Explain why the fuck we cant have state issued GFs? Its obvious

>>34828011
>Society as a whole would be better if females were treated like children/property rather than equals
no.

>>34828314
Care to C O U N T E R A R G U E?

>>34828011
>Explain why the fuck we cant have state issued GFs?
Just as much as I don't want to pay for a degenerate on welfare, I sure as hell am not sponsoring state funded girlfriends for faggots that never want to put in the work to earn ANYTHING in their life because they are under the misconception that: if someone else can get it for free, then why even try? Nope. Fuck that and fuck you for even considering it as a possibility.

>Society as a whole would be better if females were treated like children/property rather than equals
What? Where did you come to this conclusion? Women provide an awesome aspect of life that lead to a greater self-understanding. It's something that they'll never be able to take from a man.

Stop being a fucking pussy.

>>34828371
>Care to C O U N T E R A R G U E?
no cause your argument is the equivalent of a shitpost. it's vapid and holds no water

>>34828371

Its a female, you're lucky she even managed to get an actual English word on the keyboard from randomly smashing the keyboard in a fit of roastie rage.

File: 1486601953409.png (76KB, 363x395px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 363x395px

>>34828011
>state issued
DON'T TREAD

Just gonna say it. If I were forced to marry OP in such a society, I would cheat on him, make him raise another man's children, and then poison him for insurance money to live a life of freedom.

>>34829119
so... what you're doing to other guys now

>>34829131
Sadly, I've never poisoned anyone, but I'm waiting for true love.

>>34828011
Kanye 2020 for state issued gf's

>>34828572
>Women provide an awesome aspect of life that lead to a greater self-understanding.

How are they doing that for me?

File: 1486694743654.png (643KB, 1022x731px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 1022x731px

>there aren't that many 8-10/10s in the world
>op gets issued a 4.5
>he's disgusted by her and boycotts the system

Prove me wrong faggot

>>34829257
Implying this board wouldn't be okay with a 4.5/10

>>34828371
Tolerance and a willingness to listen to other points of view should end at intolerance. If it didn't, tolerance would eventually dwindle into nothing but hatefulness.

It doesn't take an argument to dismiss the dismissal of female agency.

>>34829288
That is 100% what I'm implying notice what picture is used in the op and what pictures are never used in the op

>>34829295
That doesn't change whether or not society would be more productive, you're entire argument is entirely based on MUH FEELS.

>>34829362
My entire argument is based on whether or not the phrase "females shouldn't have agency" is intolerant or not. Though you would understand that if you didn't have a pre-scripted response.

>>34829446
But that doesn't answer the point OP is making. OP is saying society would be better/more productive if men were given state issued gf's, and women were treated like children/property.
Whether it's intolerant or not has nothing to do with it. That's just you bringing your feels into it, since you think tolerance has any importance or relevance to the subject matter.

>>34829558
It's relevant because people aren't emotionless creatures. Feelings are going to influence the way people operate. If you told me I was going to be reduced to property, what do you think I would do? What do you think my brother and father would do? If you think women would sit down and let that happen after being free, you're plain wrong. It would lead to worse consequences.

What would it be like if the qt in the OP shrunk you, swallowed you whole, then digested you and then you turned into her poop? Asking for a friend, haha.

>>34829558
But anon.. ur freedom ends where my feelings begin

Ecks di

>>34829637
All it takes is some societal manipulation. Islam is already almost exactly like OP's ideas in most of their countries, so it's 100% doable. It just has to become the social norm. Most people can be influenced to accept something like this if they're either forced to, or brainwashed into it.

>>34829558
Society would be a lot more productive if there was a pill that made it so you didn't have to eat or sleep.

That statement is purely hypothetical. What you're talking about is purely hypothetical. The OP, however, started with "Explain why the fuck we cant have state issued GFs?"

*WE* can't have state issued GFs because taking away female agency would be fucking retarded. The thought isn't worth the listening ear of a free person.

>>34830006
I'm just pointing out to that person that they can't just base an argument on their feelings. If they gave a rational and logical reason to dispute OP's claims then I'd be fine with that, but when they try to bring morals and feelings into it when it's not related to it, it pisses me off.
You're also doing it.
> taking away female agency would be fucking retarded. The thought isn't worth the listening ear of a free person.
You aren't giving a real argument, you're basically just saying we shouldn't do it because I don't like it.
I don't even support or oppose OP's claim, I just hate it when people don't logic and reasoning in their arguments. Since I'm a pragmatist, I only really care whether something is practical or not.

>>34829797
Not with Donald Trump as my president. You're just as bad as Muslims.

>>34829119

This is why the state issued gfs come with chastity belts and shock colors. I'd have you acting right or you'd be spending every second of your life racked with pain. I'd pay extra for the declitting and hysterectomy package.

>>34830169
Like I said in my previous post, I am a pragmatist, and I don't care about morals, so whether it's bad or not doesn't concern me. All that matters to me is whether something is practical.

>>34830390
As a pragmatist, you should realize that morals matter because other people operate on a system of morals you degenerate.

>>34830157
>You aren't giving a real argument

I don't need a real argument against intolerance. As I said before, "Tolerance and a willingness to listen to other points of view should end at intolerance. If it didn't, tolerance would eventually dwindle into nothing but hatefulness."

Taking away agency due to given attributes is unethical, it's not just immoral. If you think that that's muh feelings then you're more of a retard than a pragmatist.

>>34830006

Taking away female agency would be very smart and most wise men support it. It can happen, and many decisions are made based on whats good and not necessarily whats the most emotional. Not as much as I'd like but look at corporations; they simply would not exist if not for making good decisions.

Not that long ago men owned other men of their own race, the indigenous race, and even men of imported races. How exactly is the thought of owning a woman so unthinkable to you?

File: d1h0t8hneafy.png (155KB, 373x255px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 373x255px

time is almost up maybe i should just end it now.

>>34830466
Okay buddy.

You sure are.

>>34828011
Because weak faggots like you shouldn't reproduce, you have shitty genes.

>>34830410

That does not logically follow. Morals should not matter to a pragmatic person any more than pragmatism should not matter to a nonpragmatic person. Some people rape infants to cure aids. That doesn't mean it should be a treatment offered in hospitals because 'lol maybe it will work this time, other people try it all the time so it has to work'.

>>34828371
Why would I trust a state agency to be able to figure out who I want to be my girlfriend? I can't think of anything worse than some state worker in an office somewhere who hates their life deciding the girl I date.

>>34830547

I sure am what? I didn't say I sure am anything, so I'm confused. Did you forget to post the middle half of your message?

>>34830410
Well sure, morals can be a useful tool for influencing how a society works. Keep in mind though that your morals are not universal, people in other societies would be outraged at would you believe.
The moral fabric of a society is malleable, and can be changed to become practical and useful, or else it could just drift into chaos and decline.

>>34830610
No. I definitely am. But so are you.

>>34830555
>Claims to follow logical flow.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I said. You operate in a world where other people abide by a moral system. You can't erase morals because you don't believe they hold value, because everyone else will be operating as if they do, regardless of any objectivity. That's what I'm saying faggot.

>>34830602

How hard can it be? They give you one that's close to your age and relatively good health. The rest is up to you to train her. How fucking lazy are you that you want a turnkey operation? If you can't spare an hour to lay out the rules and expectations the first day and a few minutes each day to mete out punishments/rewards the first few weeks you don't deserve a gf. That's how the gf shelters become filled with used goods. Be a responsible pet owner or don't be one at all.

What would you do when you get assigned a gf that looks like gabourey sidibe?

>>34829257
After 25 years alone I'd even be okay with a deaf and blind 2/10.

>>34830430
"Tolerance and a willingness to listen to other points of view should end at intolerance. If it didn't, tolerance would eventually dwindle into nothing but hatefulness."

Why would it dwindle into hatefulness? It sounds like what you're displaying is a minor form of hatefulness already, so it doesn't seem like it would be much different.
And again, you're relying on morals, and now on ad-hominem attacks.
And like I said before, I don't agree or disagree with OP's claim, I am a pragmatist, so I am open minded to either situation depending on whether I can be convinced if it's practical or not.

File: 1481588844866.jpg (208KB, 1024x1010px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1024x1010px

>>34828011
State issued GFs wouldn't be as good as aftermarket GFs though.

>>34830639

So you aren't really saying anything at all? I never suggested erasing things. I value morals because I am Christian, we're pretty familiar with the whole being good thing. I'm also smart enough to understand basic concepts. Someone who wants a cheap blue coupe is not concerned with how much the most expensive Rainbow monster truck costs and does not factor it into his decision about cheap blue coupes.

People are still raping infants to cure their aids. That doesn't mean it works or is the moral thing to do.

>>34830737
What if she constantly belittles you and hates all your hobbies/views?

>>34830720

If it's a shitskin I'd return it or just lock it in a box with two easy access ports for when I want to play with a hole. Once a week I'd hose the box out.

>>34830824

No matter how dumb a bitch is you can easily get her to stop those kinds of behaviors, that's actually the easiest to correct. You could do pretty much whatever you think. There are many methods and they're all effective.

>>34830741
The idea is based off of Plato's paradox of intolerance. Karl Popper speaks on it in "The Open Society and Its Enemies." Karl Popper is popularly regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science in the 20th century.

>"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

It's actually ironic because he speaks directly on the revival of the slave trade.

>>34830466
>and most wise men support it

Wise men can get laid without toleiteriate government forcing them to be slaves, Anon

>>34830824
At this point anything is better than being alone, even having someone that would abuse me. At least it's something to fill the void.

She is a prime example of what I would call "obnoxiously pretty". Some people are so pretty they CONSTANTLY have to let other people know and make these stupid smug faces while doing so. It's being proud of something you did absolutely nothing for.

>>34830987
>I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.
This basically proves my point. I think rational argument, rather than morals and feelings should be used to counter arguments.

>>34830684
Fuck, casually saying pet owner like that is SO fucking hot. Why do you do this to me?

>>34831287
From >>34830430
>Taking away agency due to given attributes is unethical, it's not just immoral.

I'm not going around in a circle again just so that you can tell me that you're a pragmatist one more time.

Give me one statement that denounces the revival the slave trade (since you just subscribed to Karl Popper) and claims that taking away female agency is ethical. If you don't, then I'm not replying to your reply.

>>34830514
bo eh

>>34831579
Once again, you're completely missing my point. I simply think an argument should be based on facts, logic, reason, etc. I don't think morals or ethics are relevant, since they're highly subjective.
Asking me to come up with claim that taking away female agency is ethical is completely irrelevant, since I don't care one way or the other, and don't believe ethics are relevant.

>>34829176
>waiting
>for
>true
>love

>commit
>suicide

>>34831102

Astronauts can also go to space and bankers can go to the grocery store without the toleiteriate government forcing them to be slaves. Do you have a fucking point here or did you just want to hear the click clack of your keyboard?

>>34831278

Yeah, what a fucking bitch. I can't believe she has the nerve to actually appear happy despite having a pretty good life. She could at least act a little sad, there's starving children in Africa ffs.