As white people become more and more a minority surrounded by niggers, white people are going to grow increasingly sick and tired of niggers nigging and our race will become more unified in the future.
The backlash against multiculturalism is going to be brutal.
>>743363261 What you're referring to as rights aren't rights. They're state privileges. Big difference. You can't give or take away rights as they're inherent from birth 'till death. You can only violate those rights. But even then they're still apparent.
But yeah back to the subject matter at hand. About two years ago I figured that the majority of the issues western society faces today are as a result of women essentially working to flip the power differential / dynamic in their favour. We have lived in a patriarchal dominance hierarchy to some degree, but with matriarchal elements. Men have been in the majority of positions of power yes. But women have subtly manipulated the way society has gone due to their influence over their men and their children in their family units. However, now, they want that Matriarchal influence to be overt rather than covert, and that's all Feminism is about. They want to have absolute power. They want to dictate how society progresses. And as a result, as usual when women take the lead, utter chaos is beginning to take place, and they are just about dismantling all order that we have worked so long to create as a race and a culture.
Society will only heal once men take back the society and civilisation they built, and return to philosophical and moral principles as opposed to what "feels good."
>>743364293 Taking women's right to vote, drinking in public, be on the streets after 8PM.. Plus a divorced woman shouldn't have the right to receive any money unless the partner explicitly states he wants to give otherwise women shouldn't receive anything. That would be a good start
>>743364442 A woman's right to vote isn't a right, it's a state privilege. You don't need to vote in nature. Only in an artificial state-ran society. But I get what you mean. I'm not gonna argue with the point that women voting has caused many problems in society. Women are natural socialists and they will always vote for the redistribution of wealth (theft). Which is problematic to say the least.
As for the drinking and being out 'till 8PM, personally I don't think anyone should drink. Alcohol ain't good. But being out 'till 8PM is a matter of freedom of movement so that's outta the question for me.
The alimony stuff I can get behind, but there needs to be something to protect both men and women, and of course the children, in relation to failed relationships. The state favours women far too much in these situations atm. Which is totally intentional politically speaking.
>>743364053 jokes on them most important racial DNA is in the mitochondria so they jus making themselves whiter looks like the jews were right make ur women a perceived violation and they come running to become you and let their own DNA degrade and be replaced with your own didnt think it would be so effective tho...
>>743364702 >Women are natural socialists and they will always vote for the redistribution of wealth (theft). Which is problematic to say the least. It goes deeper than that. Here's a read that you'll never read: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/men-invade-women-invite/
>>743364744 Why do women invite refugees, fight for blacks, etc? because they know all those groups will do everything for them. Also they don't mind replacing white men as long as receive facebook likes and social status in the process
I've been saying for months that women want open borders because it increases their access to a variation of different kinds of men. Because they dislike "indigenous" men, e.g. white european men, because they've become so effeminite and docile. Women are pack animals, they want to be led, they want a man to take the lead. Most western men today couldn't lead if they wanted to, and most don't even want to anymore. They're just women with crew cuts.
Muslim men fit the bill of a higher status alpha male compared to western men. Although this isn't entirely true as their heightened aggression and forceful nature doesn't come from a sense of overall dominance. It's simply a result of low IQ. Appearances can very much be deceiving. This is why women have been restricted in their behaviours, especially in relation to men, for generations. Because when left to their own devices, they're all about feels rather than facts. They follow their instincts with little to no self-reflection and ultimately lead themselves and those around them into self-destructive patterns of behaviour.
>>743364772 It's not worse. However, the frequency of it happening with ''our'' women the past 2 decades is MUCH higher than with men (feel free to deny it, my empirical evidence won't convince you but I won't be convinced otherwise either). By the way I also clean 2 clubs. Are you aware of the men vs women toilet condition?
>>743364930 Btw this has all happened because of social manipulation via the state. Give women more privileges, make them of equal status to men within a society and you rob men of their special status which makes them docile and essentially, eventually reduces men to nothing more than adult children. Which eventually flips the social dominance hierarchy to a matriarchal one, which causes the state to be the pinnacle of power due to being the provider for women and having no men to challenge it's supposed authority.
I was raised by a single mother, and she raised me to be an appeaser. Taught me (of course), why I should respect and love women. And of course, that never worked out well for me. That always led to me being taken advantage of or outright fucked over.
Thankfully I'm pretty much red-pilled now and I see through these dynamics, but most men still don't and likely never will.
>>743364825 >>743364930 Just think about it this way. Imagine there was a huge influx of ANIMU WAIFUS in e.g. USA. The women, naturally seeing a ton of competitors arriving, they dislike it and express their scorn.
How would you feel as men about having so many extra (and in many occasions better) options to pick from? Would you feel threatened?
It's not exactly the same, but you get the gist.
>Muslim men fit the bill of a higher status alpha male compared to western men. Absolutely, I also believe that this is mostly the men's fault for letting it happen. Women just lack the patriarchy figures they NEED.
>>743365071 It is /b/, stands for random and anything is allowed. Who knows, we might be posting artistic works of fiction. Only a fool takes /b/ seriously. Plenty of porn breads for you still, chop chop.
>>743365121 Yeah I totally agree. I could go back and forth with why men or women are the primary issue or the root of it but at the end of the day we're two sides of the same coin and both to blame. We essentially form a symbiotic relationship and when one half of that relationship dynamic changes so does the other. We need to reunite and come to some sort of agreement in my opinion, so we can regain control of our own destiny as a race and a culture (because this issue isn't really occuring with any race other than the white european race), but of course, this won't happen unless we force women into submission.
I've always said also, and this point is kinda in relation to what we're talking about. That Feminism is the collective form of a shit test. Women are kicking off constantly, and more virulently as time goes by because they want to piss us off to the point where we force them into submission. Kinda like when a girlfriend does all she can to piss her boyfriend off so he's aggressive towards her. She does so because she finds it attractive and loves to be forced into submission. This is what Feminism wants, it wants to be forced into submission, not appeased. And this is also why so many Feminists have rape fantasies (discovered this on Tumblr).
Food for thought: only society dominated by socialists and women accepted refugees: german, canada, france, greece... In Saudi Arabia they would rather start a nuclear war than accept 2 million negroes even if the negros are muslims
>>743365555 >That Feminism is the collective form of a shit test. Women are kicking off constantly, and more virulently as time goes by because they want to piss us off to the point where we force them into submission.
This made me shiver because I say it SO frequently. Fuck off anon, stop being me.
>>743365815 >mfw I realise women would rather betray their native men, culture, society, country and everything else they grew up with for the sake of being involved with a male they deem worthy.
women are naturally betrayers my friends. the sooner you all realise this the better, this is why traditionally speaking we've always restricted them, and it's why ancient texts like the Bible basically tell us that women are evil. they will betray you if you allow them.
>>743365852 >>743365937 >>743365940 Btw, make no mistake. The points I'm raising relate to ALL women. It's in their very nature to betray everyone around them if they think it's in their best interests. Even mothers. Their overruling instincts that bypasses all other cognitive functions is "what's in it for me."
My own mother betrayed me for a meal ticket. Raised me on her own. Practically no father figure present in my early life. She eventually got herself a new man, let's call him J.
J was somewhat abusive. Clearly a beta male masquerading as an alpha. Had major self-worth issues, had lots to prove. Thought he was going to be the man of the house. Take upon himself the mantle of "Dad", he thought wrong. Couldn't handle the fact that I didn't respect him (he didn't earn it), told him outright that I hated him one night. He lunged at me, jumped on me and screamed down my ear.
And guess what, my mother didn't chastise him at all. She walked into my bedroom, looked at us, and walked out. I decided from that second onwards that I wasn't going to live under that root as long as he was there as it was dangerous. I moved out. What did my mother do? Accepted it. Cried, of course, but made the choice to allow me to move out (at 16), and essentially chose her man over me.
Being with this man has enabled her to be unemployed for years, she's mostly living off his money and pursuing "creative endeavours" while he pays the bills.
So yeah, she chose a long-term meal ticket over her son. And this is the nature of women.
>>743365724 >I'm usually typing massive essays on the nature of women and relationships etc You're doing Dog's work, anon. Have another gem.
>>743366074 I never really understood why any reasonable woman (paradox, I know) would not be ok with their traditional nature. In my village we always said that behind every great man hides an even greater woman. They were good at what they did and evidently they also enjoyed it. Then their heads got poisoned. Just look how unhappy they are lately (if that isn't clear).
>>743366252 There is no worldly explanation for why women do what they do. It doesn't help the fact that 99% of their beliefs are based on jewish lies (multicultural propaganda, materialistic literature, NYT best seller garbage, etc).
>>743366038 That's true. Women operate under the general social consensus. As I said earlier they're pack animals. As opposed to men who are more akin to lone wolves. Who can operate in packs but more often than not wander off and do their own thing. If something isn't socially acceptable, they simply cannot follow through with it. Same goes with people. If someone isn't deemed socially acceptable or "popular" women resent them because a woman considers herself valuable only if she's popular herself, by being popular with other high status / popular people.
>>743366074 Yep and they do so because doing so keeps people confused in relation to the social dynamics at play, which means no solutions will likely be presented. Just lots of pointless arguements with little to no objectivity.
>>743366252 HAHAHAHA BRO, that pic is pretty true y'know. I've read before that high IQ males are far more likely to induldge in homosexuality to some degree than low IQ males. And the theory goes that it's because they can understand the dynamics at play between men and women, and recognise the patterns of behaviour in women. And as a result they become disgusted by what they see and look elsewhere to satisfy their needs.
>>743366286 Honestly, she would have driven me out of the relationship if I read shit like that. Then they start to wonder why some men want to keep their distance with crazy twitter feminists like that
I swear it's like they don't realize it's phrases like that
>>743366235 >The points I'm raising relate to ALL women Oh I know. I'm the type who doesn't even exclude ''mom and sister'' like some people say all women but those. Everyone in or no one, we're not dishonest hypocrites (just mildly autistic).
I am sorry to hear about your story, btw. I recently had a fallout with my uncle at the dinner table, my fiance was sitting next to me and he started subtly insulting me and after I warned him 5 times I snapped at him so hard the entire family was gasping for air. He tried to play the older + uncle card and I should respect him and shit but that cuck failed to realize that the moment I showed weakness when challenged by ANYONE in front of my fiance is the moment she'd be my fiance no longer. He's lucky I didn't kick his teeth in.
>>743366252 Yeah I always used to have that saying in the back of my mind and I started to look for a "good woman" as a result, someone to back me up and see me for my greatness (sounds egotistical but I know my worth, I'm not boasting or anything). And I had many try and take up that mantle, but I realise it was always about them and making me be of service to them rather than there being an equilibrium of sorts. Needless to say I swiftly ended those relationships because they didn't serve me at all, they were one-sided, completely.
I think that dynamic can only occur if women's behavours are restricted socially speaking. I don't think laws should be passed or that women should be forced into behaving in certain ways by way of coercion of violence, I just think that society needs to reform into something more traditional and look down women who behave in certain ways and reward those who behave in others. That way, women are simply socially ostracised (which is hell for them), until they pull their socks up, and do their duty.
I'm no Christian as such but I firmly believe the purpose of a woman is to support the man, as it was with Adam and Eve. Eve was created as a counterpart to Adam, to be his companion but also be submissive to him and support him. I believe this is the natural dynamic between man and woman.
>>743366551 Yeah same here. I don't even trust my mother now, even though we're on speaking terms and get on really well. As far as I'm concerned she still sees me as a future investment the same way she sees other males. When she's old and grey she'll want me to take care of her to some degree. So she's smoothing over the relationship and making it beneficial for me so it pays off for her towards the end of her life.
And it's all good bro. I don't even care so much anymore. If it wasn't for that shit I might not've ever understood these dynamics. So I probably wouldn't have been able to contribute to resolving the issues at hand.
Yeah that was uncalled for. He was likely doing it simply because she was there and he wanted to show himself as the alpha male of the group. Good on you for not tolerating that though. Had many men try to do that to me in my own home when I had female flatmates. Never went down well with me. Always stand your ground, never relax. Because men like that will always seek to put you below them in terms of dominance hierarchy, by any means necessary. No morals, no principles, just raw instinct, almost as bad as women themselves.
>>743366492 >And as a result they become disgusted by what they see and look elsewhere to satisfy their needs. I've thought about this once when I got my first heartbroke at the soft age of 17. However... tfw not intelligent enough to be gay :DDD
>>743366887 Teenage girls literally spell it out for young men as well. They always go for dickheads that treat them like shit because they want to be dominated by uncaring men who are so high status that they don't need to care about how women feel lol.
>>743366953 I never said Adam and Eve existed but in response to your claim, you can't know that because you're alive now, thousands of years after they're claimed to have existed. So unless you've somehow managed to travel back in time specifically to look for a living Adam + Eve then you can't really say anything. What you should've said is "I don't believe that Adam and Eve ever existed" which is fair enough.
But yeah, I'm not sure how I'm thinking in dualistic ways either, care to explain?
I mean I think I was being pretty straightforward. I was simply speaking of a social dynamic highlighted in the Bible and how it's true to life.
>>743366606 I get what you're trying to say, but in all fairness I think the real issues started in 1949.
>>743366685 I don't think you have to be 'something' per se (eg Christian) to believe in common sense. Maybe modern atheists are just pissed that super old religions had some things figured out without 'peer reviewed proof', I don't know. The sure thing I've noticed is that deep down, women do not want to have the role they are led to believe they have. They simply don't. My fiance works and she doesn't want to, she wants to stay at home (especially now with the internet, hahaha enjoy your equality). I keep telling her sorry, blame those who cut male salaries by half so they can give it to you for your financial independence. My upper boss is a woman also, she's relatively cool but you can tell she would simply prefer to just take orders. She often asks me for advise. It is SO fucking easy to take orders, you simply have no responsibility whatsoever if things go bad. What woman doesn't like that? They fucking ROLEPLAY it if they cheat on you, they make up a scenario in their heads where they have no responsibility (your fault for not fucking them 15 times per day).
The couple of vegan/hippy/anarchist females I know are all single at the age of 30++ and by the looks of it will die alone. Looks like nature... uh.. finds a way.
>>743367427 Ok so you have little to no arguement obviously because you've resorted to name-calling, ad hominem attacks and are making rough points with little to no actual substance.
Also, you're kinda conflating what I've been saying.
I never said the bible has anything to do with how life works, and I never said Adam and Eve exist.
I simply said that the dynamic put forth in relation to the relationship between Adam and Even is how I believe relationships should be, that the woman should play the supportive role behind the man who plays the leading role. This is not an arguement for or against scripture, it's simply me relating current-day gender dynamics and how they should be to something said in the Bible that accurately depicts the correct dynamic.
It's really not that hard to understand, you're finding fault because you want to.
>>743366852 >Because men like that will always seek to put you below them in terms of dominance hierarchy, by any means necessary. I noticed. The sad part is I felt bad because we're a quite close family but after some brainstorming I deducted the same things. Fuck him. I'm not a boy anymore.
>>743367552 Fuck me, both the dude and the bitch in those messages are as bad as each other. I can't even feel bad for the dude, I just cringed.
Totally agree. I've also found that in employment, pretty much all women hate working. They never stop complaining about it as opposed to men who just get on with it. Especially female management. They're literally constantly harping on about the difficulties of their jobs and again, the men just get on with it. And do so with quite a bit of swagger as well, because they clearly enjoy the grind and get a sense of satisfaction out of it. It's always women that bring drama into the workplace as well. Men generally wanna be left alone to do their thing. The only drama I've ever seen occur as a result of other men, is when one man feels threatened by another either because he seems smarter or is more attractive or whatever. But that's natural. Women however just make up issues for the sake of causing drama and doing as little work as possible because they're too busy arguing and bitching. Even management does this.
And well yeah, no genuine man wants a free woman. He wants a woman to be anything but free because he wants security in his family unit. Hippies are generally ratty as fuck, especially the women, because they have such an over-emphasis on freedom and do whatever the fuck they want, so they're really not a good choice for long-term relationships unless you're a cuck or an appeaser who's willing to tolerate anything for the sake of pussy.
>>743367939 So, the different natures of retards like him (us), women, normal men like you etc are being ignored, disregarded or dangerously grounded together in a mix that simply isn't working well as a social setting.
>>743367684 Respect to you for not tolerating that shit. I'm gonna assume he's an appeaser of women btw?
>>743367783 Yeah back in the day when I was in high school I remember that it was teenage girls that took the lead in the school's sexual hierarchy. I had lots of girls make moves on me but I wasn't interested because I had dumbass romantic ideals and guess what, was ridiculed for it, called gay etc. Just because I wouldn't fuck some dumb teenage girls. I found that contrary to popular belief it was these teenage girls that were mainly introducing young men of their own age to sex. They wanted it, so they made the boys want it so they could give them it. And if they couldn't get it from them, as you said, they went to older men.
Kinda funny because the general belief is that teenage boys prey on teenage girls for sex and do it via any means necessary but it's actually the opposite a lot of the time because of the dynamic I just highlighted.
>>743367284 >you can't know that because you're alive now Selective skeptics are the intellectual equivalent of rectal cancer. If you can't "know" that then you can't know anything, but I bet you don't live like a guy who claims one can't know anything so kindly fuck off and be edgy somewhere else.
>>743363580 Lol tell that to Europe. I've never seen an easier invasion in the history of mankind. Politicians in Sweden and Germany are alarming their general public that they will eventually be a minority and they take PRIDE in it. It was nice while it lasted.
>>743363261 When they started acting out like they've been oppressed since the end of the first suffragist movement. Their ignorance knows no bounds and they refute the truth with their modern feminist rhetoric. Absolutely despicable, they claim to want equality but are really asking for special treatment, to which they already get.
>>743367957 >I've also found that in employment, pretty much all women hate working. They never stop complaining about it as opposed to men who just get on with it. Funny enough, there used to be women who did MUCH harder work, often for no pay whatsoever and did not even complain. They lived normal lives (sometimes happy, sometimes sad) until they died in their beds surrounded by their grandkids. Now? Now they complain for the fucking A/C being sexist... (or having to work half an hour extra)
>no genuine man wants a free woman I'll add another anecdotal here, my first gf ever kept saying all the time how she isn't jealous and how she will leave me if I even dare to look at other women (such consistency!) and me being a beta fag I accepted it. Eventually she left me because I was ''too pressuring'', despite doing everything she wanted, I even stopped calling her and waited only for her call as per her command. 6 years later, that crazy bitch is among the various bitches I tell my fiance that is still hitting on me, because they need to know you are not for fucking granted. They need to know that other women are fantasizing about you on the daily. And it's not even bad that they're different or 'jealous', it is nice. I love it. Opposites attract each other, not a bunch of everything being same and equal.
>>743368457 Actually they're not. Mark Passio values morals based on truth in the same way Sam Harris does. Problem is both of them find morality in the most arbitrary way and can't explain why western morality is so starkly different from middle eastern morality. Yet they both are part of the same species.
The truth is, there are no objective morals. And therefore no objective rights. A harsh reality I know.
>>743368749 >The truth is, there are no objective morals. Not the guy you replied to, but either way how can you even prove (I assume you're a fan of scientific method) such a thing with current knowledge? You can't. It's still all philosophical so might as well not be absolute and call it 'truth'.
For instance I've seen a lot of highly respected people talk about how we're inherently designed to comprehend the difference between ''good and evil'' and our instinct leaning towards the first.
>>743368517 Hahahahaha very true. I think the A/C being sexist is just part of the same I hate work dynamic. They're not actually complaining about the A/C they're complaining about having to work offhandedly. As women often do. We all know how they never tell us how they really feel or what they really want. They give us insanely cryptic and subtle hints and expect us to know.
Anecdotal but true as fuck mate. Had a couple of females basically push me into solitude with the claim of being my best friend and some subtle coercion too that I kind of overlooked at the time. They were all about me when I was friends with many different females but the second I swerved all of those females as I knew they wanted, they were no longer interested.
Women only value men if they see other women interested in those men because of the whole pack mentality thing but also because women need to feel like they have to compete. They always want to prove that they're better than other women, more attractive or whatever. They can't do this with guys that aren't receiving interest from other women.
>>743367552 ahh, the old "I need a break but still love you" trick. This is the one where they have a dude who has been giving her sexual advances so she goes on a 'break' from her partner so she can fuck the other guy and most likely a few other dudes too before she gets bored of being a slut. Because they are able to avoid feeling guilty about cheating if they technically arent dating at that time. Then she will go back to her stable boyfriend who most likely stayed faithful the whole time like a good cuck and happily jumps back into her pocket until the next time she needs a 'break'.
>>743368986 "good and evil" is subjective. I just outlined the radically violent culture of Muslims in the middle east. To them, genocide against Jews, Christians, apostates, homosexuals and anyone who isn't living according to their book, is entirely within the realm of good and just to them. How can that be? They're just on the otherside of the Atlantic. It isn't like they're some ancient alien species lightyears away. They're right here. And yet they think so differently than we do.
The way you want to call it truth because it can't be proven, is the exact same philosophy creationists use to explain our existence. Well no one knows for sure whether god exists or not, so we might as well just assume he does right?
>>743369150 In case you missed this gem btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNH0bmYT7os
Oh for the record, I'm not even lying about it. I'm not making up stories of women hitting on me. I've changed a lot and the ex(es) saw it and are all over me now, for real. They truly don't give a shit I have a fiance.
>They can't do this with guys that aren't receiving interest from other women. Exactly. Both me and my other late bloomer friends were extremely surprised how finding ONE woman meant we went from forever alone to swarmed by women. They can smell it, I swear.
>>743369452 To be honest your example kinda proves me right, in a way. Let me explain, you say that even the e.g. Muslims lean towards good, even if said good is different from ours, right? Fundamentally what I said is verified, since most (the general rule) humans lean towards that good. We may not have an exact notion of what this 'good' is but we DO have the inherent tendency to lean towards it. So maybe that part of morality is perfectly objective? So maybe there are others too? You see where I'm going with this.
>Well no one knows for sure whether god exists or not, so we might as well just assume he does right? Nop, no one knows that for sure hence why no one can safely say that ''It is truth that God exists'' BUT neither ''It is truth that God doesn't exist'' (I think).
And yeah man I've had the same thing happen to me. Have a dry spell for a while. Suddenly come across some easy whore. Let other whores know, all of a sudden they want the D. It's simply because they're afraid of missing out on something good. I often tell women about my escapades with other women and they love it but also hate it because it wasn't them.
The only other point I have to make about this is, contrary to what many men believe, it doesn't apply if you're "friends" with a woman. Women won't flock to you if you and another woman are friends. It's only when you're fucking them that it applies. And if they see that you're friends with a female they simply see you as free utility.
>>743369253 Had a bitch try this with me just last year when I was emotionally vulnerable. Thought she got me where she wanted me so left because "she's self-destructive." Went on to fuck numerous other guys then after a while complained about being lonely on social media and guess what. Started trying to call me. Needless to say I knew what her game was, never picked up, not once.
>>743369834 If we have two conflicting ideas of what good is and means, then the entire fabric of morality falls flat on its feet. You are now arguing that morality, is infact, subjective. Which was my entire point. I don's see how this lends itself to proving you right.
>>743369756 >assuming I don't know about him but I've read the entire book a few years back. Muslims have a great trick of asking you to 'educate yourself' by reading the Koran. Maybe they think you'll be captivated and convert. To be honest it is quite captivating, but it also verifies a lot of the passages written in memes.
Also, if there's such a huge confusion in Koran interpretations maybe you should be the ones to fix it? Shouldn't be this hard. Or is it? (I reckon you've seen the memes about immigrant muslim %s and what they believe, or are they lies too?)
>>743370169 You know what? I'll even do better than that. Here's a series of videos by an ex-Muslim Arab who dissects each and every one of the tenets that we see Muslims practicing today in great detail. he covers the entire span of the Islamic holy books in great detail as to not misinterpret anything. It's a great series for those that are willfully ignorant of Islam.
>>743370364 I had a muslim try and tell me that Islam was peaceful once. That ISIS is extremist by nature and not part of mainstream Islam. I quoted some passages from the Quran that I got directly from Quran.com and he told me that Quran.com isn't accurate whatsoever and that I should speak to some true Muslims who know the scriptures and can translate them directly from arabic.
So basically, if you're non-Muslim and non-Arabic-speaking, then there's no point in you reading the Quran because you won't understand it, so you're better off just asking a Muslim.
>>743370336 You're arguing semantics now. If no one has any proof of what objective morality is and where it comes from, then it doesn't exist. Why not just say we are subjective creatures and therefore our morality is subjective? What good is having an idea of an objective morality when no one knows how to use it? And where does it come from?
>>743370425 You're grasping at straws now. I'm not saying you cannot be inspired to what ISIS does because of the Quran. I'm saying your claim that it commands killing of anyone simply for being a different religion is false and was academically dishonest as it can be proven via contextual reading and historical examples of Islam.
>>743370634 If morality doesn't exist then how do you know that hurting people is bad, and that stealing from people is bad? How do you know not to rape, steal, kill etc? You know from an intuitive understanding at the least, that these things are wrong because they do harm to others.
That is morality and it's objective. Any divergence from that is immoral because it basically highlights that to do harm is ok, or it doesn't matter.
>>743369985 I don't think there can be friends between men and women anyway. That's one of the biggest bullshit inventions ever and everyone I hear say it makes me cringe. Some even have the audacity to say it's normal they fucked as friends. How fucking degenerate (sorry, ''progressive'') can you get.
Have another link, not fully related https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/the-boyfriend-invention/
>>743370201 Perhaps I explained it badly. You are saying that the morality of ''what is good'' is subjective, I say that the morality/tendency of ''wanting to do what's good'' is objective.
>>743370771 No, what you're looking for is covered in great length in the video series I provided. Anyone who isn't Muslim is seen as subhuman and/or a heretic/blasphemer. He stipulates this in the videos. Like I said, he covers everything.
>>743370835 If I was a Muslim living in the middle east, I wouldn't know that. It would be celebrated. Everything from rape, to murder, pedophilia etc. is celebrated in Muslim societies. It's only bad to us because we have engineered a social pattern of not doing that. That's the definition of subjective. I mean even a thousand years ago in Feudal Europe we had no problem burning women alive for witchcraft or torturing people on torture racks. I don't understand how people can look at everything we've done in the past and think that morality is objective. And more importantly, how quickly our currently morality would erode if the grid shut down.
>>743371178 If you were living in a society that told you that 1+1=3 throughout your early development. You'd believe it. You wouldn't question it. That doesn't mean that 1+1=3 though, or that mathematics is subjective, because we KNOW it's not. It means that the circumstances around you have caused you to believe something untrue. That your subjective nature has led you to become unaligned with the objective truth about mathematics.
Same principle with morality. How you see it depends on your circumstances and your development, but it remains the same.
>>743370962 >Second point Well I tried but I seem to suck today. I'm trying to argue that at least some (one) morality is inherent and objective in humans. The morality of ''doing what is good'' or leaning towards doing it. Anon said that the good depends on cultures and societies and is very subjective, sure it might be, but I insist that DOING it (whatever this 'it' may be) is the same. Regardless of culture or race, people want to do what's good.
>>743371782 Ohhhh yeah, I get you now. See my above point. I'm in agreement with you. Morality is objective but we have a natural subjective nature so we tend to twist and turn morality to fit in with our cultural heritage, circumstances and our early development often gets in the way too.
the only way to defeat our enemies, who have opted for greater efficiency at the cost of morality, is to adopt their tactics. white sharia is the only way to preserve our culture and traditions as the world moves forward.
>>743372086 The people you speak of have used order as a means to rule, but that's not truly order. Only anarchy, no rulership, is true order. When it's based on moral principles that is. Both chaotic anarchy and rulership are immoral, not based in morality, so your arguement is pretty much defunct. It goes back to my earlier point that people can be indoctrinated into having a warped sense of morality, and that's exactly what rulership does for its own benefit. It uses a warped sense of morality to keep people docile and complacent. True morality would dictate that rulership would be overtaken by the people because rulership itself is immoral. So yeah. Speaks for itself really.
If you didn't read the entire wall of text I sent or the string of messages before, you would be incorrect.
Eg. Me : Hey mate You: wassup Me: So I got into a fight the other day You: how? Me: well I was waiting in line at the shops and a guy cut in front of me... I tried to tell him off and he hit me You: that's awful, what did you say to him? Me: you're a a jackass
Now, if you selectively read the last sentence without context, you could reply "wtf mate, why you calling me a jackass?" The statement is indeed on my phone, but you read it without context. you're a jackass
If you only read the last sentence, you would be incorrectly thinking I was
>>743372004 Getting back to the original topic, DID YOU KNOW that women tend to check other women's asses, boobs etc often more than men? Now you do! I literally lol'd the first of the many times I heard this.
>>743372079 You can't teach mathematics while showing them why 1+1=3. It's impossible. You first have to establish the value of 1. Then the value of 3. And in so doing, you already refute your argument.
The same can't be said of morality. Again, Mark Passio's work explain nothing that needs to be explained. The fabric of moral "truth" is refuted the moment you cross the border. When moral values are defeated based on geography, there are no moral values.
>>743372383 Well I guess that if somebody murders you and your family that's totally ok because y'know, survival of the fittest and there is no such thing as morality. In fact, I'd go as far as to say the person doing so is completely within their right to do so because it's within their idea of morality to kill others.
>>743372235 So you argument is that morality is rooted in chaos? So it was moral when native american and viking tribes raped and murdered and pillaged rival tribes? because the land was lawless as it's naturally supposed to be?
>>743372331 You're being a bit pedantic and propagandistic right now, or both. I don't need to read 2 days worth of chat to know that you called me a jackass. Why you called me is not in question. The point is you did and it can be seen in 1 or 2 lines at most.
In other words if you called for the decapitation of babies it does not really matter to me WHY you did it. Maybe they peed on your carpet, I don't give a damn. I am against decapitation of babies and therefore seeing/hearing you say it is enough for me to draw a conclusion.
Regardless of all that, like I said I've read the context anyway and it verifies things the same way I made my analogy.
>>743372591 No, morality is rooted in the understanding that to do harm and encroach on someone else's freedoms is wrong. Simple as. Anarchy isn't chaos. Anarchy simply means no rulers. And no rulers doesn't automatically imply chaos. Totally depends on the social climate and the intention behind the anarchy.
Both the native americans and viking tribes had little to no understanding of morality because they sought to conquer other tribes for personal gain rather than communicate and work together. They were simply carrying out the principle of "survival of the fittest" which is immoral. Because when it comes to the world of humans, that is totally unnecessary, because we have the capacity to work together for mutual benefit. There is no need for violent opposition. We're not animals.
Mate my arguement has been the complete opposite. That morality is objective. But that people can perceive it to be something else due to their subjective nature. But that basically, that mis-perception is just that, mis-percepton, untruth, falsehood, a lie.
>>743372871 Your argument is that objective morality exists somewhere in the ehther outside of our cognitive idea, but that because people are fickle, they percieve morality subjectivley. So then when someone wants to inflict harm and anguish on another person, that's them carrying out their morality in the way that they perceive themselves to do so. That's literally what your entire argument is predicated on.
>>743372981 probably just a teen whore who casually fucks around with a group of teen boys. had lots of them back in the day in my social groups. giving line-ups (multiple blowjobs), fucking guys in bushes and then giving head to others etc. 13-14-15 year old whores.
>>743373181 There is. It's the one women want to get impregnated from and serve, it's the one other men want to follow and protect. Sometimes even seeing people and you just know. Has it never happened to you?
>>743373069 >had lots of them back in the day in my social groups same but if you're with said slut and someone else moves in on her in front of you, wouldn't you make an example of him by beating the crap out of him?
>>743372785 The arab slave trade lasted over a thousand years. And Rome before that. Encroaching on other people's freedoms has never, ever, been seen as wrong until very recently. We have had slaves longer than we have not had them. Explain that.
Anarchy is inherently rooted in chaos. You can't have order without a leader. Even if we all became anarchists, the natural order would be to designate a leader. The same way every single animal hierarchy does in the animal kingdom.
If both the natives Americans and vikings had no understanding of morality, then that means it didn't exist. When you have to be "taught" moral values, then it's not objective.
>>743373293 >lol @ all the horrid lil bois in this thread >why dont you drive a car into a crowd about it, you shrivelled failures :) How would you feel if someone here actually acted upon your "advice"?
Like I said, what you're doing is called Gish Gallop. I'll only disprove a few of these because you are too gullible to simply read and verify if the claims are accurate yourself.
He starts with trying to prove terrorism is ordered in the Quran.
Terrorism definition: -the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Highlight unlawful use of violence; especially against civilians Oddly enough, he uses a carefully verse from Surah 8, entitled "The spoils of war". Already, you can see the argument falling apart as it stems from a chapter regarding the rules of war, not random terror.
He quotes 8:60. But did you even bother to read the enitirety of the chapter or at the very least the passages leading up to that verse: Take a look: https://quran.com/8/38-60
It's clearly rules for war when faced with hostility. Not to mention that the word terror and terrorism only share a stem in the English language, so the inclusion in the verse he highlighted is meaningless to suggest it has anything to do with the concept of terrorism.
>>743373181 And yet with only two nouns, you can instantly imagine all the behaviors and characteristics that go with each one. It's useful nomenclature, at least as far as it goes. I guess I'd argue that celibate monks and mad men might be outside the categorization.
Most men bounce between the two, depending on circumstances, or have traits of both.
Chiseled movie stars lose their minds over some THOT. Sometimes a shy dork gets a couple drinks on board and picks up a woman that's way out of his league.
>>743373557 Simple explanation really. A lack of education, especially in relation to philosophical and moral principles. Anything goes in a society that lacks an understanding of these principles. Rulers are free to do whatever they want. And so is the society at large really. It's the law of the jungle, simple as.
And anarchy could work, but only if a majority had an understanding of philosophical and moral principles and didn't diverge from them.
>>743372630 >In other words if you called for the decapitation of babies it does not really matter to me WHY you did it. But no such extreme is in the Quran. In the Bible, perhaps. There is definitely violence in the Quran, but it is definitley skewed in memes.
Punching a person trying to steal your phone is not the same as punching a person because it's funny.
There's certainly confident and non-confident men, leaders vs followers and genetically/physically strong vs weak men. But alpha and beta is just a made up term. If there were such a thing then physically small, shy men could never become alpha, because they're genetically beta, but this isn't the case.
The moment one opened her mouth and said some crazy bullshit and nobody could backhand her and tell her to shut up. That's when I realized that any feedback mechanism to prevent women to go too far off the rails was gone. Too much power before they were ever ready for it.
>>743373582 Oh I see, so you think that the Muslim conquests of Constantinople, and Spain, and the middle east, and northern Africa never happend then? The Ottoman empire was entirely pacifist in nature is that it?
>>743374130 We both know that no matter what I say I'm not going to be able to convince you of anything. And Mark Passio's stuff sums this up better than I ever could atm, so it's way more efficient for both me and you for me to just direct you towards some of his stuff. Consider it a cop-out if you will. That I don't know what I'm talking about. But I do, just not enough to convince someone as rigid minded as yourself.
>>743373766 >But no such extreme is in the Quran. In the Bible, perhaps. Yeah, I've read both.
>There is definitely violence in the Quran, but it is definitley skewed in memes. Memes skew everything by default anyway.
>Punching a person trying to steal your phone is not the same as punching a person because it's funny. No it's not the same. But then again if you drop your phone from 500m and 5000m, the result will be the same.
>>743374287 If you know what you're talking about, you'd be able to shift my opinion using rational arguments, but every argument you make, can be refuted with history. You and Mark share "an idea" of what morality is. It's still not grounded in reality. And there's no way to prove it. It's wishful thinking.
>>743374356 And? That just proves my point. That until very recently, morality didn't exist. or at least didn't exist in the context of what we now call morality. Morality isn't objective, and it changes as often as the wind blows.
>>743374420 Well I hope you bear this in mind when someone hurts either yourself or someone you love. That it doesn't matter because they're well within their rights to, because morality is subjective therefore people make up the rules as they go along and nobody else has the right to say anything or do anything because rights don't exist, right.
>>743373791 >Adam ruins everything Discarded, I'm afraid. >Words and definitions are made up Yep, they generally are. >Small, shy men could never become alpha I never said that. If you define being alpha by how tall you are, then you are wrong. I never said that a beta can never become alpha either. You said that alpha doesn't exist and linked a pointless video which I'm not going to watch because that guy is a pretentious dummy and your argument also isn't relevant; I said that alphas exist (just like good Samaritans '''exist''' without getting stuck in semantics) and I told you when. I did not mention shyness or size in my comment.
>>743375500 gotta love the selective muslim outrage, rather than doing the reasonable thing and stoning their daughter to death, they decide it was his fault and take it out on him. at least when they die he'll get the last laugh when his family inherits the money.
>>743363580 That's how it is in the south. Everybody is hospitable but we keep our distance. Then some Yankees come down for university and act like they know how black people are from TV, and get mad at me when I play Alabama nigger in the shower.
>>743365121 >Just think about it this way. Imagine there was a huge influx of ANIMU WAIFUS in e.g. USA. The women, naturally seeing a ton of competitors arriving, they dislike it and express their scorn. I don't think woman are gonna be jealous of not being able to date a bunch of fat weebs, anon.
>>743364930 >Because when left to their own devices, they're all about feels rather than facts. They follow their instincts with little to no self-reflection and ultimately lead themselves and those around them into self-destructive patterns of behaviour. I guess 4chan must be mostly women then.
>>743365089 >That always led to me being taken advantage of or outright fucked over. >Thankfully I'm pretty much red-pilled now and I see through these dynamics, but most men still don't and likely never will. Lol, looks like we have a "Nice Guy" who "finished last" here, folks.
>>743366551 >but that cuck failed to realize that the moment I showed weakness when challenged by ANYONE in front of my fiance is the moment she'd be my fiance no longer. >He's lucky I didn't kick his teeth in.
>>743366286 >posting this article like it represents women I wonder what you think of the countless suicidal men here who want to kill themselves for being too lazy to get a job or because they don't have a gf.
>>743379731 >bumping this thread Tell me Clem, why are you so pathetic? Did Suzie turn you down at the prom because she didn't like how you stalked her and you've been a bitter neckbeard stewing away in your mother's basement ever since?
>>743380334 Why do triggered neckbeards called anyone who isn't a sad little MGTOW "women"? Is it because they are so pathetic and deluded they can't comprehend that the word isn't full of sad NEETs like them?
>>743380431 it's sad to see you're unable to have a debate and instead opt to personal attacks. i know that you're a woman because men use logic and logic to prove their points, whereas women do exactly what you're doing now. then again you could just be a very effeminate gay man, that would also explain a lot about you.
>>743380904 It's sad to see that you have gotten so pathetic that you blame those icky disgusting girls for everything wrong in your miserable life. I know your a retard because neckbeards like yourself don't use logic, only their fragile egos and a tonne of cherrypicked "facts" from whatever MGTOW circlejerk they lurk.
It's funny how you call someone gay when you're the one butthurt about women so much. Really makes you think.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.