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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
I just agreed that if someone gets a job they're under qualified for just because of their gender is sexist. I might have confused some people by saying "if I see an opportunity, I'll take it" but I didn't mean that as in take ANY opportunity. Sorry on my part.Khelly wrote:
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.
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.
Khelly wrote:
Brokenarrow has seen my dick before
xxjesus1412fanx wrote:
due to hormonal mood swings and whatnot females are just not fit to do some jobs
that being one of them
president being another
and I guess men are just not fit at schools and USPS?xxjesus1412fanx wrote:
due to hormonal mood swings and whatnot females are just not fit to do some jobs
that being one of them
president being another
They aren't?Dulcet wrote:
and I guess men are just not fit at schools and USPS?xxjesus1412fanx wrote:
due to hormonal mood swings and whatnot females are just not fit to do some jobs
that being one of them
president being another
i wouldn't know, going postal is not exactly a trait my gender would understand.xxjesus1412fanx wrote:
They aren't?
10/10 job at convincing me that women aren't money sucking demons, kek.Dulcet wrote:
I'd rather be a hypocritical prick than be jobless, sorry. Money is money.
Most women I know are nice, at a superficial level at least. But women in general are the way they are because of biology. Women are less inclined to work and less competent too. I don't form these opinions through personal experiences, but through observation of facts.Railey2 wrote:
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.
oh okay we agree. carry on~Dulcet wrote:
affirmative action is just a shitty band aid to job equality.
Naw man, I don't buy it. Try to frame the shit you said in a positive way all you want, but that doesn't work out for you.xxjesus1412fanx wrote:
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.
and here you go, making sweeping generalizations yet again. Just call yourself a bigot already, bigot.xxjesus1412fanx wrote:
due to hormonal mood swings and whatnot females are just not fit to do some jobs
surgeon being one of them
president being another
men can act outside of their emotions consistently and reliably. Not to be sexist that's just how it is, if a man suddenly had the same sort of chemistry that goes on when a female goes on the rag i don't expect him to handle it any better or for it to have no impact on their performance
it's also less important for animals because they have much simpler lives and tasks.Khelly wrote:
I think applying basic biological facts in regards to people psycologically is less relevant than to other animals.
Khelly wrote:
I think applying basic biological facts in regards to people psycologically is less relevant than to other animals.
B1rd wrote:
10/10 job at convincing me that women aren't money sucking demons, kek.Dulcet wrote:
I'd rather be a hypocritical prick than be jobless, sorry. Money is money.
Like I said, I would never apply for a job if I wasn't able to do it. But if affirmative action helped me get priority in a job I am totally qualified for, then.. meh? I mean, I'm either gonna get it or not. It's still a sorry excuse for actual equality in the workforce. Sorry for the misunderstanding, again.Dulcet wrote:
I just agreed that if someone gets a job they're under qualified for just because of their gender is sexist. I might have confused some people by saying "if I see an opportunity, I'll take it" but I didn't mean that as in take ANY opportunity. Sorry on my part.
common sense is not so uncommon after allKappa FrankerZ wrote:
and I'd have to disagree with the whole women shouldn't be surgeons or presidents or whatever. not all women have "hormonal mood swings". in fact, men's testosterone levels fluctuate more in one day than women's estrogen levels over an entire month.
we should just judge everyone on individual skill rather than generalize
I cringe when I see :biotruths:xxjesus1412fanx wrote:
it's also less important for animals because they have much simpler lives and tasks.Khelly wrote:
I think applying basic biological facts in regards to people psycologically is less relevant than to other animals.
whats your point
☑ "This guy's dick is CRAZY!" ☑ "My throat can't win against a boner like that" ☑ "He NEEDED precisely those two inches to win!" ☑ "He topdicked the only sperm that could choke me" ☑ "He had the perfect jizz" ☑ "He came in my mouth perfectly" ☑ "There was nothing left to ejaculate"Khelly wrote:
Does anyone else want to see my girly dick
>2016Khelly wrote:
Does anyone else want to see my girly dick
what even happened in your last relationshipJordan wrote:
CUCK MY LIFE INTO PIECES
THIS IS MY LAST DIVORCE
DESTINATION: NO BREEDING
DON'T GIVE A FUCK THAT I CAUGHT MY WIFE CHEATING
*digs up a certain tuuba thread*Khelly wrote:
Does anyone else want to see my girly dick
Railey2 wrote:
*digs up a certain tuuba thread*Khelly wrote:
Does anyone else want to see my girly dick