[1/3]
The swastika was stolen from ancient Hindus. Do they delete it because someone they dont approve of uses their identity?
But why change the subject? It's one thing if I happened to already use a particular rune or symbol in its own context, but at this point, why would I go out of my way to adopt it?
This is the difference between you bawling about, "The word in-cel stands for In-voluntary Cel-ibate", and the fact of what one joins up with when adopting the identity.
People notice how you derail discussions to be about mexicans when it had nothing to do with mexicans, or even racism for that matter. The topic was mainly about sexism and double standards.
Timing is everything: Wait until you actually have a point to try the rubber-glue thing. I mean, you did do the bit↑ about "how fat, ugly chicks can get a date eventually, if they just play their cards right", and I did offer a version↑ of how that either works or not; you, apparently↑, cannot figure out how the two points are related?
Same as you make an excuse to complain about men?
Think of it this way: One of the problems about trying rubber-glue retorts arises when you box yourself in. To the one, start making sense; to the other—
Not as terrible as yours?
I mean on one hand, you blame men for all the worlds problems.
—make believe is make believe, and—
Then, on the other hand, when I have a terrible view of men, you shame me.
No way to win with you.
—if you're worried about winning, then you're doing wrong.
But there is also this: Your terrible view of men is important to consider given that you're whining about not getting laid, and, really, consider the context when we track the back and forth to #47↑: "And what did the man get from this non-sexual conversation? Absolutely nothing." The attitude you display in that line pretty much demonstrates the problem inasmuch as it presents a masculinity that warns women away. It is relevant to your complaint inasmuch as this aspect, at least, is self-imposed. Self-inflicted. Whatever.
That tells me a lot about you.
I'm just sayin', the creepy yeast discussion is certainly better than nothing. And flavor holes, too.
Sexual attraction happens under stress. This is an evolutionary mechanism. The stress must not be too high, paranoia kills sexual attraction. And yet the stress must not be too low, as it instills a lull of complacency.
Sounds like tricky parameters for computing strategies↗ to gain female favors.
So you are ignorant too, has been noted.
Most Americans have left the word behind; it works well enough for musical comedy, but there are substantive differences 'twixt transvestite, hermaphrodite, and transgender.
So me being a compassionate person, trying to save lives, makes me dangerous and toxic?
You're not compassionate.
Reminds me of yesterday, my friend say a German on TV trying to save some kids live, and my friend immediately accused the german of looking like a gestapo nazi. Funny how people judge you based on their immediate feelings, rather than any kind of logic or reason.
I get it, saying the word "Eliot Rodgers" makes you feel immediately uncomfortable, and triggers your animal flight or flight primordial instincts.
Doesn't matter if I say I don't agree with his views, mentioning the devil's name enough is enough to trigger a full on panic attack.
Most of what you say is nonsense. You accuse Eliot Rodgers of being a rapemonger, when in actuality he was the exact opposite of a rapist. Even when he went on a killing spree he didn't rape anyone. Eliot's idea of a utopia was a man only world, a world without women. Not a world of rape. So you are spouting nonsense, as per usual. Eliots main complaint, was that women only flirted with perfect specimens, and didn't give many men the time of day. That some men got so much positive attention, while other's got none. I agree with him on this issue, what I don't agree with are his other views, such as a man only world.
But feel free to go on your slanted tirade. Eliot never demanded for women to be handed as assets, his complaint was that women, of their own free will, would not take an interest in him of their own accord. Now I understand that in your mind, me saying the word "provided" could be interpreted as some mysterious entity handing out girlfriends, but that is not what I meant by it, and I assumed sane person would have understood but I guess not.
Wow.
I've seen people swoon over that moron, before, but if you think my point is just about him, you really haven't been paying attention to incels. Think back a month; remember when I asked↗ about "the old-time language, the focus on masculinity, the dog metaphor"? How about a couple weeks ago, when I recalled↗ a pathetic tweet troll? To the one, it's true, I'm not unfamiliar with identity masculinism; to the other, it's not like you don't match a known type, such as that wannabe MRA tweet troll; while he argued virginity and you argue celibacy, the bit where people pretend ignorance while reciting the dogma is not an uncommon routine. Neither is the bit when you ignore↑ what you're actually responding to, and then go on to repeat yourself↑ despite the point that it is already covered↑ without response. (Yes, the words were in a picture, but you did respond to the image specifically, and you're not a bot↑, so you clearly did read them.) Added up, what all this reminds is that we're talking about a poseur political movement of rapemongering brats. Well, that and you're not fooling anyone.
A man shouldn't kill his wife unless she does something very extreme, such as try to kill him first.
I dont believe cheaters ought to be killed, I believe it is wrong to kill someone for following natural urges and instincts.
That wasn't the question.
Far as guns being men, I think the purpose of men is to kill, to think, and to build, enemy men and animals. The role of the man is to defend the tribe, attack enemy men, and hunt and kill animals.
(sigh)
But we live in a civilized age, an age where there isn't supposed to be pain and suffering. So the role of man is no longer to kill, but to build and to think. But again if this is the age of pain and suffering, then why is it that society only cares about ending wars, but does not give empathy to the pain and suffering to lonely, sexually frustrated males.
Well, it's not exactly a new problem↗; Sanhedrin 75a:2, explains, "The Sages insisted: Let him die ...." And this is even part of a history that includes explicit sexual obligation, and trial by poisoning of a woman.
It also probably helps when your if/then formulations aren't completely stupid. Your take on pain and suffering in our civilized age is amiss, to be certain, but wondering "why is it that society only cares about ending wars" is just ridiculous.
[cont.]