First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Post Reply Don't hate women for being women
18 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 12/2/15
>First time on Crunch since 2013
>First post ever
>Go to forum
>Don hate womins
>WTF

I thought this forum was abime.
2496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Baton Rouge, Loui...
Offline
Posted 12/2/15 , edited 12/2/15

Kurogiri wrote:

>First time on Crunch since 2013
>First post ever
>Go to forum
>Don hate womins
>WTF

I thought this forum was abime.


Magical Soul tends to do that at times, something about ingesting a redpill and how women are awesome or something, I dunno.

you'll get used to it, yo.
7597 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 12/2/15

Ranwolf wrote:

That was the biggest pile of horseshit I've ever read and I sat through the leadership course in the army. To compare sentient beings to instinct driven animals is worse then idiocy. I am beginning to question the sanity of the OP.


Whoever came up with these BS theories must be one hell of a PR mastermind to have so many people buying into this garbage.
Posted 12/2/15

geauxtigers1989 wrote:


Ranwolf wrote:

That was the biggest pile of horseshit I've ever read and I sat through the leadership course in the army. To compare sentient beings to instinct driven animals is worse then idiocy. I am beginning to question the sanity of the OP.


Whoever came up with these BS theories must be one hell of a PR mastermind to have so many people buying into this garbage.


Edwards Bernays son
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/2/15 , edited 12/2/15

macht_gut wrote:

I did say what I wanted which is why he is defending her when it isn't necessary. What Akage-chan wrote is true. It has nothing to do with eating just as it has nothing to do with shitting. Yet it happens. The OP dumb it down so men could understand it.




That misandrist jab. Lol

I think both men and women could understand it. But honestly, you can't really get women to read things that objectively talk about women. So I'm surprised so many even commented.

Women are animals, all humans are animals. Just because you know how to use a computer, does not just erase your primal imperatives and psychological inclinations wired into you from successful mating strategies over generations.

Women need to stop viewing Hypergamy and hypoagency as curses and you have them because they worked well in the past.
Posted 12/2/15 , edited 12/2/15

PrinceJudar wrote:

I read. I just have more background context on this whole topic.

For example. TFM, one of the people she mentioned has said he thinks "all men are like rapists" for similar reasons. So by this same string of hogwash, one could say it's wrong to hate men for raping women, because they have instincts to fuck and reproduce in their biology. That men aren't above their "basic instincts" and the only thing that prevents men from acting on their instincts are 'consequences'.

That and her post was just 'I don't hate women, I just think they're inferior to men and I can't hate them like a dog that mauled a child because it's just a dog working off its basic animal instincts'.

It's just a terrible way to look at humans.

I don't like people that hurt other people. It's as simple as that. This pseudo-biology malarkey doesn't excuse it.



Mhm, and that's why I didn't comment on anything you said c: I don't particularly agree with Magical-souls views either because it makes me sad.
27254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/2/15 , edited 12/2/15
I don't think it's entirely wrong. I think it's mostly correct, actually. Even sentient beings are animals and instincts can be so powerful that one does not even realize he/she is acting based on them. Your preferences and tastes could very well be influenced by your genetics, your nature.

We are not apart from nature, as much as we'd like to believe that we are. In the end, we're still just bones and blood, driven by chemical reactions and electrical impulses within us.

However, even "lower" animals can act in ways that make sense. The problem, what's "wrong", if you will, is that we are allowing and endorsing such behavior even though we recognize the damage and recognize the cause and recognize that it's not as beneficial anymore. This is why we have our intelligence, something that has served us pretty well so far. Our intelligence has allowed us to acclimate and adapt faster than evolution itself. You don't simply sit back and say "that's just nature" when it's within your means to correct a behavior that's destructive to society and to your species.

If it's within your means to correct a problem that is destructive to individual members of the species as well as the species as a whole, and the species recognizes the harm wrought by such behavior and knows it is not beneficial, it's hardly logical to sit back and let it ravage everyone. Makes about much sense as a colony of prarie dogs that don't warn each other about a hawk overhead even though each one can easily just give a warning bark.

I think this is a problem unique to human beings. We have instincts and intellect, two great things given to us by evolution, but they clash with one another sometimes. Just another bump in the evolutionary road. I think we won't have this problem anymore after a few thousand years and we see more changes come about.

So, no, I don't hate women for doing such things, but I do dislike the notion of accepting and even encouraging such behavior. If it's destructive but able to be remedied, why not do it? Even without the hate, however, I recognize that, sometimes, the women are also responsible because they have a human brain. They should be able to use it to help solve problems unless they are not educated. The issue now is not fighting off dangerous beasts and merciless elements, but surviving when pitted against each other without destroying the group.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/2/15

PrinceJudar wrote:


haikinka wrote:

I've said before, maybe if I white knight enough I'll get my dick sucked who knows.

Or maybe it's just that since she talks a lot of controversial stuff, it brings out the idiocy in people. Like in this case, commenting before reading.


I read. I just have more background context on this whole topic.

For example. TFM, one of the people she mentioned has said he thinks "all men are like rapists" for similar reasons. So by this same string of hogwash, one could say it's wrong to hate men for raping women, because they have instincts to fuck and reproduce in their biology. That men aren't above their "basic instincts" and the only thing that prevents men from acting on their instincts are 'consequences'.

That and her post was just 'I don't hate women, I just think they're inferior to men and I can't hate them like a dog that mauled a child because it's just a dog working off its basic animal instincts'.

It's just a terrible way to look at humans.

I don't like people that hurt other people. It's as simple as that. This pseudo-biology malarkey doesn't excuse it.



1. Women are inferior to men, that's not a "terrible" way to look at humans. It's objective, maybe some people think they're worth way too much if they think they can't be defined.

2. I said women are more valuable than men, that's objective, you don't need that many men for a healthy society.

3. Rape in a civilized world is discouraged, if the world was overrun by zombies and civilization fell into anarchy, yes, more men than women would be rapist. But in a civilized world, it's discouraged. It's not equal to female Hypergamy which is encouraged.

There's this leftist mentality that anything that is examined with logic and reasoning is "devaluing" it or "dehumanizing" it. Really makes no sense.

I honestly wonder where all these SJWs were when journalist shoveled out shit like "where have all the good men gone" and man bashing you see all over TV with the idiotic father who can't even use a telephone without his much more intelligent wife.

This is one of the defining characteristics of gynocentrism, absolutely no introspection whatsoever, and I might have to stop calling out the obvious ones from now on.
22667 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/2/15

haikinka wrote:

Mhm, and that's why I didn't comment on anything you said c: I don't agree with Magical-souls views either particularly.


Oh lolz




UltraVioletKnight wrote:

Lets assume you are correct.

If society can train instinct driven animals like bears to ride tricycles, then they can certainly socialize women not to be gold-diggers. Many women already aren't and are pulling equal if not greater weight in their relationship.

You're also underestimating the power of social shaming. People are not biologically inclined to pederasty but was encouraged and prevalent in Spartan culture.


We don't have the instinct built in for riding tricycles!


Morbidhanson wrote:


Agreed. Intelligence is kind of a big thing that separates us from animals. Doesn't get kicked out of the picture whenever it's convenient.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 12/2/15 , edited 12/2/15

Morbidhanson wrote:

I don't think it's entirely wrong. I think it's mostly correct, actually. Even sentient beings are animals and instincts can be so powerful that one does not even realize he/she is acting based on them. Your preferences and tastes could very well be influenced by your genetics, your nature.

We are not apart from nature, as much as we'd like to believe that we are. In the end, we're still just bones and blood, driven by chemical reactions and electrical impulses within us.

However, even "lower" animals can act in ways that make sense. The problem, what's "wrong", if you will, is that we are allowing and endorsing such behavior even though we recognize the damage and recognize the cause and recognize that it's not as beneficial anymore. This is why we have our intelligence, something that has served us pretty well so far. Our intelligence has allowed us to acclimate and adapt faster than evolution itself. You don't simply sit back and say "that's just nature" when it's within your means to correct a behavior that's destructive to society and to your species.

If it's within your means to correct a problem that is destructive to individual members of the species as well as the species as a whole, and the species recognizes the harm wrought by such behavior and knows it is not beneficial, it's hardly logical to sit back and let it ravage everyone. Makes about much sense as a colony of prarie dogs that don't warn each other about a hawk overhead even though each one can easily just give a warning bark.

I think this is a problem unique to human beings. We have instincts and intellect, two great things given to us by evolution, but they clash with one another sometimes. Just another bump in the evolutionary road. I think we won't have this problem anymore after a few thousand years and we see more changes come about.

So, no, I don't hate women for doing such things, but I do dislike the notion of accepting and even encouraging such behavior. If it's destructive but able to be remedied, why not do it? Even without the hate, however, I recognize that, sometimes, the women are also responsible because they have a human brain. They should be able to use it to help solve problems unless they are not educated.


Finally one of those opinions I can whole heartedly agree with.
8653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Pennsylvania
Offline
Posted 12/2/15 , edited 12/2/15
I hate the fact that the thing you posted is a thing, period. I hate that people use the word "society" so much. I dont think any person with a brain hates women because they are women.....
27254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/2/15 , edited 12/2/15
Objectively speaking, the chances that your baby will be a boy or girl are pretty even. This indicates that we're supposed to have such a ratio of men and women. I think we've yet to experience a permanent or semi-permanent event that will skew the need for one sex over another. If all the men in the world went to war and 70% of them died or something, then, yeah, we need more men now.

Value is a little tougher to decide. A person's value changes based on the situation. Different people will have different sets of skills and different traits that make them more or less suitable for particular tasks.

I guess the ones who do the fewest, least important tasks can be considered the least valuable.
22667 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/2/15 , edited 12/2/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

1. Women are inferior to men, that's not a "terrible" way to look at humans. It's objective, maybe some people think they're worth way too much if they think they can't be defined.

2. I said women are more valuable than men, that's objective, you don't need that many men for a healthy society.

3. Rape in a civilized world is discouraged, if the world was overrun by zombies and civilization fell into anarchy, yes, more men than women would be rapist. But in a civilized world, it's discouraged. It's not equal to female Hypergamy which is encouraged.

There's this leftist mentality that anything that is examined with logic and reasoning is "devaluing" it or "dehumanizing" it. Really makes no sense.

I honestly wonder where all these SJWs were when journalist shoveled out shit like "where have all the good men gone" and man bashing you see all over TV with the idiotic father who can't even use a telephone without his much more intelligent wife.

This is one of the defining characteristics of gynocentrism, absolutely no introspection whatsoever, and I might have to stop calling out the obvious ones from now on.


1. No. Women are not 'objectively' inferior to men. Holy hell.

2. So you're one of those 'men are disposable' type?

3. You missed the point entirely.

How the hell did you get to right and left politics?

And now we've derailed to SJWs. Not that I disagree about loony bitches, but that's a whole different can that I'm pretty sure most of this forum agrees on when it goes too far, as it has been.




Morbidhanson wrote:

Objectively speaking, the chances that your baby will be a boy or girl are pretty even. This indicates that we're supposed to have such a ratio of men and women. I think we've yet to experience a permanent or semi-permanent event that will skew the need for one sex over another. If all the men in the world went to war and 70% of them died or something, then, yeah, we need more men now.

Value is a little tougher to decide. A person's value changes based on the situation. Different people will have different sets of skills and different traits that make them more or less suitable for particular tasks.

I guess the ones who do the fewest, least important tasks can be considered the least valuable.


And this is why you are one of my favorites.


25147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Beyond The Wall
Offline
Posted 12/2/15

Carry on guys
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/2/15

Morbidhanson wrote:

Objectively speaking, the chances that your baby will be a boy or girl are pretty even. This indicates that we're supposed to have such a ratio of men and women.

Value is a little tougher to decide. A person's value changes based on the situation. Different people will have different sets of skills and different traits that make them more or less suitable for particular tasks.

I guess the ones who do the fewest, least important tasks can be considered the least valuable.


Well, nature isn't egalitarian. So we can throw out the "different people" argument as we are talking about the species, not individual specimens.

Men are stronger, faster, smarter, more suited for combat and have better healing mechanisms and have higher pain tolerance. Men are physically superior to women. In combat, this in uncontested. This is not about individuals, but the gender itself and what it means biologically. Men are also smarter, as you can see around you, most things you see are made by men, most significant discoveries are by men, most philosophers are men, most software engineers are men, most scientists are men.

This isn't a 55/45 split. This is much more disproportionate than you think.

Men better in every sense of the word, they actually like fighting more than women and are more likely to do it if there's a threat. Men are wired to defend their tribes/family/territory, while females seek out those things already established by men.

This isn't sexist, this is nature. Women weren't and still aren't equipped to deal with as much as men. They are probably proportionately as strong as the female versions of the enemies humanity has fought but they are more likely to flee and less likely to protect than men.

To this day, if someone hears a break in down stairs, females are likely to seek out their mates for protection and makes seek out their mates to protect.

I used this before, but if you were playing an RPG with only men and women units. If men were faster, stronger, had higher stats all around and you could make more men(and women) as long as at least one man was alive. You'd obviously use the men exclusively as they are biologically disposable. Men were wired to fight each other for females, the ones that lost didn't reproduce. Nature isn't fair and it's sexist, that's why women are so "low level".

Women are more valuable -- because men are wired to seek them out and not so much other men. Men see each other as competition before the luxuries we have today, much like any other animal. Females were hotter, the men are wired to get as many as they can and men are easily manipulated by women. But it's supposed to be this way as men and women aren't rivals or competitors, men get sex and are wired to protect women. And women reap all the lucrative benefits of safety and provision of being with an alpha male.

Most men would save women over men. If men could pick one partner to be stranded on a island with, they'd choose a woman more often than not.

So as you can see, I wasn't trying to jab at either.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.