Well thats nice, I conveniently happen to have some right hereHika wrote:
It revolves around the pussy so go find some and shove it in your face and be happy
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,245
IppE
That's what red pill is about, I'm not against sex I'm only against marriage and taking women seriously.Hika wrote:
I can't tel if this is serious or not but life doesn't revolve around girls
It revolves around the pussy so go find some and shove it in your face and be happy
Thank you all for confirming my point by the way all I have seen is sarcasm directed at me rather than argumentation.
it's ok, I ain't gonna respect you less for your opinion but don't expect anyone else to do the same :p
If any of you guys are looking for some quality comedy I would recommend checking out their official subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/
The sidebar on the right has a lot of great points, arguably the best satire I have read in a while. I almost thought they're actually serious, but only a degenerate monkey could believe in such a thing, right? Haha!
The sidebar on the right has a lot of great points, arguably the best satire I have read in a while. I almost thought they're actually serious, but only a degenerate monkey could believe in such a thing, right? Haha!
lol, this is reddit, the internet's pinnacle of autism. Of course it looks retarded. But you'd have to be a self deluded idiot not to believe in the main ideology behind red pill anyway. But well, who could blame you? The greater chunk of you have never even held hands with a woman, let alone having had a relationship. I used to be like you too!BrokenArrow wrote:
If any of you guys are looking for some quality comedy I would recommend checking out their official subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/
The sidebar on the right has a lot of great points, arguably the best satire I have read in a while. I almost thought they're actually serious, but only a degenerate monkey could believe in such a thing, right? Haha!
But whatever, good luck to all of you if you're up for the gamble anyway! I'm sure it'll be worth it ;^)
http://www.divorce.usu.edu/files/uploads/lesson3.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf
Women are inclined to secure their livelihood through being dependent on/leeching off men. Well, this used to be through a traditional marriage and was mutually beneficial. But since women got the right to vote, there has been an ever increasing female influence on the laws of society. You can see today that feminism has been pushing the female agenda very hard, and skewing laws even more in the favour of women. For example men being screwed over by alimony (this has happened for while), men being guilty before being proven innocent when being accused of rape (even though a very significant percentage of rape claims from women have been proven false), and affirmative action, favoring women over men for jobs and paying them more to correct an 'imbalance' and to fill a quota. So in this day and age, associating with women in any sexual or romantic sense is probably a bad idea. Only once enough men realise this and start following the MGTOW thing will the pendulum swing back the other way.
That's my piece on the subject. Stick with 2D.
That's my piece on the subject. Stick with 2D.
Congrats, that must make you one of the more perceptive people here.Jordan wrote:
LOL. I was almost going to take the bait till I read "I will proudly defend women on the internet".
I'd call 4chan and its sister sites the pinnacle of autism. Reddit, Tumblr and such sites are the pinnacle of degeneracy - there's a clear difference.Jordan wrote:
lol, this is reddit, the internet's pinnacle of autism.
Fuz is gayFuZ wrote:
talking about autistic communities on the osu forum, nice
BrokenArrow wrote:
If any of you guys are looking for some quality comedy I would recommend checking out their official subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/
hahahahahahahahahahahaha, fuuuuck. if girls cried over men like this you'd all tell us to shut the fuck up.
For example men being screwed over by alimonywomen have been screwed back by alimony because the husband might have racked up a really bad debt since their marriage and now they have half of it. it's not just half of assets they share, it's half of debts as well. so i guess that's an happy ending right there?
men being guilty before being proven innocent when being accused of rape (even though a very significant percentage of rape claims from women have been proven false)... and what are the really high percentages?
affirmative action, favoring women over men for jobs and paying them more to correct an 'imbalance' and to fill a quota.affirmative action has been shown to be most active in the STEM field jobs, where they want to recruit more women than men now because it sends off a better image of "acceptance" from the science community. I mean I'm glad I might be getting a easier time finding a job but the reason why I am even able to is because some women cried "MORE WOMEN FOR STEM" even though at the end they took women studies.
So in this day and age, associating with women in any sexual or romantic sense is probably a bad idea.and what, associate men as upper echelons of the system? If you want to be misogynistic prick then go ahead, I'm not too worried at the chances of you procreating, but if you're going to talk about all women as if they're money sucking demons then don't be expected to be treated as more than a walking dildo. Just saying.
oh btw please don't call me a feminist, because I'm not.
Also, where do you guys get all these "horrible" women in your life? That's what happens when you just talk to a bitch who just says yes to everything you say just to get money out of you. Talk about thinking with your dick, really.
I'm glad someone else finds it harder to have a job just because a bunch of people who had no interest in a field cried about how they couldn't get into one apparently.Dulcet wrote:
affirmative action, favoring women over men for jobs and paying them more to correct an 'imbalance' and to fill a quota.affirmative action has been shown to be most active in the STEM field jobs, where they want to recruit more women than men now because it sends off a better image of "acceptance" from the science community. I mean I'm glad I might be getting a easier time finding a job but the reason why I am even able to is because some women cried "MORE WOMEN FOR STEM" even though at the end they took women studies.
I'd just like to say, marriage is only a "gamble" if you blindly pick a woman to spend your life with.
The "gamble" only applies to mass statistics, rather than individual cases.
The "gamble" only applies to mass statistics, rather than individual cases.
If i'm given an opportunity I'll fucking take it, affirmative action or not. Why would I feel bad about someone else not getting the job that I want?Khelly wrote:
I'm glad someone else finds it harder to have a job just because a bunch of people who had no interest in a field cried about how they couldn't get into one apparently.
The actual solution is to never marry because it isn't necessary for much of anything worthwhile.
You shouldn't, but all those people who whined and moaned are absolute fucktards who see a non issue they want fixed.Dulcet wrote:
If i'm given an opportunity I'll fucking take it, affirmative action or not. Why would I feel bad about someone else not getting the job that I want?Khelly wrote:
I'm glad someone else finds it harder to have a job just because a bunch of people who had no interest in a field cried about how they couldn't get into one apparently.
Hey, there's not that many women in STEM. MORE WOMEN IN STEM. Hey, is anyone here interested in STEM? No? Gee, I wonder why there weren't that many women in STEM to begin with.
IppE
Tein sen kahdesti ennenkuin nousin sängystä tänäänIppE wrote:
Have you fapped today?Khelly wrote:
The actual solution is to never marry because it isn't necessary for much of anything worthwhile.
im worried tooIppE wrote:
Have you fapped today?Khelly wrote:
The actual solution is to never marry because it isn't necessary for much of anything worthwhile.
Worry not
women have been screwed back by alimony because the husband might have racked up a really bad debt since their marriage and now they have half of it. it's not just half of assets they share, it's half of debts as well. so i guess that's an happy ending right there?The vast majority of the time this isn't the case, and alimony is beneficial for the woman at the expense of the man. Women also have the advantage in many other related things like child custody.
... and what are the really high percentages?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
According to Wikipedia, lower single digits to 40%+. In any case, still a significant amount.
affirmative action has been shown to be most active in the STEM field jobs, where they want to recruit more women than men now because it sends off a better image of "acceptance" from the science community. I mean I'm glad I might be getting a easier time finding a job but the reason why I am even able to is because some women cried "MORE WOMEN FOR STEM" even though at the end they took women studies.You're getting an easier time because of a policy that encourages discrimination based on sex. You don't have the opportunity because of some feminist harpy, women have had equal rights for ages. Now they're getting more than equal rights.
Because they are more capable than you? Because otherwise you are being detrimental to society? In an undisturbed free market, you will get the job if you're the most capable and well suited. If you're not, don't expect a free ride just because of your pussy.Dulcet wrote:
If i'm given an opportunity I'll fucking take it, affirmative action or not. Why would I feel bad about someone else not getting the job that I want?
>women have been screwed back by alimonyDulcet wrote:
BrokenArrow wrote:
If any of you guys are looking for some quality comedy I would recommend checking out their official subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/
hahahahahahahahahahahaha, fuuuuck. if girls cried over men like this you'd all tell us to shut the fuck up.For example men being screwed over by alimonywomen have been screwed back by alimony because the husband might have racked up a really bad debt since their marriage and now they have half of it. it's not just half of assets they share, it's half of debts as well. so i guess that's an happy ending right there?men being guilty before being proven innocent when being accused of rape (even though a very significant percentage of rape claims from women have been proven false)... and what are the really high percentages?affirmative action, favoring women over men for jobs and paying them more to correct an 'imbalance' and to fill a quota.affirmative action has been shown to be most active in the STEM field jobs, where they want to recruit more women than men now because it sends off a better image of "acceptance" from the science community. I mean I'm glad I might be getting a easier time finding a job but the reason why I am even able to is because some women cried "MORE WOMEN FOR STEM" even though at the end they took women studies.So in this day and age, associating with women in any sexual or romantic sense is probably a bad idea.and what, associate men as upper echelons of the system? If you want to be misogynistic prick then go ahead, I'm not too worried at the chances of you procreating, but if you're going to talk about all women as if they're money sucking demons then don't be expected to be treated as more than a walking dildo. Just saying.
oh btw please don't call me a feminist, because I'm not.
Also, where do you guys get all these "horrible" women in your life? That's what happens when you just talk to a bitch who just says yes to everything you say just to get money out of you. Talk about thinking with your dick, really.
>brings up a "massive debt" example
Do you realize how rare that is?
>Where do you guys get all these horrible women?
When most of them are actually as horrible as I say it's no wonder that I happened to end up with them.
because you may be taking that job away from someone who is more skilled and can do a better job than you. i mean that may not be the case all the time, but affirmative action in general has the potential to take away job opportunities away from the most qualified individuals and give them to people based solely on race/gender.Dulcet wrote:
If i'm given an opportunity I'll fucking take it, affirmative action or not. Why would I feel bad about someone else not getting the job that I want?Khelly wrote:
I'm glad someone else finds it harder to have a job just because a bunch of people who had no interest in a field cried about how they couldn't get into one apparently.
marriage is simply a tax benefit, nothing more
the happiest married couples are ones where nothing changed after they got married vs. before
Excuse me, and you are who? If they are more skilled than me, then I'm sure they'd have no problem finding another job.Kappa FrankerZ wrote:
because you may be taking that job away from someone who is more skilled and can do a better job than you.
Yeah, when the rest of the jobs in that same field are being pandered to women.Dulcet wrote:
Excuse me, and you are who? If they are more skilled than me, then I'm sure they'd have no problem finding another job.Kappa FrankerZ wrote:
because you may be taking that job away from someone who is more skilled and can do a better job than you.
Besides, even if they could find another job, that's not even one of the problems. The problem is that YOU who are under qualified are being put in a position that could better be served by someone else.
e2: This is a problem for the company and how that company benefits the outside world in some small way as a result of your potential incapabilities compared to the other person.
I'd hope that someone who speaks out against sexism would have the integrity to at least feel bad for getting a job due to sexist discrimination against the opposite gender? Or are you telling us that you only care about it when it works to your own disadvantage? You may not care about it at all, but in every other case you are being very hypocritical.Dulcet wrote:
If i'm given an opportunity I'll fucking take it, affirmative action or not. Why would I feel bad about someone else not getting the job that I want?Khelly wrote:
I'm glad someone else finds it harder to have a job just because a bunch of people who had no interest in a field cried about how they couldn't get into one apparently.
anyways, B1rd: not all women are assholes. I'd say that the majority of them are actually quite nice and easy to talk to. If you think that most of them are assholes, maybe you make them act towards you that way? As Dulcet said, the reason might just be you.
I'd hope that someone who speaks out against sexism would have the integrity to at least feel bad for getting a job due to sexist discrimination against the opposite gender? Or are you telling us that you only care about it when it works to your own disadvantage? You may not care about it at all, but in every other case you are being very hypocritical.I'd rather be a hypocritical prick than be jobless, sorry. Money is money.
Then by that logic everyone is qualified until someone better comes by. Also, the jobs are being pandered to women but there are not enough women willing to apply for them so they just give the job to another qualified person.Khelly wrote:
Yeah, when the rest of the jobs in that same field are being pandered to women.
Besides, even if they could find another job, that's not even one of the problems. The problem is that YOU who are under qualified are being put in a position that could better be served by someone else.
except gay marriageKhelly wrote:
The actual solution is to never marry because it isn't necessary for much of anything worthwhile.
potentially talking about 2 male incomes [almost always gonna be higher than 1 male + neet female or 1 male + 1 female income]
ON TOP of the financial/tax benefits that come with marriage
tbh this is why i think it should stay illegal
marriage is a financial thing in this day and age and means nothing more, gays have no need for it. their butt fucking is just as meaningful emotionally married or not..
it's not solely a financial thing.xxjesus1412fanx wrote:
tbh this is why i think it should stay illegal
marriage is a financial thing, gays have no need for it.
What do you get when you google "marriage", a picture of a tax invoice?
So why shouldn't marriage be illegal for straight couples because of the "financial thing"?xxjesus1412fanx wrote:
except gay marriageKhelly wrote:
The actual solution is to never marry because it isn't necessary for much of anything worthwhile.
potentially talking about 2 male incomes [almost always gonna be higher than 1 male + neet female or 1 male + 1 female income]
ON TOP of the financial/tax benefits that come with marriage
tbh this is why i think it should stay illegal
marriage is a financial thing in this day and age and means nothing more, gays have no need for it. their butt fucking is just as meaningful emotionally married or not..
but marriage is a social contract and a lot of financial things are involved, so yes, marriage IS a financial thing.Railey2 wrote:
it's not solely a financial thing.xxjesus1412fanx wrote:
tbh this is why i think it should stay illegal
marriage is a financial thing, gays have no need for it.
What do you get when you google "marriage", a picture of a tax invoice?
Because they are more capable than you? Because otherwise you are being detrimental to society? In an undisturbed free market, you will get the job if you're the most capable and well suited. If you're not, don't expect a free ride just because of your pussy.jfc what's with this belief that I'm not good enough at what I'm doing? If someone was better than me then they'll be provided with better opportunities.
The actual job position and how it's carried out suffers because you're put into it rather than someone better than you.Khelly wrote:
Besides, even if they could find another job, that's not even one of the problems. The problem is that YOU who are under qualified are being put in a position that could better be served by someone else.
e2: This is a problem for the company and how that company benefits the outside world in some small way as a result of your potential incapabilities compared to the other person.
oh yeah as if I would apply for a job that I am under qualified for it already. If I get that job, then I'd agree with you. That's bullshit. But if I get the job I have the credentials for, what's there to complain about?Khelly wrote:
Besides, even if they could find another job, that's not even one of the problems. The problem is that YOU who are under qualified are being put in a position that could better be served by someone else.
e2: This is a problem for the company and how that company benefits the outside world in some small way as a result of your potential incapabilities compared to the other person.
I said not solely. His argument was based on marriage being a solely financial thing, which it is not. I never said that it doesn't have a financial component.Dulcet wrote:
but marriage is a social contract and a lot of financial things are involved, so yes, marriage IS a financial thing.Railey2 wrote:
it's not solely a financial thing.
What do you get when you google "marriage", a picture of a tax invoice?
He completely disregards the emotional, the social and the religious part of it. He reduces marriage to a fiscal procedure to try and make his argument work.
If you get the job with near equal credentials to someone else, it's less of a problem. It's just discrimination for the need to fill some kind of quota just because it looks nice.Dulcet wrote:
oh yeah as if I would apply for a job that I am under qualified for it already. If I get that job, then I'd agree with you. That's bullshit. But if I get the job I have the credentials for, what's there to complain about?Khelly wrote:
Besides, even if they could find another job, that's not even one of the problems. The problem is that YOU who are under qualified are being put in a position that could better be served by someone else.
e2: This is a problem for the company and how that company benefits the outside world in some small way as a result of your potential incapabilities compared to the other person.
But the problem comes when there's a choice of candidates and the employer has to choose the less qualified "affirmative actioned" one because they're required to.
To me, marriage is entirely a fiscal procedure and his opnion in that regard is relevant. It's almost like you can view marriage in different ways to different people!Railey2 wrote:
He completely disregards the emotional, the social and the religious part of it. He reduces marriage to a fiscal procedure to try and make his argument work.
I don't think marriage should be barred between any two people because it doesn't fucking matter who gets married to whom and if you say gays shouldn't marry because they can get financial benefit then why does that not apply to straight people?
Definitely quality, gotta save me some PDFs for the subway rides to uniBrokenArrow wrote:
If any of you guys are looking for some quality comedy I would recommend checking out their official subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/
The sidebar on the right has a lot of great points, arguably the best satire I have read in a while. I almost thought they're actually serious, but only a degenerate monkey could believe in such a thing, right? Haha!
Brokenarrow has seen my dick before
but there's also times when the person affected by affirmative action is more than qualified. in my opinion letting the government make this policy was a bad idea in the first place, because it should be under the company's choice who to hire or not, and their choice if they want to apply policies similar to affirmative action.Khelly wrote:
But the problem comes when there's a choice of candidates and the employer has to choose the less qualified "affirmative actioned" one because they're required to.
affirmative action is just a shitty band aid to job equality.
So does the rest of the world at this point. Look at divorce rates, the very idea of marriage is laughable and not at all backed by human nature. It's a stupid institution and in this day and age the realities of all the hypocrisy behind it are more visible than ever. I'm talking about in general, not as a rule. There are always exceptions, people who live in their own little fantasy worlds together, but you can't generalize based on exceptions.Railey2 wrote:
He completely disregards the emotional, the social and the religious part of it. He reduces marriage to a fiscal procedure to try and make his argument work.
People can have meaningful relationships without marriage, many meaningful relationships can lead to marriage, but cautious people avoid it because losing half your shit isn't fun.
His logic was that men earn more than women, therefore two men have too much of a financial advantage over womanXman (straight) and womanXwoman. Therefore it should be banned for gay couples only, but not for straight couples.Khelly wrote:
To me, marriage is entirely a fiscal procedure and his opnion in that regard is relevant. It's almost like you can view marriage in different ways to different people!Railey2 wrote:
He completely disregards the emotional, the social and the religious part of it. He reduces marriage to a fiscal procedure to try and make his argument work.
I don't think marriage should be barred between any two people because it doesn't fucking matter who gets married to whom and if you say gays shouldn't marry because they can get financial benefit then why does that not apply to straight people?
It's a shitty argument, and falls with the premise1 that financial bonuses are everything that matters to people when it comes to marriage, and premise2 that gay couples hold significantly higher financial power than straight or lesbian ones (to a degree that would warrant a strict ban of gay marriage).
Following his logic, it would make more sense to just ban marriage based on shared income, but he never brought that up. Go over a certain $$$ value and you're out. Why discriminate based on sexuality? Makes no fucking sense.
Anyways, his argument is shit and everyone with a brain knows that. I'm glad we agree on that.
if Y gets the job over X because of Y's gender, even though X is better qualified to do the job, then you call that sexist.Dulcet wrote:
oh yeah as if I would apply for a job that I am under qualified for it already. If I get that job, then I'd agree with you. That's bullshit. But if I get the job I have the credentials for, what's there to complain about?Khelly wrote:
Besides, even if they could find another job, that's not even one of the problems. The problem is that YOU who are under qualified are being put in a position that could better be served by someone else.
e2: This is a problem for the company and how that company benefits the outside world in some small way as a result of your potential incapabilities compared to the other person.
So, why complain? You could also ask why one should prefer fairness over unfairness.
If that doesn't make it obvious, you might want to take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
Most people seem to agree that consistently sticking to this rule contributes to living in a generally better world. I know you wouldn't want to have your job-application shredded just because you are gender X.
i'm not bigoted at all, i think gay love is beautiful, but i don't think it's fair to take advantage of an already defunct institution like marriage.