to expect in the modern day. 

Spatial Mind said:

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Like the straight white man, everyone is marginalized.

If you were to compare how hard white men have it compared to other marginalized groups, how comparable would you actually find them to be? 

Right now there are places that won't hire white men, because they are white men. Progressives called that progress.

It's not that they won't hire them, it's that they have enough white people already. 

The problem with trying to explain why DEI is a good idea is over how the listener has to be a long term thinker. Obviously in the moment it will serve as a subtle disadvantage towards those who were otherwise accustomed to how easy it's been, but over the long term it will allow enough success within every racial model for long enough for future generations to feel inspired by their own parents. 

What sacrifices marginal levels of efficiency will ensure future growth in ways we'd otherwise not see by keeping things how they already are. 

A lot of what has white people flipping out is over how they're suddenly being treated equally. 

Untrue. White people are 70% of the US. Because of that more white people will be employed. It's also just as difficult for a white man as an individual to score in life as it is for a person of colour. 

Consider the likelihood of racial mixing, and how given enough time the mixing will further. 

Ideally far enough in the future, 'white' won't even exist in the US in favor of a racial soup we can truly call American. 

It's not the 70% vs. the 30% that make up the rest. It's us as individuals vs. the 100%. 

But you would admit that certain advantages exist by being part of a majority, yes? 

The woke idology basically cancels the 70% ( the majority ) in favor of the 30%. They do this in the name of equality, and wrongfully so. 

It aims to reduce the rate of success they are coasting on in order to equalize it across the board. 

If some suffer and others benefit, assuming there's a connection between the two, naturally helping those who suffer will harm those who benefit. 

The white person's greatest threat, are other white people. White people attacking white people, because those white people who attack whites for being white, unknowingly have a true white supremacist way of thinking, where they think it's up to them to take a knee so coloured people can have a chance. 

White people are the ones with the privilege to give away, why would it threaten anyone else? 

Of course white people would find white people 'selling their own people out' to be a threat, we have more than enough historical precedent to show how those of privilege respond to a grand rebalancing. 

Seriously, read some stories from when black people were meant to be treated as equals and you'll start to see a startling number of parallels to women's rights. 

It's actually insulting for coloured people tbh, though if you're not white, it's not a bad idea to take advantage of the situation and score a good paying job either, since the white people seem to have have self destructive internal/race issues, might as well keep looking for work anyway. 

Only over how it can be taken as telling someone who never asked for it that they need help. This view in general is short sighted and self-referential, if they were to look beyond their own luck they'd see the bigger picture is super fucked up as a matter of Sociology. 

You're doing that thing again. Sure they're people.

Do you see how speaking in that way has them not really being treated as peers? 

It'd be like if I were to allude to among the worst among Christians to say how all Christians should be treated. 

Men are stealing women's identities by claiming to be women, while real women are considered to be child bearers or cis-women with bonus holes. 

You ever wonder why most men don't box women or slap them silly even though they may deserve it ? It's something we frown on.

So they're not people?

Do they not deserve your respect at a very base level over that? 

Doesn't that seem superficial? 

None of this has to do with how people with gender dysphoria are to be treated, it's more about how they should treat others and respect boundaries. If you have a dick, then use the men's room, and join male sports, otherwise you're disrespecting women. 

Do you even know what happens to trans people dressed the opposite bathroom's part that they've entered, when 'the dicks' otherwise go to the men's bathroom? 

Third bathroom's the best solution, but that costs money. Frame it as a diaper changing station as well like airports do and it should be seen as a net plus for both groups. 

I never needed any talking points to think something is wrong with men dunking on women at sports, or men in the women's changeroom. 

I don't believe in fake promouns. While I'm straight I have no desire to enable or participate in what strikes me as genuine gender-dysphoria.

...do you not know what talking points are? You're using talking points right there... to claim you don't use talking points.

Language has been refined around this subject. 

This isn't language, it's anecdotes, and I will preserve the text below to allow it's self-demonstration: 

In all my years, since I was a child I knew wearing a dress doesn't mean a man can use the girls room. Anyone with half a brain knows that. A child can see men are generally stronger than women and the ( TWO ) genders are separated in sports.

I know transexuals will only appeal to queer people sexually. They'll only be able to date queer people, and they are queer people. It's not bigotry to not be attracted to them, or not believe they are what they identify as.

It's a mental disorder. You say you're a female trapped in a males body, that's a disorder, so you're free to say what you want, but to expect others to validate your claims is overstepping boundaries, we don't exactly play along with mental disorders because they are dysfunctional. 

I've never denied that gender dysphoria is a disorder, nor have I stated that it's something that ought to be done so readily. I agree that someone shouldn't be able to walk into a clinic and immediately be handed hormones, other than those with blatant cases as the exception rather than the presumed norm. There are blatantly people giving out hormone treatments with the idea in their minds that they're revolutionaries rather than health professionals, and if you'd stop lumping people together you'd see that there are differences to split within groups of people. 

Now my question moreso, is why should we not show sympathy for the mentally ill? What good does it do mentally ill people to purposely try to make their lives harder? 

It's not like you know the statistics, singular anecdotes are enough to cause an uproar apparently.

You seem to think my outlook is based on what others say.

You are parroting very few points and calling it 'refined language'.

Spatial Mind said: 

It's not like you know the statistics, singular anecdotes are enough to cause an uproar apparently.

You seem to think my outlook is based on what others say.

Even further, having run out of characters in the post above, I'd say that you ought to know better than that by now after the sheer number of conversations that we've had. Even further, you're usually the one trying to tell other people  that I was the bad influence on their beliefs, so how am I supposed to now be the victim of a ringleader after you've called on me as said ringleader? 

lol come on, am I the 'others' against myself here? Or are you saying that someone on this forum pushed me in this direction? 

Unlike any time in nodern history, things were done in such a way, people will suffer over such things as they do now. It's a failed ideology.

This same rationale you just typed here could be used to rationalize slavery. We've had around 11,000 years of slavery, in the US it was only abolished around 158 years ago, and some countries still practice it. 

Through the lens of your logic typed above, would you say we should re-enslave black people over how modern their freedoms are? 

This is where I'd insult your intelligence, with your whole "This same rational "could" be  used to rationalize slavery. Your following question is then misguided by made up accusations.

No, it's using philosophical structure to point out the absurdity of your argument regardless of context. 

If it doesn't apply there, then it shouldn't apply to your own point either. 

Before I entertain your question, I really need you to explain to me how your perception of my logic suggest black people should be re-enslaved.

You know Nathan, it's funny how a white man such as yourself asks me that, while my entire family is black. But please explain your perception of my logic and how it suggests re-enslavement. 

This same rationale you typed earlier, as demonstrated in the quote above, could be used to rationalize slavery. We've had around 11,000 years of slavery, in the US it was only abolished around 158 years ago, and some countries still practice it. 

Do you see how claiming something is relatively new is not a real argument? 

The mental illness supports my claim even more, cause she blew away her chances with multiple guys who offered her stability. None of the rules change with other female subjects who don't lose their grip.

How does someone being atypical have them reflect a typical situation? 

Because again, the rules doesn't change

They literally do, and if I were to play the same game of finding any person within the gender to make points you'd see a very absurdist picture. 

, and when it comes to Quintasia, she's an extreme cause with multiple revelations of hitting the floor each time she rejects a guy who brings stability. That was true with Chapo, and it was true with Tryptamine. A healthy minded woman wouldn't blow it as much as she did, but the cases remains the same. Some women "NEED" good men, or else their life will turn to shit and they'll suffer.  Yes, men are the bigger prize in most cases.

If your point is otherwise sound, you'd be better off finding a new example. 

Spatial Mind said: 

To revisit the point above, should I be using Turquie's history with Christianity as an anecdote when talking about Christians in general? Not liking her doesn't dismiss her as, (are you ready for this ? I think not) a real Christian. 

I could say the same for your example too, she is a Christian, so she is an example of a 'real one'. Therefor, should I assume everything those two go on about should be taken as how other Christians act? 

 Any person can be a Christian. Even crazy people. Identifying as a Christian isn't the same as claiming to be something they can never be. Like a hamster, or some opposite or unheard of gender. 

As for Turquie, I've had some deep conversations with her before, and she's actually very deep when it comes to Christianity and what's written in the Bible. She swings in and out of Christianity, even had what's known in the DSM as a Spiritual Crisis, that's probably part of why she's here on Earth. She has shit to resolve. Maybe she has demons.  

So I should use the things they say about Christianity to identify the life that you live, because those two are 'Real Christians'? 

In most cases, men are the prize. 

Bullshit, you don't see Men making as much cash on Onlyfans. 

On Onlyfans, the men are the reward for the model.

You're very deeply confused if you see the men who are funneling money towards them as anything less than exploited. Personally I am fine with that exploitation, but I won't deny what it is. 

The one yearned for is the prize, not the one seeking it, and enough people seeking the same person grants them pseudo-celebrity status. This status is far easier for women to grab than men, and that inherently shows how they are more valuable as a byproduct of a patriarchal structure. 

It's just like 'The Male Gaze' in Hollywood films, we are literally conditioned at a young age to see 'getting the girl' as the prize. For fucks sake it's even in videogames like Legend of Zelda, where's your head at? 

When it comes to sexual marketplace value it's clear that women are more prized than men.

Yes. Men have no inherent value. That's why I specify "a good man". 

Then men are inherently less valuable, have to work that much harder than women, and as the ones who have to work harder are not a prize unless they otherwise ascend the limitations of their gender in a Patriarchal society. 

The point of Patriarchy is to both tell men that they are the strong ones and that they're never working hard enough. Both genders suffer in this model, which is why Feminism has the convenience as a counter-response of supporting the values of both genders in spite of it's name. 

In a Patriarchal structure, they try to justify infantilizing women before going on about how they have "inherent value" in ways a man does not. In a male-structured society, women are the prize, and our media dials that to 11.

They sure used to be, but those days are long gone. Today I'm convinced a unicorn is a prize for men. The west is a diverse place with women from around the world, but, it did something to women.

In most cases, men have more to offer in relationships than women do.

Correction; Men have to work harder, because society says so within a Patriarchal structure. Because society is framed around the Male POV that naturally frames heteronormative averages as presenting women as the prize. (That being said, in the name of capital the dual income household has pushed for equality). 

They pair them with expensive cars and wealth to try to trick men into conflating the two subjects together, and to sell product. Women are the prize so literally that anything next to them is a prize by association. 

Even further, there are more women who want women then there are men who want men. You do the math, the prize is clear. 

In most cases he's the gifted one. He can build. Provide. Pay. Protect. Entertain. Fix. He's the tank. The one who has to sacrifice himself in many ways. The one who has to go and die first under attack. 

All a man wants is respect from his partner, that's hard to come by more and more these days.  

See that doesn't say a Man is a prize, that says that the few exceptional men could be construed as one over working that much harder. 

The average man is no prize, while the average woman is. Accept it, the only thing men have over women is their place in the workforce, and women are taking their place as we see them surpassing men in college environments. Even the brute force answer of men being stronger than women will phase out as gun rights become the norm, considering both genders die fairly equally to a headshot or even a tazer. 

Maybe even CCTV tazer darts so no one even needs to fight in the first place. 

Single women have to man up quite a bit in the traditional sense.

I discuss stuff like this with very feminin women and they by far don't want male traditional roles. They also hate having to work. Of course they do think they are the prize even when they are the takers in the relationship. 

I've had conversations with plenty of women who have embraced independence, and plenty of men who would prefer to tend to the home and raise the kids. Just hit a college campus, they're not hard to find. 

Not saying they'll all be unhappy, but the most unhappy women you'll find are among them. They'll be alone when their old. 

If they find a man (or woman) willing to raise kids while they continue working, nothing goes wrong. 

So we've talked with people who have a preference in opposite directions, so why not allow them the choice for which they'd prefer? If a woman (or a man) wants to go full on Tradwife there should be nothing stopping that, and if a woman (or man) wants to work in the workplace there shouldn't be obstacles there either. Rather than asigning people roles, people should be given choices when it comes to these things. 

Hm Yeah. I'm not islamic y'know. If the soft guy wants to stay home all day and wait for the kids to come back from school, then who'll stop him ?

The Patriarchy puts a lot of pressure on said men, calling them lazy even though raising a child is an honorable undertaking. 

That being said, it's more likely that people will try to stop women from working than stop men from child rearing, but both have faced a similar level of disrespect if not confusion from people in the past that we're only just now starting to roughly normalize. 

Maybe it's the Bisexual aspects of me thinking this makes sense, but people need to sort themselves into Workers and Nurturers rather than leaning on gender as if it were those things. 

Eventually his wife will leave him for someone who turns her on more though. Maybe she'll just stick around cause she's gotten old. Who knows. Statistics show us what women like, and it's never really those guys. 

Literally seen marriages where the woman made more money and the man tended to the house last for decades, you're just stuck in right wing talking points again. 

The stats don't really matter if enough of each gender prove to be the exception against the averaged expectation. If a soft man and a hard woman meet and things work out for them, why would the wife leave when this husband is otherwise allowing her to live the life she wants by virtue of being himself? 

Turncoat said: 

Dragoonback said: 

Glad you're the one stuck going in circles with this intensely dishonest person for that moment.

As absurd as his points seem, sometimes they're correct. If I were to disregard the argument just because of who he is, I'd be no better than him. 

He one hundred percent supports slavery, just as he supports capital but capitalism is easier to hide behind than the word slavery.

I was being rhetorically facetious, I don't actually think he'd support re-enslaving his own people over how that'd stand to hit his own privileges. 

Notice how he immediately shut downs at the implication of actually supporting social structure (socialism) instead of just forcing and infantilizing women to be house maids with zero support (what he really wants as a fascist.)

The guy's been told repeatedly that Socialism is Evil and Destroys Nations, using the frame of history as a guide for what to expect in the modern day. 

I've mentioned a hundred times some aspects of socialism is good. 

That being the welfare system. A nation should look after the less fortunate, or else there will be a lot more chaos. Higher crime rates and shit. Yes some aspects of socialism is the way. What I'm not is an radical socialist.

And I boast about enjoying a socialised healthcare system in Canada, and how Canadians don't fear getting ill or injured as there is no threat of losing our homes. I like not having to pay health insurance. If it cannot be done here, our healthcare system will fly us anywhere in the world to have it done, and it'll be cheap or free depending on our financial status. That is, if you're a welfare case then you'll be looked after anyway. 

I don't believe someone in need of assistance is entitled to 80k-100k a year and given a beautiful 4 bedroom home, and that's what the radicals take issue with.

Despite your sudden improvement you still have a long way to go Nathan, though you're without a doubt superior to the local antifa member over there. 

My time must be spent more wisely.