>women care more about the earth
>toxic masculinity is actually L I T E R A L L Y toxic to the ecosystem when small-dicked d-bags drive humongous cars for no reason
>women care about the planet
Oh, that must be why their xenoestrogens are contaminating my drinking water and their cosmetics are contaminating my fucking everything (especially my countertops).
Yeah, get fucked.
Use a reusable bag, recycle everything possible, bike when it is not below freezing. Still eat meat and fish, I know it is bad but shit I like my tuna, salmon, steak, and chicken. Sorry world ):
>Roastys try to defend their existence this hard
>women care about the deceitful and ephemeral physical world
>men care about the eternal and sublime metaphysical one
We already knew this.
>women care more about the earth
Modern women are driving big standard cars, drinking Starbucks latte, eats Chipotle, and buys the latest IPhone.
Men are worried about masculinity because it's declining. You know that thing that keeps the human being from survival. The environment can balance itself out, not people
>The earth is less important than countries meme
>muh nation, which will inevitably fall, which exists for a infinitesimal fraction of geological time is more important than the fate of Earth,
which is not only the home of our distant primitive ancestors, but the home of our distant, and hopefully, as a result of our efforts in the
present, prosperous, descendants.
Feminists are retards but masculinity is in fact toxic. True alpha males are the sort who butcher millions. Even though masculinity is toxic, girls are the ones who come out looking bad. Very few men are the toxic alpha. 99% of girls are attracted to the toxic alpha.
>women think toxic masculinity and harmful male gender roles are a huge problem
>Still expects men to conform to masculine norms
>wonder why men have toxic masculinity
Gee I wonder why so many men are being so over macho, maybe if you roasties stopped being contradicting on this then this wouldent be a problem
>he fell for the "global warming is the only environmental problem" meme
Even if you don't accept the truth of global warming, which is idiotic, you can still see the problems of air pollution, water pollution, deforestation, shortage of natural resources, destruction of ecosystems and human-induced mass extinctions of keystone species
Women consume way more resources than men via all their beauty products, clothes, 'me-time' luxury candies etc. So they profess to care so much about the environment just to make themselves look good.
>True alpha males are the sort who butcher millions
I'd rather be on the giving end than the receiving end to be quite honest family.
>the one flooring the soccermommobile "it's the only safe option for my family of one autistic child" suburban that's riding my ass is a male
In China sure, but everywhere there are regulations and shit people need to follow. At this point freaking over air pollution is like a neat freak sperging out over a tiny speck of dirt he sees on his otherwise tidy and white carpet.
Save for a few derp industrial moments this is a non-issue and is always taken care of promptly.
>Shortage of natural resources
>Destruction of ecosystems
You're just being redundant and repeating more broadly what you're saying elsewhere.
>men are more likely to reject religion and be fedora faggots
Exactly. Men would rather give up the ghost all together than lie about their faith. For harder evidence you should look into the reforms made in the Episcopalian Church. It is practically non-Christian now. Guess who the majority of the congregations are? Women.
Yes, the xenoestrogens I mentioned in my post (I'm the anon he responded to).
Women are so short-sighted and solipsistic, it would frankly be hilarious if it wasn't so ecologically dangerous.
>religion makes you a morally adjustable person
BBC's documentary Assault on the Male 1993, frequently taken down off youtube of course
>tfw recognizing women as inferior beings is equated to hating them
i wish it wasnt like this
The article says women are more like to be vegetarians, reuse shopping bags, and use small cars. None of these things even come close to "sustainable living." This doesn't even make a dent in pollution numbers. It's just a way for liberals to pat themselves on the back and feel good.
>men adopt certain traits over time because it's helping them attract women
>it's men's fault that roasties get moist over douchey, low mileage cars and the perceptions of masculinity they shaped
>wanting to be a DYEL limp-wristed no-gains cuck
liberalism, not even once
>The 2010 Global Forest Resources Assessment reported that the United States gains between 600,000 and 1,200,000 acres of forest annually. Deforestation is occurring worldwide, but the United States continues to replace and reclaim acres harvested and lost to forest fires, insects, disease and development.
>wrecking first world nations that care about the environment
>being good for the environment
Tippy top kek
>roasties are irrational and driven by emotion
This. All their "environmentalism" will be showy, low-effort bullshit - as if being a vegetarian outweighs the environmental cost of travelling by flight on holiday, or the pounds of cosmetics they slather themselves in.
Women never fail to make me laugh about their superiority complex!
Note that the OP give us very little information about the subject, just to make difficult for us to try to debunk this argument.
Well, I make a little research and I find out that this article it's just vegans feninists trying to feel superior to men and also to people that eat meat. They provided zero facts for all their statements just like you OP!
tl;dr: Go back to Tumblr, bitch!
>meat is bad
Negative Utilitarianism (from which vegfags derive their "morality") is ludicrously grotesque, as Smart put it:
"Suppose that a ruler controls a weapon capable of instantly and painlessly destroying the [world]. Now it is empirically certain that there would be some suffering before all those alive on any proposed destruction day were to die in the natural course of events. Consequently the use of the weapon is bound to diminish suffering, and would be the ruler's duty on NU grounds."
Daily reminder that vegfags are monstrous degenerates who wish to extinguish Life itself.
>vegetrarianism shopping bags and smaller cars saves the planet
>Roastys will literally cake their face in chemicals and other nasty shit like mercury, fish scales, and lead
>Up until it was outlawed, they'd even slather their skin full of uranium powdered ore
What the fuck roastys. And then you complain about having shitty skin or getting older, or even having to put makeup on in the first place.
>but the United States continues to replace and reclaim acres harvested and lost to forest fires, insects, disease and development.
Deforestation is a global issue. There is literally not enough land in the US suitable for forest growth that can make up for the destruction of forests elsewhere in the world. Saying "Deforestation isnt an issue because America is growing more trees than 10 years ago" is plain wrong. You're either intellectually dishonest or just plain ignorant of the potential ramifications.
Stupid cuck. None of those, nor global warming, are existential threats.
>However, how sustainable is the cosmetics industry? How is the cosmetics industry meeting the sustainability challenge compared to other industries? Some maybe surprised to know that it is doing fairly well. Cosmetic and cosmetic ingredient firms are regularly featured in green lists of global enterprises.
>Seven cosmetic companies were listed in Ethisphere Institute's 2014 World's Most Ethical (WME) Companies list. Cosmetic companies on the WME list were L'Oreal, Shiseido, Colgate-Palmolive, Henkel, Natura Brasil, Kao Corporation, and Kimberley-Clark. Another study by Corporate Knights listed the 100 most sustainable corporations in the world; Natura Brasil, L'Oreal, Johnson & Johnson, and Unilever were listed in the top 100 this year. The Corporate Knights methodology involves evaluating corporations on a number of environmental, social and governance performance measures.
>When looking at sustainability, cosmetic companies are mostly focusing on environmental aspects. In the context of the Brundtland Commission (unites countries to pursue sustainable development together) there are three pillars of sustainability. Figure 1 shows the various ways cosmetic and ingredient firms are addressing their environmental footprints. Most attention is going to raw material sourcing, green formulations, and packaging. Some companies have started to track water, energy and resource use, as well as consider operational efficiency.
>m-maybe if i repeat my unsubstantiated claim i made in the OP people will forget i got BTFO more than my roastie on a Saturday night
The only fucking reason those things aren't a bigger problem is because people who give more of a shit than you realized that larger profits aren't worth fucking over the planet. If it wasn't for the environmentalists, we'd be choking on carbon monoxide.
Plus, shrinking ecosystems are a serious problem. Louisiana got fucked by hurricanes over cause the barrier islands are eroding, the bees are dying off, and rainforests are a tiny fraction of what they used to be.
larger profits are the only reason things exist. example, trees; reforestation is just farming, but with trees. shallow coal mining, consuming hundreds of thousands of acres, re-places the soil it dug up, preventing it from becoming barren and wasted, so that the land value doesnt get destroyed. air pollution will be diminished once people realize how wasteful spending their money on vanity is
profits are economy is efficiency is sustainability is 'good earth-keeping'
If men aren't masculine, all of civilization crumbles and the women raped/killed and their resources are taken by masculine men.
Women literally ride on the curtails of men
You are a fool if you believe that any company would actually change any aspect of itself other than to make money.
Lawful neutral, following regulation to its technical boundary and using fads and culture to sell more products. Maybe these companies are actually putting a little foresight into investing in future profits, but only so much in that these profits are guaranteed. It's certainly not for any altruistic venture like keeping the earth habitable for generations to come.
Want to know the best way to be an eco-friendly shopper? Buy less things.
>WAAAAAA muh earth muh environment
Even without human intervention (which has always fucked things up more after the fact) it would still be a non-issue. The earth is a grown women, it can take care of itself and has been since forever.
So you think that, without the EPA breathing down their necks, companies would honestly spend money in keeping the land clean?
Then why was clear cutting and strip mining a major thing during the entire 20th century? Why are Chinese companies poisoning the air if profits would be higher if they didn't?
lmfao pham this is bait if i've ever seen it
>Arsenic is an organic compound found on earth naturally
>Somehow will result in it's destruction despite existing since the beginning of time
You can't make this kind of logic up. Now if it was some sort of alien compound from another planet then you'd have some merit to what you're trying to claim.
nah, well, it's not the companies' fault. people like dumb shit, like plastic products and oversized cars. the demand has to be fixed first
as for inefficient methods like clear cutting; gotta break a few eggs
also the chinese are trash. subhuman scum
You can't be this dumb... Uranium is found naturally inside the earth, but you wouldn't eat that you stupid fuck.
It's when we extract this shit and dump it into the waters when it becomes a problem.
I mean, it's not the companies fault for trying to maximize profit. It's our fault for not regulating them more so they don't destroy our land.
And we would be exactly like the Chinese if it wasn't for the clean air bills you fight so hard against.
Actually it's safe to consume uranium ore, it's just when you purify it into uranium oxide that it becomes more dangerous, and even then it's safe to handle in small enough amounts. It's large enough quantities over time that would be bad for you.
And I'm pretty sure arsenic occurs in relatively safe compounds in the earth until humans break it up and extract it for industrial purposes, so that kinda still proves my point.
I mean, I think we can all agree that corporations pumping arsenic into our drinking water is not good
look anon i spent a long time trying to point out everything but there is so much detail to climate change. at the end of the day, we judge the health of the earth on human standards, so treehuggers are all liars or delusional, and humanity itself is never threatened by anything
We do judge the earth on human standards because we have to live on it. Honestly, nobody gives a shit about trees because they look pretty. Trees and humans are both part of a complex system that would burn you and me if it went awry.
And sure, pockets of humans could probably survive almost anything, but a collapse of our ecosystem would result in the vast majority of humanity dying of starvation.
>but a collapse of our ecosystem would result in the vast majority of humanity dying of starvation
who cares, that's always been and always will be the case. never stopped anyone before. since we have been on the earth we have done nothing but 'fuck up' this complex system. we win every time. the only way this train is stopping is a horrendous crash and the only thing we can do about it is see how far we get. this planet is nothing 2bh
>we should reduce QoL now because what we're doing now might reduce QoL in the future, maybe.
No, cuck, not existential threats.
>Women are the vast majority of consumer spending
>Women are driving around the suburban tanks, especially now that gas is cheaper
>Women care more about the environment because they say they do
Oh these roasties.
>we should guarantee a reduction in QoL to stave off a possible reduction in QoL
C U C K
We've never had more of an impact on the environment than we have today. The small scale herding and agriculture of pre-industrial times is nothing compared to the chemical alterations to our atmosphere, air, water, and soil that we have started in the past two hundred years.
Humanity needs to find a way to become self sustaining before we burn this world down.
Sure, I'd take a bit less jewelry if it meant my kids didn't fucking drink poison.
And it's not like this stuff "might" happen. We've seen it happen in small scales. Chemical runoff fucking up towns. Hell, it's happening in flint right now because some bastards wanted to save money on some anti corrosive water treatment.
But no, a subjectively higher quality of life is worth our health.
self sustaining is a meme, there is only expansion. full throttle anon, anything less is just inefficiently wasting time
1. repeal womens suffrage
2. race war to end the impending industrial revolutions of china and india
3. kill the rest just because and claim their land and resources as lebensraum for the already advanced societies
4. banish the homeless and undesirables there, watch as they create efficient, simple communities
5. colonize mars and more
job well done
Yeah, and unless you plan on breathing C02 and eating fucking industrial runoff slag you wont be around to be important in the future
dude you cannot get more naiive. laws and government just congeal violence. you think your peace is free of guilt? you think it isn't crumbling by the second?
the earth has had much much higher co2 content before, and we still came about
>stupid niggers being stupid niggers was caused by insufficient self-flagellation and reduction of White QoL
Remained me how driving a faggot-box and eating estrogen-patties would prevented niggers from nigging?
birth control is essentially estrogen in pill form
not all of it is absorbed by the female body
some of it is excreted when she pees
that estrogen does not dissolve out of the water when treated
the small amounts add up to a lot when you consider how many women are on the pill
Government seems to have been relatively okay for the past 2000+ years...
And CO2 levels have never increased as quickly as they are now. Earth also used to be in a global freeze, but humans would not be able to survive those conditions.
I NEED MAH TUCK VROOOOM VRRROOOOOMMMMM
ARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!! FUCK EEVRYTHING LOOK AT ALL THIS SMOKE!!!
Well, driving a "faggot box" would reduce gas emissions and vegan diets result in less rainforest deforestation and are more sustainable.
I don't really see how niggers are raising global climate or endangering crop production?
>we eliminated all animal life
>doesn't matter, they were worthless anyways after we figured out genetic modification and exo-tissue-genesis
>everything is grown;
>meat is grown outside of an animal's body, more time and cost efficient, zeal is much easier to produce
>we made more plant life, genetically modifying the raw materials produced by plants to cut down on costs (self-preserving fruits, immortal seeds, cubic shapes, etc.) and the designer veggie is popular. (For example, Brettuci and Spicy Peppercorn
>Global warming isn't a problem, our plants are genetically modified to be extremophiles by greedy corporations and agricultural subsidies who wanted to ensure profits
>mfw big govt and supermarkets saved the human race
>war is bad mkay
>corporations, bad yeah
>Government seems to have been relatively okay for the past 2000+ years...
sorry i don't have the time to link this shit up for you. have you tried watching milton friedman vids on youtube? theyre very plebian friendly
I'm sorry, anarchy would somehow result in less war and greed?
Like the Geneva convention and modern alliances haven't helped reduce war?
Protocol for nomadic warfare used to be commit genocide to avoid retaliation. I think modern government is at least a step in the right direction.
>reduce gas emissions and vegan diets result in less rainforest deforestation
Both false, but irreverent, how do CO2 emissions or deforestation cause niggers to decide that 30k/year would be better spent embezzled and blow on rock and malt liquor than treating drinking water?
Holy shit, a smaller car wouldn't emit less fumes? Are you being serious?
And mcdonalds has been cutting down forests for years to house their cattle. Reminder that 1 pound of beef requires 30+ pounds of grain. If anything, switch to insects. Lot better for the environment to ranch than cattle.
And welfare problems is a totally separate thing. How are these two issues even connected?
>I'm sorry, anarchy would somehow result in less war and greed?
nah i didn't say that. there will always be war, but giving the tool of war to a large inefficient thing like the federal government is a waste. like i said the best you can do is give the victor a prize worth winning, which smaller, more honest collections of humans would be quick to assume. greed is always there, it's just how honest you are with it
>muh war crimes
no war has been won by making up rules that compromise your own effectiveness. this is a hypocritical luxury
>used to be commit genocide to avoid retaliation
or integration through rape
>trying to reduce damage is
haha, no, it's not. reducing damage means reducing effectiveness; other factors in the natural and unnatural world will not reduce their damage for you. you are part of the natural world, the natural world would not slow down if it was as efficient as we are and it would steamroll us. your mindset is suicidal, you are a self hating being. please kill yourself instead of trying to spread your suicidal views to greater society, we already have enough of this view 2bqphwy
btw, the 'reduction in damage' that has occurred in the developed world's industry did not occur out of sympathy for the environment, like i said, it was a refinement of economic processes
thank you for not getting irate and upset at me, i appreciate being listened to
this, that water needs to be released. perhaps it will find its way to the sahara :^)
with the polar regions melted and full of forest, and the deserts growing green, just imagine how quickly theyll suck up all that co2
this is a hypocritical luxury that only a winner who has already used and surpassed that technology, and only serves as legislation meant to inhibit the effectiveness of other cultures
sorry forgot to finish
>women care more about the planet because they say they do and muh veganism
>meanwhile the scientists actually doing important work to save the planet are mostly men.
Explain this shit.
Always resorting to psychoanalysis. How insightful and mature you are.
> Why do you have this sick fantasy of world war?
The only thing sick here is your petty moralizing.
>Like why do you want that to happen before peaceful solutions are even attempted?
The elimination of the surplus population, which does include me, and and all economic systems dependent on continuous growth.
Well, we are part of the natural world, but we are a little more refined than animals. A virus spread throughout the host until the host dies. Then the virus dies too. Humans should not be a virus, we should be forward thinking enough to not kill our host.
And no, nothing was ever done out of sympathy. Like I've been saying, it's been done to save ourselves.
We aren't at war with nature, we are trying to keep a delicate mutually beneficial relationship.
>necklace says wagie
>it's a roastie can't keep up episode
You explicitly named the Flint water situation as proof that insufficient self-flagellation and reduction of White QoL leads to ruin.
Please explain how a nigger government switching water sources to "save money" (i.e. embezzle dem Benjamins fo' crack) and then refusing to treat the new water source to "save money" (i.e. embezzle dem Jacksons fo' malt liquor) is a product of refusing to reduce ones quality of life.
i see that i'm talking to a wall
LIFE is a virus. life was always a virus, life always moved exponentially. we are a refined virus. make good on LIFE and THE EARTH'S virus investment in you and spread your infection as wide as possible
nature IS war. nature is not everything that is alive that isn't humanity. those are all lesser viruses that support us, and it's our (subconscious) duty to support them back, in a mutually beneficial relationship, to spread our infection to other hosts
I actually agree. We should have had more tabs on Flint. He literally ruined any small amount of hope that city had. It's unrepairable.
The only thing I think we disagree on is that I believe the problem should be fixed by a stronger regulatory body
I'm not saying it should be immediate, but as soon as the majority of the population can be replaced, they should be. Most people, me included, are a detriment to our species and planet; our lives have a negative value if anything.
you have to experience to develop. you can't grow experience, anon. you can't even teach it; you and me think we're teaching but our conclusions can't be conveyed, only ascertained from what we have since experienced
worrying about the planet lol
because it's a lot easier to worry about something entirely too large for you to directly influence, and therefore can justify taking no action
than it is to worry about your immediate situation, and the decisions that you need to make here and now.
one is entirely intangible and external, the other is entirely tangible and internal.
While I'm likely just projecting my feelings about myself on to a significant portion of our species, I'm not sure what experience could lead me to believe that human life has some sort of inherent, positive value.
> care for the planet
> I wuv little animals. Save da whales. Tehe
They couldn't care less. They're just following feelgood trends.
> buy tons of useless crap every year
> throw away tons of usable stuff every year
> want to live in mansions
Never forget that women are responsible for 75% of all purchases in the US.
2016 barely begun and my mother already has numerous new coats, shoes, scarves, gloves and all kind of clothes.
Meanwhile, I bought a new winter coat because the previous one was over 6 years old and I slimmed down quite a bit.
Pretty poor show equating vegetarianism, reusable bags and small cars to enviromentalism. Real reasons
>women tend to be more emotional, so the idea of animals dying for them to eat bothers them
>might also consider vegetarianism healthy because it's low in sat. fat and pursue it for that reason
>drive small cars like smart cars or minis because they think it's "cute"
>fuck knows about the reusable bag one though, maybe they think the woven canvas bags look "vintage" or some shit?
Is this bitch for real?
>Implying most of what most men do isn't to impress women.
What a deluded cunt, also.
>I still drive but it's okay cause my car is smaller.
Three things that have been repeatedly shown to damage the environment.
Women more likely to follow pointless fashions and pat themselves on the back for it while men do the science that lets us know there's a problem and invent new technologies to combat it.
I was just about to post.
>Uhhh... micro beads anyone?
I'm not even an environmentalist, the furthest I go is I'm anti-pollution and pro-conservation, not into global warming hysteria and anti-man drivel, and I can tell you women pollute more. With make up alone, that stuff is literally toxic.
Holy shit. I'm writing a novel with a similar premise. Similar outcome. This really bolsters my resolve here knowing nothing has changed.
Wait so does that mean the bigger our dicks therefor more masculin we are the more environmentally friendly we are? You are saying that all feminine men are the reason we drive polluting cars to compensate for not being manly enough?
>masculinity is toxic and oppressive
>masculinity is fragile
Well? Which one is it?
Fun fact: Tuna are going extinct because bitches want sushi so much they're being over fished!
But they care about the earth sooo much. Especially when someone's looking at them.
>Implying most of what most men do isn't to impress women.
Yeah seriously. Why does the dude drive the big gas guzzling truck? Because certain bitches love it, that's why. I live in Louisiana, I see this shit all the time. I see FB posts like "IF YOUR BOYFRIEND DOESNT DRIVE THIS HUGE RIDICULOUS YOU GOT A GIRLFRIEND!"
>Beautiful Pictures of Places Tourists Like And Cute Animals!
using feminist buzzword
Besides women don't do anything out of charity it's all for what they can get down the line
where as men invented machines to help women out around the house which lead to them having more free time and eventually "liberation"
I'd also like to note the public shit storm that would happen if people tried to spew the reverse femininity is toxic and should be destroyed, it's a mistake. I wonder if it would be healthy for a young grill to grow up hearing that but we do it to boys anyway
>women consume more industry than men
>industry grows to accommodate women's needs
How many men have shopping as a hobby? Literally zero. How many women do? All of them.
The feminist cunts truly are running out of reasons and fallacies that get stomped into the ground every time.
I'd press the social construct button. Gender after all is the roles of each person in a particular society based on their sex. These roles are not universal constants and depend on the culture of a society. This is exactly why it's a social construct, and as a result pressing the button changes nothing. Unless of course, the machine is liberal-biased and acts like being a social construct means a whole entire concept is invalid, which would be fucking stupid.
Anybody want to take a guess which gender makes up the majority of scientists and others actually trying to save the planet?
Women are inherently pieces of shit and should be treated as such.
>In the poll of 5,000 women for Thats Life! magazine, 45 per cent said they told "little white lies" most days. The favourite untruth was "of course you don't look fat", with "these shoes were only 10" in second place.
Common, white lies. No problem.
>NINETEEN out of 20 women admit lying to their partners or husbands, a survey on attitudes to truth and relationships has found.
>Eighty-three per cent owned up to telling "big, life-changing lies", with 13 per cent saying they did so frequently.
>Half said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would lie about the babys real father.
>Forty-two per cent would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, no matter the wishes of their partner.
>And an alarming 31 per cent said they would not tell a future partner if they had a sexual disease: this rises to 65 per cent among single women.
>Jo Checkley, the editor of Thats Life! , said that while many women now lied to avoid hurting their partners feelings, covering up the truth about a baby could have far more damaging consequences. She said: "Modern women just cant stop lying, but they do it to stop hurting other peoples feelings. It could be argued that these little white lies simply make the world go round a little more smoothly. But to tell a man a baby is his when its not, or to deliberately get pregnant when your partner doesnt want a baby, is playing Russian roulette with other peoples lives."
>Elsewhere, 49 per cent would "kiss and tell" to the media for 25,000 if they had a one-night stand with a celebrity; and 38 per cent say they would marry purely for money.
Never trust anyone.
Especially if they have a cunt.
It's garbage. 7 companies does not equal the entire industry. An industry can easily contain examples of both the best and the worst practices of any kind. Why are you defending cosmetics, roastie?
>women care about something you cant change and is a natural process beyond our control
>men care about something intrinsic that can be changed and can directly effect humanities future
whats your point?
Most "toxic" masculinity is exactly what women are attracted to. Women will be more attracted to a man with a Porsche than a Prius. If men pursue "environmentally destructive" consumption, it's only because it's what women respond to.
Men are just skeleton keys that adapt to whatever lock women weld on their gates.
Just like everything else, when women have their run of things, they ruin it and blame men.
Women are the more "compassionate" sex.
Their compassion compels them to vote for welfare statism.
Welfare statism drives down the market value of caring, commitment minded provider betas.
The betas begin to drop out.
Hit and run players fill the void.
Women then complain about how "all men" are cheating, playing pieces of shit and write blog posts called "Where Have All the Good/Real Men Gone?"
Therefore, women are responsible for the very types of men who hurt them most.
But we already knew that, didn't we?