A bear can murder you unexpectedly, a woman almost certainly won't.
A bear can murder you unexpectedly, a woman almost certainly won't.
→They are subjects, basically.
Subjects don't get voting rights; Citizens do.
Are you saying women shouldn't get voting rights? Because I don't want to consider gender for who I let vote; IQ 120 minimum requirement irrespective of gender.
→I would rather be near bear than next to ugly women
That is equally stupid.
→Women are OK, especially very nubile ones.
You never defend your position, therefore you can't be taken seriously. Women look nubile; who cares? Their beauty won't last; you don't think this person was once beautiful:
And you want to know something? It is possible for a beautiful woman to be an idiot that shouldn't be granted voting rights due to their low IQ (the minimum IQ of 120 standard would apply to men too).
→And did Hitler actually murder anyone.
He ordered a massive genocide. Hitler was horrible.
→Or was it just sycophantic over-enthusiasm.
It could have been, but so was, “Defund the police”. The left swiftly apologized for their position here (and I actually would respect someone calling to reduce the police budget by 100% and be curious as to how they would deal with homicide cases). Man vs Bear isn't that at all.
→And Bears are funky but best left to do their own thing.
If this is really what you believe, then live away from the city and really any place with roads (roads were build by strange men). Live out in the woods where strange men don't really exist (like, Alaska woods); you may encounter a bear at some point, but at least it won't be as likely to be a strange dude as places with roads (which you say the man is worse than being a bear).
I hate women. Women owe me stuff. I am entitled to things from women.
Is it sex? No.
Is it a relationship? No.
Is it a positive opinion of me? No.
Is it a non-negative opinion of me? No.
Is it being viewed better than a bear because of my chromosomes, age, and my stranger status? YES!!!
I am entitled to be viewed better than a bear whether I know the woman or not. Women can't even give me THAT.
I didn't hate women as a group before the, “Man vs Bear” situation. Now, I hate women because they dehumanize me.
Man vs Bear made me extremely misogynist. Women said they are worried rando dudes would rape them. Imagine if I said, “I'd rather be with a bear than a woman I don't know; the bear never falsely accused anyone of SA.” Nobody would stand for that; not even the manosphere.
You play stupid games, you get the majority of Hispanic and Asian men voting for, “The immigrants are eating the pets!”
And I'm going to hate any woman that I don't know (but not worse than a bear because I'm not a hypocrite) until the feminists admit just how much they fucked up with this one. And the left has conceded gracefully before; they did it with the vaccine mandates and “Believe women” and I don't accuse the left of supporting this anymore.
But, “Man vs Bear” is vastly different than, “Believe women” because at least with the ladder, you can logically understand why someone would do that. Evidence is hard to come by with r@pe cases; victims feel a way I can't comprehend; I take them at their word, but I also don't want to be falsely accused myself. Man vs Bear allowed left wingers to simultaneously claim that calling a trans man a woman violates their human rights while saying that a trans man is worse than a bear is not a violation of their human rights.
Women now have said that due to men arguing, they actually prefer murder over (not just rape, but arguing).
Now, everyone has their own pain tolerance for which they prefer death, and I (don't agree) but respect preferring murder to rape.
But murder to arguing? Buddy, with that mentality, you would have to abide by one of the 3 policies:
1. Legalize murdering women (because it's legal to argue with them and they think arguing is worse).
2. Make arguing with a woman punishable with life imprisonment or the death penalty (basically the penalty for murder).
Both of those are crazy, but you would have to accept it with the belief that arguing is worse than murder. Yes, men argue; they do it loudly. You don't like it? Fine; arguing isn't for everyone. You'd rather get murdered? You are an idiot and I don't sugarcoat stupid women that prefer getting murdered to arguing.
If you see a bear in the woods, you mace them before they try and touch you. If you mace a strange man in the woods before they try and touch you, then you're a monster.
If women prefer the bear to the rapist, then hey; rape is horrible and I'm not a rapist, so your opinion is your opinion even if I disagree.
But to be honest, I'd rather be in the woods with Hitler than a bear. Sure, Hitler was a horrible dude that murdered millions of people, BUT I don't think I'M going to be one of those people (or at least I think my odds of survival are better than with a bear).
Now if you ask me, “Would you rather be in the woods with Hitler or Bernie Sanders?” then I will prefer the Jew over the Genocider.
But there is not a single human who I would pick the bear over (unless I knew they wanted to murder me, then it's on the fence as to who I can survive against better).
But I'm going to hate strange women because of this stupid ass stunt in 2024 that is plausibly why Harris isn't POTUS right now. Congrats women; you played yourself you fucking dummies!
But this has taught me that there should be a minimum IQ of 120 to vote in elections and a minimum IQ of 140 to run for public office; stupid people don't do shit like this. If your IQ is below 120, then increase it to 120 and then you earn your voting rights.
How do women define creep: A strange man that talks to them for fun (even if it's not asking them out or flirting).
Any woman I talk to at this point in time (except my family) are going to be strange to me. If this makes me a creep, then I'll wear the badge with honor; it's called being an extroverted adult male.
I can't answer that. Either I would have to advocate for legalizing pedophillia or advocate for executing the people that made the Nirvana Album. I'm a hypocrite.
→No, that is not what I am saying. What is your thought process for that? How did u conclude I am saying I am not a hypocrite?
If your answers are different, then you're a hypocrite.
→but you never gave an argument for how it is not immoral to be a hypocrite.
It's not immoral to be a hypocrite; sometimes, it's an imperative.
The Golden rule applies; whoever has the gold makes the rules.
So then are you saying you aren't a hypocrite? If this is correct, then which of the following statements do you support:
1. Legalize child porn.
2. Arrest Nirvana for promoting child phonography on their album while calling everyone who is fine with the album pedophillia defenders
?
Then what is phonography?
→Maybe they were going after comedy, or just something weird
They had hundreds of alternatives. Cannibalism when you have no other option is understandable; cannibalism with the food and technology we have is psychotic. With options comes an obligation to abstain from the evil action; this movie cover here is no exception.
Otherwise, what does it mean to be a hypocrite?
→I was talking about intent of producers.
The intent of the producers was to show a child's dick to many people and if they didn't want a pedo jacking to it, then they shouldn't have produced the design. They could have done literally anything else.
People don't want to come off as hypocrites; but they are nonetheless. I just have no problem claiming my hypocrisy.
→Eh, not the way I see it, But the other shoe is dropping in my brain now, as I recognize your user name.
People don't want to come off as hypocrites because they have feelings to consider (that they will deny). Feelings to me are irrelevant. I have no problem with being sexist in the context of me not wanting to date someone based on their gender (ie. straight).
→There are videos of circumcision which show baby's genitals on youtube. There are likewise medical exam videos with basically naked kids on YouTube. It actually takes sexual intent for it to be child porn.
So if a pedophille found these and jerked off to it, then it was used for sexual intent. The poster of the video knows it's possible that a pedo will jerk off to it (and the same is true for the person that made Nirvana).
Might makes right. For a pedophille to be allowed to watch child porn, they have to become a president.
→Some stone statues were nude, for aesthetics and arts sake.
CHILD statues?
→I think there 'is something wrong with being an Ideological Hypocrite
So then would you want to legalize child porn or ban the Nirvana album? If neither, then you are a hypocrite.
Nirvana posted child porn and nobody cared. But people want to ban child porn.
It's hypocrisy; plain and simple. I am a hypocrite for this position and I'm ok with that.
I've decided (and this is very tough to say) that there is nothing immoral about being an ideological hypocrite. For example:
If you don't want to arrest the makers of this:
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/618DNn-65GL._UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg
But want to arrest the makers of generic child porn, then you're a hypocrite (and there is nothing immoral about that). I am a hypocrite because of this and I OWN it (as virtually everyone would have too).
But that leaves the question, it seems (especially in 2025, when people are very polarized for their side) that you can't argue politics now; the left wants rehabilitation for rapists and murderers (unless the convict's name is Trump), they view retard as an ableist slur (unless it's at Elon Musk), and the right is proud to fat shame (unless it's Trump, then they are the most body positivity people on the planet).
Everyone wants to deport generic undocumented immigrants (or won't criticize their party head for doing it) but they would rather let the migrant in their home in the context of dating them than a member of the opposite party (which they wouldn't deport as much as they hate them).
Straight left wing men believe TWAW but wouldn't date them because they think it's gay (even if ideal in every other category). Straight right wing men believe TWAM (and frauds) but won't want to prohibit HRT to crack down on what they believe is fraud.
They both complain over watching an animal get killed that they end up eating.
The right preaches, “wait until marriage” (when they don't); the feminist left preaches on getting solar panels to combat climate change (when they don't for reasons that apply to a bunch of other people that they would want to get panels).
How can you change someone's mind on an issue when they don't really care about hypocrisy? If you just can't change anyone's mind because people are so proud of their opinions as if it's a big part of their identity, then there is no point in debating on anything.
I'm only really making this post because it's a new idea. I want ICE abolished for example, but I don't want to make a post about it because nobody who disagrees with me will change their mind on it because people are proud of their opinions (as if it's a defining part of their identity).
Trump is Guilty of child rape and should be executed.