What's the worst thing about women's rights?
>>27941598
That they tend to destroy society wherever they are implemented. Birth rates drop, social welfare increases, and 3rd worlders flood the society to the point of collapse. Take a good, hard look at Sweden. Look at Germany. Look at France.
>>27941598
The right to vote
>>27941598
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxpVwBzFAkw
I can't think of anything more damning than what's in this video (which is completely sourced).
According to history, Western Civilization is already lost.
>>27941654
That's more of a problem with the nature of men than it is with women's rights.
>>27941807
So it's men's fault that they don't produce for society when there is no incentive to, and they are treated as disposable work horses?
I'm not saying men are without blame, but to act as though women are guilt-free is horse shit.
Furthermore, the system we had in place before the 60s (women's vote, welfare, etc) was one that had worked, and led to the greatest period of growth in the history of the world, with the number of people living below the poverty line shrinking by 1 percent per year.
That because we've conceded to their demands, they feel that they are always correct 100% of the time without fail and if you mention they are incorrect or try to correct the problem all of a sudden you are a misogynist.
Also, the fact that if you have a non-mainstream opinion on a controversial issue (in the form of popular mass media opinion), you turn into Hitler in their eyes and must be demonized because you aren't political correct even though it's 2016.
Why do their knees get so soggy?
>>27941929
>produce for society when there is no incentive to
Yeah, they leach off anyone's attempt to help people out and have no desire to work together with the rest of society to make it a better place for everyone.
In summary, its because men are selfish, which is entirely their fault
that they already have rights but that doesn't seem to be enough
They don't want equal rights. They have had that for a while. They want preferential treatment and an advantage and if you don't give it to them you're misogynist
>>27941974
Meh. Think what you want. But don't act like the actions of women occur in a bubble. Men will react, and when there is no point to trying, they'll stop trying.
And the ones that try for themselves, rather than for a woman/family will usually find success. Then they will overwhelmingly date and fuck desperate women and toss them away, because those women are so desperate to get with somebody who can provide for their own children after they vote to whittle the middle class down to near-nothing that they lose all sense of chastity and self respect.
This leads to articles like: http://www.baka.com.au/lifestyle/life/why-women-lose-the-dating-game-20120421-1xdn0.html
Which was written by a woman, by the way.
>>27942141
>baka.com
Ha! No, it's the abbreviation for the Sydney Morning Herald.
>>27942141
Again with the men are exploitive
Is it really so bad to trust people?
>>27942183
Define, "trusting people?"
Do you mean, "Using the force of the government to take money away from productive people, and give it to unlucky, lazy, and/or stupid people, without the consent of the donor being necessary?"
Men aren't purely logical creatures, but they aren't nearly the slave to their feelings that women are, especially when it comes to strangers.
>>27942243
Unlucky and stupid yes, because they cant provide for themselves and need help
Lazy is again, men exploiting peoples good intentions
>especially when it comes to strangers.
Like I said. Selfish.
>>27942330
It's not selfish to keep what you earn, unless you can prove the obligation to give.
And, considering the fact that you are discussing this online, you haven't given as much as you could, comrade.
>>27942330
As an afterthought, you might want to actually give the articles and images I'm posting a read, because the last image I posted explained how:
>You're not cold and cruel when you refuse to help; they're being pushy and totalitarian when they refuse to take no for an answer.
>>27942141
>http://www.baka.com.au/lifestyle/life/why-women-lose-the-dating-game-20120421-1xdn0.html
Someone got a screencap?
article is down.
>>27942479
baka is supposed to be S.M.H minus the periods.
>>27942369
>unless you can prove the obligation to give.
...
>>27942427
>people suffer without the ability to fix it themselves
>you're not cruel to actively choose not to help them
>>27942494
Green text and "..." refutes nothing.
>>27942491
Oh. Thank you sir or madame
>>27942512
She's got nothing anon.
I wouldn't really bother arguing with metric, she's got nothing, and it's doubtful she really believes her own rhetoric for anything other than baiting purposes.
>>27942512
>make ambiguous sentence
>expecting me to refute it
>>27942559
There's nothing ambiguous to the statement I literally copied from the image.
Metric, I don't know you. I've never spoken to you (presuming you always use the same trip). That said, you are treating the money one earns in exchange for their time as though it isn't theirs. And, when the government does that, people react by limiting the amount of time they exchange for money, because that time can be spent enjoying life, and it isn't like they are going to lose that money anyways, thanks to progressive taxation.
And the fact that you are posting online proves that you don't entirely buy the bullshit you are peddling. If you did, you would sell the computer/phone, as well as all electronic devices, and live minimally, so that you could donate more money to people who need it.
You are a hypocrite who thinks you are exempt from your own standards, while thinking that if all of humanity was on a ship, you would destroy it so that everyone would be at the same level (the bottom of the ocean).
Meanwhile, if you are a woman who is attracted to men, you will crave one who is emotionally available for you, and not one who treats you the exact same as a complete stranger. You want a man who will love and protect any children you give him from strangers (both male and female) that would seek to do them harm.
You even crave some of that here, as you apparently tripfag, so that you AREN'T the same as everyone else.
So your sense of moral superiority is totally unearned, and you hold yourself to completely different standards than you hold the world.
Your stance reminds me of something a philosophy teacher once told me: if you're gonna go around telling people how to lose weight, you had damned well better not be fat.
>>27942714
>If you did, you would sell the computer/phone, as well as all electronic devices, and live minimally, so that you could donate more money to people who need it.
Yes anon, the best way to help people is make it harder for you to survive, right? Because fucking yourself over makes it so much easier to make money.
Oh and the idea is to bring everyone else up to your level, not the other way around :)
>>27942800
>Yes anon, the best way to help people is make it harder for you to survive, right?
You don't need a smart phone or a computer to survive.
I have a dumb phone, simply because it saves me a ton of money ($15/month for 350min, unlimited text, and 50mb of data, with all minutes, text, and data rolling over in perpetuity so long as I renew before the month of service ends; although I could limit it to 200 min/200texts for $5/month if I wanted.
I DO have a computer. A 5 year old Toshiba Satellite that runs on Mint (as it can't handle Windows 7 anymore). But then, I'm not telling people that they are selfish and should be giving more, am I?
That would be you. You could sell your phone or computer for at least 100 bucks, and get an old flip phone on ebay for 60, and save yourself money every month. Disconnect your internet, and just go to the library when you need to research something or update your resume. Get the cheapest apartment you can find, and rent it out to where 2 people sleep to a room, and spend the saved rent on others.
There's always more you can do, and you can always be called selfish for refusing to do it. And the people who do the name calling are typically stupid or lazy, because the unlucky ones will be grateful for ANY charity, because it will all go to helping them get back on their feet.
I wonder which one you are? Lazy, or stupid? I'm guessing the latter, since your only response to that post that crucified your logic was to act like living without instant access to 4chan would be a death sentence.
>>27942939
Again, the idea is to bring people's quality of life up to yours, not to lower yours to theirs
>>27942800
Explain how you do that by forcing money out of people's hands. That's literally taking from them, which brings them down. Once again, before welfare, the number of people living below the poverty line was shrinking by 1% per year. Every. Single. Year.
Once welfare was started, it stagnated, so more welfare was doled out, at which point, it grew, and has never reached the levels it was at before welfare was introduced. Logically, one could conclude that welfare has the opposite effects that one would hope, and end it.
But you would argue for even more welfare, bringing productive people even further down. This brings me to a famous quote from Stalin:
>The ultimate goal for socialism is communism.
It will never be enough, because it doesn't work. It didn't work in colonial America. It didn't work in the USSR, it didn't work in Communist China (which is no longer communist), and it's not working with North Korea. Everywhere it tries, it fails.
I also like how you completely ignored absolutely everything that crucifies your logic. Go ahead and respond with some empty platitude that feels really good and would destroy civilization if taken to its logical conclusion. We both know you're a hypocrite, and we both know that you've lost this argument, because you haven't refuted anything, let alone argued semantics, like how you would want a guy to treat you.
>>27943086
This was intended for >>27942989
>>27943086
>Once welfare was started, it stagnated, so more welfare was doled out, at which point, it grew, and has never reached the levels it was at before welfare was introduced. Logically, one could conclude that welfare has the opposite effects that one would hope, and end it.
Again with the exploiting a system set up to help people who cant help themselves.
>It will never be enough, because it doesn't work.
Yeah, because men are greedy and selfish.
>>27943132
You have no proof to anything you are claiming.
You say they are exploiting the system. Prove that it's men, not women. You say that men are greedy and selfish, while you refuse to give up a phone or a computer to better another.
You are the fat man writing a diet book. You also presume that if someone doesn't want the government to handle something, that you are against it. "If someone doesn't want governmental welfare, they are against charity!"
It's like you would think that I would want people to starve for not wanting the government to nationalize farming, when just the opposite is the truth. Look up pictures of the USSR's bread lines. Look up the starvation statistics for North Korea. Now drive down to your grocery store, and walk down the bread aisle, where it's all waiting for you, rather than the other way around.
You worship the state as though it can do no wrong, despite the fact that the opposite can be shown to be true, and often is.
It forces us to listen to women's wrongs.
>>27942989
How many hobos do you have living with you at the moment? After all, they would be happy to just sleep on the floor and use your shower, and it would cost you next to nothing.
>>27943216
>You also presume that if someone doesn't want the government to handle something, that you are against it.
I like how the government has little to do with what I'm talking about
>Now drive down to your grocery store, and walk down the bread aisle, where it's all waiting for you
>where it's all waiting for you
It's not really waiting for you if you cant afford it
As for USSR and North Korea, you do realize that there's more to it than just communism right? Like I don't know, isolationism?
>>27943250
>sleeping on my floor is better than sleeping in a cozy sleeping bag in a tent
>>27943289
>I like how the government has little to do with what I'm talking about.
Fine, then prove the problems come from men's selfishness. You also need to prove how women hold no guilt due to selfishness, as I have provided evidence stating that they share the guilt.
>As for USSR and North Korea, you do realize that there's more to it than just communism right? Like I don't know, isolationism?
North Korea isn't isolationist. They are allies with China.
USSR was expansionist, and communism took hold in much of Asia, as well as Eastern and Southern Europe. Here's a list of all the countries effected (known as the Second World): http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/second_world.htm
>sleeping on my floor is better than sleeping in a cozy sleeping bag in a tent
You've never been homeless. I can tell, because I have been. You feel like an animal. You just want someone to treat you as human, rather than a stray dog.
Furthermore, even YOU know that logic doesn't hold any weight, because you aren't even willing to give up your computer or your phone, and you talk about helping people up, while not even giving hobos the OPTION to sleep on your floor.
>>27943432
>You've never been homeless. I can tell, because I have been. You feel like an animal. You just want someone to treat you as human, rather than a stray dog.
Yup, everyone feels the exact same way
I'm sure youre a perfect representative of actual homeless people
>>27943500
As opposed to you, and your opinions based on nothing but conjecture?
If it's so great, why aren't you homeless?
>>27943500
>This one hobo I met said that he liked it, therefore all hobos like it, and I never need to ask any of them if they would like to sleep on my floor or use my shower!
What's more amusing is your adamant refusal to admit how wrong you are.
Also, I just tried to get back on subject. Let me say it again:
Fine, then prove the problems come from men's selfishness. You also need to prove how women hold no guilt due to selfishness, as I have provided evidence stating that if the problem is due to selfishness, then women share the guilt.
>>27943530
I never said it was great, these things aren't black and white
Anyways, why is the concept of bringing other people up to your standard of living so hard to grasp for you?
If I have $100 and someone else has $50, I can go out and make another $100 and bring both of us up to $125, look I'm still better off than I was
>>27943594
And that guy can also go out and make another 50 dollars, bringing him up to $100, and look, he's at the same level as you, without you needing to sacrifice a second of your life.
Also, if you want to do that, then fine. Do it. But don't like you have the grounds to force others to do the same. That would be slavery.
>>27943632
No he cant? Thats the whole reason its important.
Just because you would exploit that system doesn't make that the intent of it.
>>27943677
Anyone have that screenshot where this dumb whore tried to talk about herself but forgot she had her tripcode on and deleted the post?
>>27943677
Why can't he? I'm working 40 hours per week, and my time off is valuable. I spend it with friends and loved ones. For me to give up additional time would mean that I need to sacrifice more time for less money, and I don't find that more valuable than spending time with friends and loved ones. Furthermore, if I were to go out and work more, then I would potentially be taking a job from someone who could use it.
I'll give you an example. About a year ago, someone quit their job at my place of work. Instead of hiring another worker, they give everyone a chance to get overtime, because paying them time and a half for 16 hours every other weekend is cheaper than hiring on a 40 hr/week person, complete with health care and benefits. And before you go on about male greed, it's mostly females that take the shifts, because one shift gives them enough money to buy an expensive pair of shoes or a new purse (their explanation, not mine).
That said, the gender of the people working the OT is irrelevant. By being willing to do so, it keeps another person from being employed with healthcare and a pension.
