Honestly, what's so wrong about being a misogynist?
>>26995850
You can't tell the truth in people's faces. Someone might get offended.
>>26996038
We wouldn't want any hurt feelings, now would we? Let's just all tell ourselves comforting lies instead.
>>26995850
>Honestly, what's so wrong about being a misogynist?
Have you ever seen that film Shutter Island? Do you remember the part with Ted Levine where he says how there's no moral order as pure as the storm on the island?
There is no real downside to being a "bad" person other than in getting caught or suffering material blowback of one sort or another. A lot of misogynists live long, happy, satisfied well-fed lives and get everything they want. Why would you give half a shit if some woman gets hurt? What does it ultimately matter?
>>26996230
I have seen it. I would give a shit because I'm too empathetic of a person.
>>26996230
In a healthy society it wouldn't matter much, but in the tolerant and progressive society we live in today hurting a woman's feelings can result in being alienated from your community, fired from your job and sometimes it might even go all the way up to false rape accusations and a jail sentence.
>>26996322
>but in the tolerant and progressive society we live in today hurting a woman's feelings can result in being alienated from your community, fired from your job and sometimes it might even go all the way up to false rape accusations and a jail sentence.
That's true, but again that mostly just falls into my "don't get caught" part
>>26995850
nothing. very original comment
>>26995850
Because it's silly.
Being misogynist is like believing in the idea that certain people are born with sin.
Become a superior misanthrope today.
>>26997908
>hating everyone
youre pathetic and probably underage
>>26997922
Hating everyone equally is more reasonable than hating people for circumstances, unfortunate as they may be, outside their own control.
>>26995850
Because it's a generalisation. Even if it was the case that 70% of women were worse than men at most things, it would be incorrect to say that "all women are bad at everything". Same goes to if 70% of the female population are bitches. By generalising, you're ignoring a portion of your target group, which introduces a bias to your argument. This bias means that a significant part of your ideals are made up, making your argument and ideals fallacious.
Only retards generalise. Look at everyone with an open mind, it pays off.
>>26998301
>Only retards generalise
Generalisation and pattern recognition are why we aren't picking grubs in caves, retard.
>>26998301
Being correct 70% of times is actually pretty good imo. Are you sure generalizations are actually bad?
Because alienating half the population from your life is a pretty lousy way to live. But no, there's nothing morally wrong with it, if that's the answer you're looking for.
>>26998326
Having babies with multiple partners is also the reason why humans prevailed through the ages as a species, but if we kept doing that the AIDS epidemic wouldn't have stayed in the 70's.
Applying ancient instinctive principles to the current state of the human mind makes as much sense as applying current morals to actions from centuries ago.
>>26998301
This is the stupidest post I've read on this board today. Congratulations.
>b-b-but generalizations are mean! u should be open-minded and tweat evewyone as an individuwaw! XDDD
Generalizations exist for a reason, as do stereotypes. If 70% of women are bad at something then it's correct to say that women, on average, are bad at that thing. Fuck off with your feefees and focus on the facts, you pathetic faggot.
>>26998393
70% is really good odds, but claiming "all x people are y" based on 70% is fallacious. You would be lying to yourself. Additionally, you'll never find a value as high as 70% in human behaviour.
>>26998489
You specified "on average", which reduces the bias of your argument. You didn't state that all women are bad at it. And if you have data to back it up, it's not a generalisation.
The problem arises when you meet a woman and expect her to be bad at it. That's where you're introducing your bias into an environment you don't otherwise know, so you're acting on assumption. That's retarded.
>>26998557
I am sure more than 70% of people want to have sex with someone who is attractive. Are you going to claim you can't make this generalization?
How about a woman can get laid easier than a men if both of them are of similarly attractive. Is it not a fair generalization?
>>26998557
100% of conscious living people breathe
>>26998326
Every advanced animal that wants to survive has a pattern recognition, it is instinctive. It is thinking forward and getting abstract ideas that took us further than that, and any intelligent person can realise that fighting with other 'tribes' (basically any groups of people that we wont recognise as belonging to our type of group, which is really subjective if you think of it) forever wont lead this world to any good. If a person that doesnt belong to your set group appears to have a potential significant value to both groups, but you decide to disregard it, then yes you are being lazy and pretty much retarded because you cant help but rely on your instincts that tell you 'no, i dont see it everyday in my group, abort'. And majority of people would react that way, really. It could also work the other way, by welcoming any oddity just because you know it is different, so attractove in your eyes.
>>26995850
What's so wrong with misandry? Nothing wrong when a woman says "men are all pigs" or "men are all rapists".
>>26998945
>tolerance and humanism will save the world
No they won't. Honestly murdering half of the planet would be the best possible course of action for the human race right now.
>>26998882
Attraction is subjective.
