Women are nothing more than fuck toys and breeding cattle. Women exist to improve the lives of men, not the other way around.
well We cant even have that so it is over for incel
Indeed, but cucked retards fucked millennia of social engineering by giving them rights instead of just beating them harder 
Last edited:
tbhIndeed, but cucked retards fucked millennia of years of social engineering by giving them rights instead of just beating them harder
there's no going back...
im peguin
In primitive communities women do 90% of work while men chillmaxx
Yes, they aren't human
And niggers I want a cotton plantation
Based
Exactly.
The only purpose they have is to be bred and birth children... and they can't even do that.
Lots of foids these days refuse to have kids.
And the ones who do, have kids when their old, but they'll give birth to spastics.
The only purpose they have is to be bred and birth children... and they can't even do that.
Lots of foids these days refuse to have kids.
And the ones who do, have kids when their old, but they'll give birth to spastics.
100% agreed, extremely based
Indeed, but cucked retards fucked millennia of social engineering by giving them rights instead of just beating them harder
They'll all filthy cum buckets
Tfw too late for screenshot
A
i mean.... dont get me wrong, its not that im a feminist woman lover or whatever, its just that, i feel they deserve moral consideration
surely it must be morally wrong to torture and kill them for pleasure. so like, if you just took a woman and tortured her, her entire life, acid faced her, subjected her to isolation, that would be wrong
i think it does stand to reason that women deserve moral consideration. we have no reason to think they cant suffer, atleast in some similar ways men can
the problem is men have been bred through evolutionary history to be desperate for sex and love, and suffer quite horrific incel lives if they dont get sex and love
and its hard for me to imagine a world where everyone is happy
in a more patriarchal society where women are raped in marriages, have no rights, as sold as wives when they are 12, are all women happy in such societies? it doesnt seem to me the case...
maybe some women get really lousy husbands who abuse them, dont sexually satisfy them, and they live miserable lives?
idk. i feel like such societies cant work in the current year because of social media and how much comparison women are doing. ignorance is bliss, as they say
but, also, in a more female oriented society, like ours, there is a growing and growing number of men who are incels and cant get nothing but chad's used up gutterslut roastie slut hag post wall trashcan
and i dont know what a society where everyone is happy looks like
and i feel its selfish, bad faith, and self-serving to say only men should have their needs met and respected, and not women
you guys have to be massive hypocrites to advocate to a society that conveniently serves your self-interests while subjugating others
it kinda doesnt really matter tho, because with ai sexbots on the horizon, that issue will go away
surely it must be morally wrong to torture and kill them for pleasure. so like, if you just took a woman and tortured her, her entire life, acid faced her, subjected her to isolation, that would be wrong
i think it does stand to reason that women deserve moral consideration. we have no reason to think they cant suffer, atleast in some similar ways men can
the problem is men have been bred through evolutionary history to be desperate for sex and love, and suffer quite horrific incel lives if they dont get sex and love
and its hard for me to imagine a world where everyone is happy
in a more patriarchal society where women are raped in marriages, have no rights, as sold as wives when they are 12, are all women happy in such societies? it doesnt seem to me the case...
maybe some women get really lousy husbands who abuse them, dont sexually satisfy them, and they live miserable lives?
idk. i feel like such societies cant work in the current year because of social media and how much comparison women are doing. ignorance is bliss, as they say
but, also, in a more female oriented society, like ours, there is a growing and growing number of men who are incels and cant get nothing but chad's used up gutterslut roastie slut hag post wall trashcan
and i dont know what a society where everyone is happy looks like
and i feel its selfish, bad faith, and self-serving to say only men should have their needs met and respected, and not women
you guys have to be massive hypocrites to advocate to a society that conveniently serves your self-interests while subjugating others
it kinda doesnt really matter tho, because with ai sexbots on the horizon, that issue will go away
It's almost time.
A
50% Blue pill
what a honestly pathetic trashcan self-serving GARBAGE hypocritical take, honestly
its stunning to hear people agree with such takes
a female's purpose is not to serve your interests, nor should it be. they arent your FUCKING SLAVES you hypocritical retard. they choose their own purpose in life, just as you do
your take would be the equivalent of a powerful politician saying "a average man's purpose is to be a female's slave, die in war, build society, and be nice cuckold husbands who raise chad's kids or get raped in jail"
you wouldnt accept other people choosing your purpose for you, and subjugating you because they are more powerful than you, and yet you advocate doing so to them, at your self-serving convenience. its stunningly hypocritical
i think you can make some arguments that women are bad people or act horrifically, but advocating for them to be slaves for your self-serving convenience, is just prime hypocrisy and a garbage take
the whole idea that its our purpose to have kids is outdated anyways because soon we will have genetically engineered children who wont be genetically related to any males. not to mention, we will have technology to prolong the lifespan for a long time, decades or even centuries, potentially ending biological death, thus in a way reducing or removing the need for children
A
cope harder you illiterate retard
just because you hate women doesnt entail that they dont deserve moral consideration
this thread is fundamentally about MORALS. its about normative claims
you literally made a normative claim when you made this thread
imagine being so intelectually cowardly and pathetic that you try to get me banned instead of addressing my claims
try to form an arguement or justification for your "females should be slaves" post in light of my arguement, you fucking cowardly crosseyed retard
fuck, you are stupid
this thread is a echo chamber of cowardly self-serving hypocrites
dont make normative statements about how we should enslave and subjugate half the human race without a semi-decent justification, please
Last edited:
A
wrong. this is projection of the highest orderEverybody is self-serving you gigafaggot.
and even if everyone is self-serving, that doesnt mean we ought be self-serving
there is a divide between what is and what SHOULD be
SHOULD and OUGHT are a MORAL CLAIM. you made a MORAL claim in your op, which you entirely failed to justify, and just cowardly relied on a echo-chamber of other hypocrites to dickride you
Is–ought problem - Wikipedia
the world shouldn't revolve around you and your needs at the expense of everyone else, because you are not the only being with moral status
wrong. this is projection of the highest order
and even if everyone is self-serving, that doesnt mean we ought be self-serving
there is a divide between what is and what SHOULD be
SHOULD and OUGHT are a MORAL CLAIM. you made a MORAL claim in your op, which you entirely failed to justify, and just cowardly relied on a echo-chamber of other hypocrites to dickride you
Is–ought problem - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
the world shouldn't revolve around you and your needs at the expense of everyone else, because you are not the only being with moral status
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX3fyeNG92o
A
"might makes right because anime says so, look at these cool animations"
by those standards, slavery and castrating nigger child slaves and beating them to death if they look at you funny is moral
the government forcing you to be conscripted and die in a war against your will while smug whores laugh at you is moral
by your natural law, then females are perfectly morally innocent of all of their behavior, because they were powerful enough to do so
"might makes right" philosophy basically disregards the concept of moral status and basically morals altogether. so it would be contradictory for you to make the statement "women SHOULD be slaves", because thats a moralizing statement, and you dont really believe in morals
not to mention, nihilism is a joke philosophy, and most philosophy professors are moral realists. theres quite a lot of powerful arguments for moral realism. some of the arguments for moral realism are quite new, developed in the last 25~ years, and are not reliant on god
i wont lie when i say i understand them all, but i do watch lectures and debates on moral realism semi-often, and i enjoy learning about it
i just find it a bit funny how you embrace might-makes-right philosophy while simultaneously being on the bottom of the human hierarchy and probably the most subjugated group in our society, as a incels.is shitposter
Might makes right is based on master morality.
Its serious because as a bottom feeder, I understand the importance of wiping out subhumans given how our lives are agony. We are a hindrance and burden upon humanity.
sadly, the opposite is more accurate
@Master @Fat Link @The Enforcer @Dregster @SlayerSlayer @proudweeb @TheProphetMuscle ban this bluepilled soyboy right now
Last edited:
A
wow!
i got a 50% ban warning level for arguing against slavery, because its blue pill, by fat link the moderator
okay then! i suppose i wont speak up against slavery
i got a 50% ban warning level for arguing against slavery, because its blue pill, by fat link the moderator
okay then! i suppose i wont speak up against slavery
Good! If you continue to yap like the soy jewish autistic retard that you are, then we'll be forced to put you into a concentration camp.
Did you take the covid vax?
Do they really? If you look at human history, women were almost always subordinate to men. Thus women have always had to rely on men for their own economic and social security. It's one thing to be able to make your own choice, but it's another thing for your choices to be steered by evolutionary survival mechanisms
TBH I'd argue that women have been slaves and still are the slaves of powerful men today. It all depends on how you wish to see it. The female rights movement only brought success because men allowed it to be successful. Essentially women never earned "rights", they only earned privileges from boomer men who decided to be lenient to their fellow women
If all of the adult men today suddenly decided to restore patriarchy and force women back into housewife mode, it will happen and the woman will be subdued even if she tries to resist, because at the end of the day women in general are the weaker sex thus they are easier for powerful men to control. All these achievements made by feminist movement can be entirely credited to men in power who chose to be lenient
It must be known this is not a matter of "choice", but rather a matter of "evolutionary survival". The optimal course of action isn't always necessarily the desirable course of action. The activities of natural world mostly revolve around power relations between predator and prey - The predator hunts, the prey stays clear of the predator. Humans are also noted to have power relations in their own artificial constructs (aka society) - The rich own the resources of production, the poor do not own the resources of production; the rich offer resources in return for labor, the poor work to fulfil the interests of the rich; the rich take most of the profit from economic production, the poor take least profit etc.
In reality, people's choices in life are restricted to the economic, social and biological conditions in which they find themselves, which almost always can be traced back to a power relation between a class of oppressors and a class of the oppressed. This is one of the facts of life that comes into conflict with
/ ideologies. A person can dream of making their own choices, but in reality choices are to some degree predetermined through external factors like biological traits, economic circumstances, accolades, social connections etc.I am not an advocate of subjugation of women, nor am I against the idea of subjugation of women. Also I'm not arguing against your opinion that "women deserve moral consideration". My main point is, from a pragmatic standpoint in the interest of human survival, OP is right, and his claim is supported by tons of history. Throughout history, the vast majority of major scientific / mathematical discoveries, innovations, infrastructure building and security & maintenance were not done by women. Plus women have historically proven themselves to be less competent than men in practices that involve abstraction, research, project planning, infrastructure building and community guarding. Besides sexual reproduction, housewifery and child supervision, history shows that women have done very little compared to men in improving and maintaining the infrastructure, intelligence and safety of human society
Last edited:
would of been that way if the jews didnt invent rape laws
They were literally created to serve us.
Now this is what I'm talking about! Sexy and hot girls are meant to be used for pleasure by men. I grew up watching Peter North use them over and over for his personal gratification and to make him blast his huge loads.
In a way reality is like this. The exception is that WE do not get to use them. Only Peter North does!
Of Chads you mean.
We exist in the most gynocentric and androcentric times ever.
Women and chads rule everything. Such is the natural order of things.
Get the fuck out of our forum, IT
Yet it's the same philosophy that modern women use to rationalize their hypergamous behavior when someone tells them about the large excess of young, healthy men who are excluded from the sex / dating market as a result of hypergamous behavior in women
No, it is not. It's quite silly for you to even write this. In fact, the scientific method that has guided scientists and mathematicians in America & Europe for the past 400 years, is quite based on the philosophy of nihilism
There are various versions of nihilism. In particular, the nihilist position that asserts "all knowledge is impossible; it is impossible to know with certainty" - This is a nihilist position that was used by Rene Descartes in the 17th century to introduce his method of doubt aka "Cartesian doubt". He suggested that all knowledge (besides certainty of one's own conscious existence) is prone to fallacy or falsehood. Thus a competent methodological investigator would always doubt what he already knows. Descartes' method of doubt doesn't assert that "all knowledge is impossible", but it uses this nihilistic position as a starting point to determine what can and cannot be doubted through reason, and eventually he determined that all but the existence of one's own consciousness can be doubted through reason
Descartes' method of doubt is the foundation of the modern scientific method, as it's designed to critically review already established knowledge in the realm of science & maths, in case of any potential errors or inconsistencies that have not been discovered. A framework of science or maths isn't necessarily flawless if no flaws have been discovered in it, and investigators of science are entirely aware of this. Thus it's the duty of the scientist to always question the validity of already existent data, and if possible, to test the validity of already existent data through methodical experiments
Last edited:
ur right but its pointless to think about that 24/7 since its never going to happen
It is impossible to prove or disprove that "objective morality" exists, because it involves the impossible task to prove that morality exists outside of the conscious individual. Thus moral realism can always be doubted from a reasonable standpoint. If "moral facts" can be proven to exist, a proof of "moral fact" would not prove to the conscious individual that "objective morality" exists, but a proof of "moral fact" may be applied to a universal context (e.g., the human consensus). Moreover the impossibility of proof that "moral facts exist as objective morals" doesn't prove that "moral facts" don't exist as "objective morals". The impossibility of proof only means it's not possible to prove that "moral facts" exist as "objective morals"
If the consensus shares a particular view on some moral code, it doesn't necessarily make that moral code objective, but universal. A code of ethics may not be "subjective" when it's supported by the consensus, but the existence of objective morality isn't exactly validated by a consensus. Usually facts are objective. So when a "moral fact" cannot be proven to exist as a "objective moral", it undermines the significance of "moral facts" beyond subjectivism or universalism, and some people (e.g., skeptical people) might not accept a moral code as "fact" if it cannot be proven as "fact" in the objective context
Last edited:
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
