trump started war with Venezuela

Even if I buy the first part, we're talking about rape and not murder, so what does it have to do with whether or not the victims are "disposable"? I don't think the problem people have with rape is that it stops people from furthering society, it's that it's done without consent and can be traumatic.

Also I disagree with the first part. Men don't have wombs, but they are much less disposable as far as labor is concerned. And furthering society only matters is we care about what happens to people in society, so no one is really disposable.

The discussion wasnt about the legality or morality of rape, but about why the rape of women is treated as a more grave matter in most societies. I obviously don't think rape should be considered legal or moral, but gravity with which it is treated is informed by cultural norms.

Those norms are in turn ultimately informed by childbearing. The question was not whether someone was disposable but whether they were expendable. A hard laborer is expended for production. A soldier is expended for offense or defense. It goes without saying that disposing of a healthy man for no good reason is foolish, but expending him for some greater purpose is not. This why historically men were employed in dangerous labor or deployed as soldiers while women were not, aside from the obvious strength differential.

That difference in perceived societal value is what informs the perceived disposability of men, why they are viewed more often as tools or weapons rather than something to be nurtured and protected. This is just the way of the world. It is in the nature of a man to take the slings and arrows of the world without relying on the sympathy of others.

If you would joke about male victims of rape, you are not a Christian.

Puritanism n. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy

I have some Puritan overlap but I definitely see 0 room for a Catholic to joke about males being raped.

Puritans in modern times are actually more likely to make such vile jokes as I notice their morals are not nearly as rigid as they pretend they are.

This works only in non Christian societies.

For Christian societies it will be Hellboundedness for any engaging in this... I dont know why but God ruled it so. 1 man for 1 woman or we go to Hell. No option 3. Clearly stated by none other than Lord Yeshua himself.

You misinterpreted this as support for polygamy. The fact of the matter is that a man just needs to stay married to a young woman for a decade to have more than enough children to maintain a population. Another decade to raise most of them to a point where they are contributing to society. Outside of that window, or even within it, he is seen as more expendable than the wife who is entrusted with his progeny, and the care and respect given to widows is reflective of the fact that widows were historically much more common than widowers.

Speaking from pragmatic viewpoint I do not remotely see how monogamy can counterbalance war losses in any way that makes men more dispensable than women to thed egree you.implied based on repopulation potential.

Only bigamy would begin to make your point make sense.

In my honest opinion idk what Yeshua meant when he set it as a hard absolute rule. It does seem to guarantee Christian depopulation post war that for instance Islamic approach never experiences post war otber than due to starvation or further in-fighting.

Men marry and have two or more children young, then go to war in their late 20s-30s, with state support for war widows. It's not rocket science.

Demand and supply Dreamer.

Something that the hard nosed business man understands.

The U.S might as well run the narcotics business too.

The Trump regime is clearly just as corrupt as the Maduro regime.

The U.S used to come with a certain diplomatic credibility and respect worthiness, but it's losing it fast.

November 2028 and the next 35 months will be very entertaining for sure.

The idea is most of.those other 50% died in the war.

that doesnt happen in modern age almost never, and definitely not during peacetime. Also, the only way that works is if men die, so ratio of men to women in society stops being 1 1 in the first place. But any society historically during peace time or lack of mass death of men would suffer a lot if each man took 2 women, because then 50% of men would have to die to fix the ratio to avoid mass amount of single men. It is just impossible for one man to have 2 wives, without the other man either dying either being single and likely driven insane.

they are viewed more often as tools or weapons rather than something to be nurtured and protected

No, my son will be protected (necessary condition for survival of offspring) and he will also be nurtured (necessary for maximal brain development).

I understand you see men as animals who are supposed to just kill each other so winner is made stronger, because you read it in Hitler's books (yes, I know you read Hitler's books), however, I have better plans for humanity which are based on unity and logic.

Polygamy makes sense if ratio of men to women isnt 1:1, but women are in higher number than men.

this happens during war, ratio slightly changes (not much tho).

But it also happens in cases where a great amount of men refuse to reproduce, which happens in modern time.

But the problem of modern time is that there is a lot of women who refuse to reproduce, and that cannot in any way be made up for by polygamy.

So the only scenario where polygamy makes sense is when we have 2 men and 4 women, and maximal reproduction is achieved by each man having 2 wives, unless one man is sterile, in which case, the other man would have to take 4 wives.

But this ratio rarely ever happens, and there are a lot of single men seeking relationship, so wide spread polygamy would make life a lot worse for them and reduce odds.

I know some men in my country have 2 wives, polygamy is legal here. But its rare because its not something women usually agree to. Most women are opposed to mere idea of sharing a husband.

Countries like mine where polygamy is legal usually see a problem in polygamy, that such relationship actually produces less children per woman (because its more difficult for one man to make 4 women pregnant than it is for 4 men to make 4 women pregnant).

No, my son will be protected (necessary condition for survival of offspring) and he will also be nurtured (necessary for maximal brain development).

Children need that. Men do not. If your son isn't weened off of that sort of treatment in adolescence he will be slapped in the face by reality and end up a genetic dead end, in all likelihood.

I understand you see men as animals who are supposed to just kill each other so winner is made stronger, because you read it in Hitler's books (yes, I know you read Hitler's books), however, I have better plans for humanity which are based on unity and logic.

I'm not sure which 'Hitler books' you're talking about - Mein Kampf isn't exactly a parenting guide or anthropological dissection of gender roles. And Hitler wasn't exactly a profligate man of letters. But I'm sure you have limited experience with any shade of literacy.

Children need that. Men do not.

So you concede male children also need protection and nurturing.

Now, you seem to say men specifically dont need protection or nurturing. Now can you explain why male children benefit from protection, and men do not?

Now, you seem to say men specifically dont need protection or nurturing. Now can you explain why male children benefit from protection, and men do not?

Because men are the ones who have to protect and nurture the children and their mother. The world at large certainly isn't going to do it. That nurturing environment is a temporary luxury, a bubble that the father carved out of a harsh reality and the mother maintained, a safe enclave which allowed their children to develop into adults who can one day not only survive outside of it but to carve their own protective bubbles for their own children. So every male child must transition into some semblance of that role, or become a failed incel who is repellant to any woman with an ounce of sense. Women have their own, parallel evolution to move through that usually involves navigating social situations deftly.

Because men are the ones who have to protect and nurture the children and their mother. The world at large certainly isn't going to do it. That nurturing environment is a temporary luxury, a bubble that the father carved out of a harsh reality and the mother maintained, a safe enclave which allowed their children to develop into adults who can one day not only survive outside of it but to carve their own protective bubbles for their own children. So every male child must transition into some semblance of that role, or become a failed incel who is repellant to any woman with an ounce of sense. Women have their own, parallel evolution to move through that usually involves navigating social situations deftly.

Now, what you said here makes sense, but conclusion doesnt follow from it, because again, your conclusion was that men dont need to be protected, which doesnt follow from statement that men are necessary to protect women and children. If men are necessary for protection of women and children, then not protecting men from harm is a logical contradiction when goal is protection of women and children, goal achieved indirectly by men being safe from harm.

So if men didnt need to be protected (thus, harm done to them wouldnt be prevented), it would result in men being harmed, which would harm women and children indirectly who depend on man to be safe in order to protect them.

Now, what you said here makes sense, but conclusion doesnt follow from it, because again, your conclusion was that men dont need to be protected, which doesnt follow from statement that men are necessary to protect women and children. If men are necessary for protection of women and children, then not protecting men from harm is a logical contradiction when goal is protection of women and children, goal achieved indirectly by men being safe from harm.

So if men didnt need to be protected (thus, harm done to them wouldnt be prevented), it would result in men being harmed, which would harm women and children indirectly who depend on man to be safe in order to protect them.

Protection isn't some magical whispy thing floating around in the ether that can be conjured by wishing and hoping for it. The world is a hostile, unforgiving place. Protection is created by someone, somewhere, confronting that harsh reality - they come into contact with that reality and shield someone else from it, and it costs them to do so. A world where everyone is protected and nobody pays a cost for it is an absurd pipe dream. Men in society are the people who pay that particular cost. Women typically weave and navigate the social frameworks that develops within that wall of protection, and pay their own costs while confronting their own dangers.

So your theory is that men get sacrificed to protect women and children.

Yet conclusion that men shouldnt be protected still doesnt follow. Logically, a man can only be sacrificed to protect women and children if he wasnt sacrificed for some other purpose before that, which still requires protection from being sacrificed for different purposes, as well as protection to ensure reduction in need to sacrifice in the first place.

If A depends on B in order to exist, then destroying B destroys A. this is logically true. And what logically follows too is that protecting B from being destroyed protects A too indirectly.

Saying that it is impossible to protect men is false too. Men and women, and men and men, have for a long time relied on mutual protection to increase odds of survival.

So saying that men shouldnt protect men, and that women shouldnt protect men, makes no logical sense, because for a man, it is not a dichotomy to protect a woman and to protect other man.

Trump is doing what he has to do.

By the way, he didn't start any war, he just got into Venezuela to abduct the gorilla Nicolas Maduro. Once the job was done, the US military forces left the country.

They had a war with Maduro. He lost. The end.

Trump should do the same to Cuba, Columbia and Panama. They too smuggle drugs into America.

Cuba should be left alone because it keeps people from making threads about how great top-down, central-government-run socialism is.

Hmmmm.

Not sure it will be "The End".

It will be the end of America. America will be flooded by South American refugees.

No curtain calls for Maduro. It's over.

It does happen. How modern is modern?

Remember 50% is of fertile, able-bodied, peak aged men old and young enough to be finctioning fathers. Not all men.

Killed 40 injured 100

State support can never replace what the husband was to the family. It can only barely try and replicate the breadwinning element.

Could you tell me the meaning of `Demand and Supply Dreamer ?

Even in the Middle Ages, casualty numbers for entire campaigns weren't that high. Agincourt, considered a collosal and abnormal bloodbath for the Frogs, had French casualty rates of 25-40% (including injuries, not all deaths). Movies dramatize battles and show the losing side as a big pile of corpses and a few straggling survivors but that's not how it worked historically. Most people came home from a battle, with 10% being a 'normal' casualty rate for entire campaigns. If war was as brutal as movies portrayed it, every king who led a foreign misadventure would return with no forces to keep order and an imploding peasant population.

And if the issue is replacing fathers as caregivers, polygamy makes that problem worse, not better, because each dead man leaves behind multiple widows. This is why in polygamous societies it's usually practiced by the upper echelons of society - they usually have much better survival rates in battle due to armor and ransoms.

WWI was very bad for casualties because the modern weapons killed many as they fled. The Civil War was also quite a shocker for the time.