Why haven't you taken the greenpill yet?

File: debuking jhon green.png (401KB, 1305x947px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1305x947px

>>36414213
raviolli raviolli, that nu-male is the worstiolli

>>36414213
> Comparing women to cereals

Isn't that objectification of women?

Bogpill me on this man.

>>36414399
Yes, yes it is. John Green's base audience is sad fourteen year old girls. Don't expect much depth.

>>36414503
>Yes, yes it is.

Seriously fucking kill yourself. You don't need to say yes twice. We got it the fucking first time.

>>36414335
It's Green's opinion, agree or disagree opinions are not set in stone, the question was "does it bother you..." not "is there only one and only one way to look at this situation which is correct".

Then the person "debunking" goes ahead and proves Green's point exactly. First of all he completely misses the example with Cheerios (given it was a silly one): He wasn't talking about each one, he was refering to the brand as a new type of cereal he's trying after eating other brands in the past. But secondly andd most importantly he goes on this rant while almost exclusivly talking about women (i.e: it's bad when women had previous sexual partners). The entire point is that it doesn't matter period. When anon explains how it does matter on a psychological and physical levels while only talking about women he proves the point exactly.

The argument about spitting the cheerios is silly as well, people don't chew each other and spit, if a person compares physical sexual contact to that I bet they're also bothered by the person pissing and shitting everyday, or sweating or whatever else, and if (which is most likely the case for most people) those stuff don't bother them (which are arguebly more unpleasant than sex) it makes them pure hypocrites when they selectively deside that sex is the one thing that does. It just shows how it's simply a psychological matter and nothing more. Also as far as beef curtains go: Mostly an internet myth.

>inb4 rostie

>>36414213
I actively hate him just for his face, I don't even know much else about him. He's just got an annoying face.

>>36414526
Calm down there lil feller

>>36414549
It's a shit argument. He could've just posted the promiscuity affect on marriage statistic and that'd kill John's argument flat out.
I know for a fact that John Green's wife cucks him.

>>36414595
Relate those facts pls.

>>36414213
honestly John Green is great and all and i love him and his brother Hank Green, but
>>36414335 is right. Overtime women will grow less emotional attachment to beings over the more sexual partners they have and relationships that occur. This happens to anyone honestly. Its like using a knife, it will end up dulling out from over usage.

>>36414616
>relate
What?

>it's a novel about two special snowflakes doing special snowflake things because we're young and free spirits bro
>wtf i love reading books now

File: Gtav_grass_roots.jpg (232KB, 1276x719px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1276x719px

>>36414213

This guy looks like that Barry character from GTA5, who wanted to legalize weed.

>>36414549
the metaphor is irrelevant. it's the point behind the metaphor that's important. proving the point wrong doesnt make him right.

>>36414640
I want to know what facts you have.

File: johngreene2.jpg (75KB, 848x474px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 848x474px

god damn it he used to be a kinda decent history teacher

fuck you john green.

Most women dont care how many partners their mate has had previously because they are such whores themselves.
Simple.

>>36414716
"Alexander the great was a misogynist"

File: Heritage.jpg (56KB, 633x360px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 633x360px

>>36414714
simple google search, anon
also,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxpVwBzFAkw

John "the Mongol Empire was the apex of human civilization" Green

>>36414549
>he goes on this rant while almost exclusivly talking about women (i.e: it's bad when women had previous sexual partners). The entire point is that it doesn't matter period. When anon explains how it does matter on a psychological and physical levels while only talking about women he proves the point exactly.
you better be a roastie otherwise you might have troubles getting by in life being this dumb

>>36414768
This is just common sense.

You're also probably going to have a more stable marriage if you were a muslim in Iran, I don't reckon their divorce rates are too high.

Point is people care about their personal life experiences than they do about traditional shit like marriage. Not their fault your life is pathetic, why shouldn't they enjoy their only chance in life?

>>36414213
After watching his "Crash course through marxist propaganda and shitting on european history" show on youtube i now can not take anything he says seriously and only feel an urge to beat his face with a crow bar

>>36414768
What does that have to do with John Green's wife cucking him?

>>36414836
Then they shouldn't get married at all desu

>>36414815
>see an argument you don't like
>you don't agree with it based on an emotional factor but otherwise can't provide a logical counterargument to save your life
>just call him an idiot and call it a day

Either provide a counterargument or fuck off, cuck (see? I can use buzzwords too).

>>36414870
>in my opinion
This is one of those things.

>>36414868
He's obviously coping.

>>36414899
Why get married if you can't transition from polygamy to monogamy? You;re setting up your marriage for failure if you do so.

He likes his cereal to be full of dicks,jizz and aids!

>>36414855
Yeah we get it, youre a sociopathic dickhead, why dont you kill yourself

>>36414915
... Because you want to...?

I'm not the anon you're talking to but if people wanna get married and then get divorced idc and why should you

>>36414964
Because if I get married (likely, I'm a simp bitch and I'm guaranteed a good position out of college. Plus my parents are nonwhite immigrants who will seek out partners for me)
why the fuck should I risk marrying a woman who's had a shit ton of partners? Why the fuck should I risk losing all of my shit? Even if I simply cohabited with women that wasn't a marriage, laws in my country still force the husband to give alimony upon breaking up. It's fucked and you usually can't tell how many partners someone's had because you won't get a straight answer.

>>36415014
>>36414964
TL;DR because if effects pretty much everyone's dating/marriage life

>>36414901
>I know for a fact
>no facts
K

>>36414915
You certainly have alot of opinions my man

>>36415066
How is that an opinion?

>>36415014
I don't see why you have to? Nobody's forcing you. You're free to do whatever you want with your life, same as every other human.

File: johngreene1~01.png (1MB, 1456x688px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1456x688px

>>36414761
He technically was but the feminist BS was always creeping in. I used to not notice but if you rewatch it you kinda see it, yes.

>>36415083
>you're setting yourself up for failure
>not an opinion

>>36415085
Because marrying someone who you don't know about their sexual past is a gamble?

>>36415099
Well, being cheated on and losing your belongings in divorce sounds like failure to me. You know, a failed marriage? Unless you happen to like that sort of thing.

>>36415115
Some folks like a gamble.

>>36415130
College educated females 25+ have an 80percent marriage success rate. Not exactly longshots we're talking.

>>36415488
Give sources?
>>36415477
Gambling is bad.

>>36414213
nu males make me sick

>>36415532
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/marriage-and-divorce-patterns-by-gender-race-and-educational-attainment-5.htm
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/04/education-and-marriage/
>gambling is bad
And yet folks love to gamble. Don't be the moral police.

>>36415622
Interesting. I'd like to see how it works for college educated women after experiencing modern hookup culture.

women are held to a different standard than men for a reason you know. Back then everything was about lineage and heritage so a woman that knew how to keep her legs closed was important.

nowadays sexual selection is back in the hand of females which means they have an easier time getting what they want. People tend to dislike it when someone uses the advantages they're given fully and without restraint, like someone healthy having a race against someone with just one leg or something like that.

Whoever refered to cereals as having a whole grain crunch? why would that be something worth enjoying anyway? libtards

>>36414526
imagine being this autistic
blox

>>36415770
He's literally implying whole grain is crunchy which is just retarded